>> please mute your microphone to enable public participation. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda.

call 415-655-0001 and enter access code (187)796-7244. when we reach the item you are interested in commenting on, press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted that is your indication to speak. each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining there will be a chime. i will take the next person to speak. best practices call from quiet location and speak slowly and mute volume on your television or computer. we will take roll at this time. >> president koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner chan. >> here.

>> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you, commissioners. first is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. there are no items proposed for continuance. i am pleased to announce 10b. 2019-6578drp at 2455 harrison street. the discretionary review portion of the project is withdrawn. you will consider the shadow findings at the end of the agenda. i have no items proposed for continuance. no action required for withdrawal unless you reject that request and wish to hear it today. i am assuming that is not the matter. we will move to 1. consideration of adoption of

draft minutes from may 20, 2021. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes. press star 3 to be added to the queue. there are four people. we will filter through. caller are you speaking to the minutes? >> no. >> are you here to speak to the minutes? >> no, i am sorry. >> are you here to speak to the minutes. >> i am here to speak about a project. >> had you here to speak to the minutes? >> no harrison street project. >> members of the public wait to press star 3 until we call the

item you are speaking to. that is your opportunity to press star 3 to get in the queue to submit your testimony. hold off on pressing star 3 until we reach your item. no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. minutes are now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 2. commission comments and

questions. commissioner chan. >> thank you. a few months ago i shared an update. the partnership between planning and the mayor to provide hands-on training for high school students to explore into the planning profession. the program starts next week june 7 and goes to august 6. we have 15 interns placed in this course and two teaching fellows. i will shout out to the planning department for the support and working to make this program possible. i had a chance to meet interns during a pre-program orientation. it is a great cohort. they are excited to learn about the city they call home and how to get involved in shaping the future. it will be a hybrid model of

online and outdoor in person field work to cover a range of topics. planning to transportation, environmental justice, historical preservation and so forth. we appreciate the commissioners who mentioned they wanted to be involved. planning staff will reach out with opportunities to connect with interns throughout the program. we will be on the lookout for an invitation for the graduation at the end. i want to share personal news i will take a leave of absence to focus on family. this is my last meeting on the commission. i look forward to returning in a few months in person to city hall. thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you, commissioner chan for your work and anyone who helped to get the young folks

ready i am excited about this. i hope they have fun. thank you for your leadership. can't wait to meet the students online or in person. look forward to you returning. i hope the leave is good for you and your family. we are opening in time for a fun month and enjoy pride month. >> no additional requests to speak from commissioners we can move on to department matters. director's announcements item 3. >> i was going to mention about the internship program. thank you, commissioner chan for bringing it up. thank you for all you have done to make it possible. tina i want to thank also.

he it was a big lift. our college interns start next week. there are 25 college interns and 15 high school interns. some will be on a similar hybrid model. we will reach out when there are opportunities to engage with them as well as final presentation. thank you all again. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is no further announcements we can move to item 4. review. commissioner moore. sorry. >> let us know where these students are coming from. i definitely offer my ability to help mentor, tootor or explain. i have been on for a while. besides being in the profession there are things to share.

make yourself available to including us know early on which schools you have chosen. thank you. >> thank you. >> through the chair there is a member of the public requesting to speak. we will make sure it is appropriate. caller are you here to speak to director's announcements. >> i am confused on the order. i am here for the 2424 polk street project. >> when that item gets called press star 3 to be added to the queue to submit public comment. we will reach that later in the agenda today. that places us on item 4. i have no reports from past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals or historic preservation. we will move to general public

comment. members of the public may address the commission on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission for up to three minutes. when it exceeds 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is not your opportunity to speak to polk or harrison street. those will appear today on the agenda. now is the opportunity to speak to items not on today's agenda under general public comment. through the chair you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, happy june. this is georgia. i sent you a e-mail on tuesday morning with slides of six photos. they may show up on the screen

if your wonderful staff has a chance to do it. anyway the photos which you have speak for themselves. they show that this project which i showed the demolition part to the commission back in 2017 when i took the photo. only five of you weren't there then so this is a project. it had horizontal and vertical expansion and façade and major interior gutting. it was a spec project with ex large price increase. in the e-mail with page 4 of the executive summary from 2007 when

section 317 was approved. it highlighted paragraph 7 in that discussing why 317 was written. it also discusses the role of the implementation document or cid for demolition which was revised last summer. the clarifications on the demo which nevertheless even though that was revised should be adjusted per 317b2d to do what 317 was intended to do which is to preserve housing. thanks a lot. take good care. be well, safe, be happy. good-bye. >> hello. this is sue hester. yesterday at the rec and park commission capital committee

they had to issue a state density bonus came up. they are required to give input to planning commission on a project that casts shadows on a park under their control. in that discussion they raised question about the increased height limit including the increasing shadows on the park. they asked the head of the committee asked the city attorney who was there for input on whether state density bonus law trumps the planning -- pardon me prop k passed by the voters. he was struggling with what role they have under the state density bonus. those of you who raised this question about input wanting a

briefing on state density bonus, those commissioners did a service to all of us by precipitating the session you are about to have next thursday at 10:00. it is a closed session. we need an open session to give guidance to the public as well as to other commissioners that are needing guidance. i am asking the planning commission to instruct the staff to have an open session. you are also having at the next hearing in addition to enormous concerns that are going to be at the calendar, you are doing the state density bonus which is 500 units for 69 stevenson street. the staff posted staff report

but you can't read the plans. and so i would question whether it is appropriate to have a session where the public can't printout and read the plans. >> thank you. that is the end of your time. >> linda chapman. i would second that concern. it is inconceivable to me the state density bonus has to be implemented in such a way to overcome conditional use or requirements like unit exposure to make or backyards also that are to make housing livable in the first place. what i have been hearing arguments that because of the state density bonus the project that is proposed for grubb steak

would make the units in the next building unlivable. they must have been granted a waiver. the case at polk and california, you know, the fact that they are claiming state density bonus should not waive every other consideration of conditional use. i want to state that my concern again is that nob hill is treated like redevelopment area when mr. sanchez returns he and i are to discuss what happened with the height limit re-zoning. he has discovered the records of two subsequent re-zoning. i want to state you have been given complete misinformation by the planner briefing you

regarding california and polk project. 22 lots do not seem to be the issue of the height limits that were changed. they did not discover that two weeks before. not only did i report it to you in the 2020 period but scott sanchez sent me a copy of the map showing the 65-foot height limit throughout the area last year. in addition to that i am really concerned. here was the planner reporting to you about the support of russian hill community association. people in that household happen to be friends, associates of mine from the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods in the 1970s and 1980s.

>> thank you. members of the public last call for general public comment. press star 3. >> no additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed. we should move to the regular calendar for item 5. 2020-00611 2:00 p.m. ca. massage establishment zoning controls. >> good afternoon. veronica florez planning department staff. massage establishment zoning controls ordinance cosponsored by supervisors ronen and mandelman. from supervisor ronen's office is here today. we are joined by regina from the office of economic and work force development as well as mrd

extensively on massage establishments in the planning department. i will invite mr. long to share a few words with you and follow with staff presentation. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. apologies for not joining you virtually. i have issues this morning. this legislation seeks to make it easier for local massage practitioners to open and operate massage establishments in san francisco to amend the planning code where other health services operate. now they face onerous permit

applications and it makes it impossible to open and survive in san francisco. the reason behind the red tape is largely based on some outdated stigmas about the massage industry that associated it with human trafficking. restrictions on where they are to operate drive up competition for the few spaces where permitted. it raises costs associated with opening and retaining the essential businesses in our city. compared to acupuncture, physical therapy and chiropractic. massage therapists choose workout side of the city, to leave industry or workout side of the city regulatory control. however, we have an opportunity to discuss reasonable regulatory changes to not only serve lawful

owners but retain integrity to prevent human trafficking. this legislation would amend the planning code by al lining the land use controls with health service controls. it allows those businesses that satisfy public health requirements to open where health services are permitted to operate. under these amends they would be allowed to work on any floor where health services are allowed. >> in a business that employs partners would be allowed where health services can operate but not above the second floor unless the building is a hotel. this ensures the department of public health can monitor the larger establishments. that was at the recommendation

to ensure integrity. this proposes new regulation to prohibit personal service uses, health spa and grooming services for three years at any location where the massage establishment was closed. this would help strengthen the ability to target those that are shut down due to code violation and re-open with different branding and would ensure that we can continue to stop human trafficking. the case raise of covid-19 in san francisco massage businesses opened in late january and operate in accordance with public health guy line. in light of the devastating

effect we need thoughtful and targeted uses. the common sensory formed in this legislation will help bolster overall recovery and long-term success in san francisco. we did why the opportunity to discuss this. this was a true partnership between the massage council, department of public health office of small business and it is a pleasure to work on this. i am available for questions. thank you, commissioners. >> staff presentation. the ordinance will regulate massage establishments more consistently with health services unless they are more permissive on second floor and

above. in those cases massage establishments would be conditionally permitted on second and not floor and above. only exception is massage establishments on any floor of the hotel. the resulting effect of the ordinance would be that massage establishments would be permitted in more zoning districts city-wide and locations where they are currently not allowed. in addition to some of the changes that we shared i want to highlight the proposed ordinance would extend conditional use authorization exception to all hotels regardless of the number of rooms and additionally the ordinance would remove outdated conditional use findings. department recommends the commission approve the proposed ordinance with modifications. it aligns massage with health

services. examples include dentists, psychiatrists or psychiatrists or other health related professionals. department of public health would review licensing of the massage requirements. the planning code would review based on land use. now we will go inch the three recommended modifications. first is an exception for personal services. it prevents full-service gym such as equinox.

the gym definition is eliminated will now be housed under personal service for the mayor's small business recovery act pending in front of the board of supervisors. therefore, the proposed modification with personal service which includes land uses salons, cosmetics and tattoo parlors. this was included in your factket with the proposed highlighted in yellow. second modification relates to ensuring that zoning controls stay the same or more permissive compared to today. the ordinance replicated health services controls as base for massage establishments with a few exceptions mentioned earlier.

this approach prohibited massage establishments in zoning districts where they are allowed on the first floor but sell services have not. in the packet is a preview of what that correction would look like. we met some zoning control table with no changes in the previous amendments. the recommendation is the same. once the modification if you include it as part of the recommendation. once it is incorporated the c2 and 3 tables will also be updated to make sure that the controls remain the same or are more permissive.

you are aware and still support this second modification. lastly we had recommendation more clerical amendment. as drafted only third floor controls include footnote reference listing exception for massage on any floor. this same footnote would be on any floor where a massage steplishment is conditionally permitted as part of this ordinance. this is to provide more clarity to the customer and how the footnotes are handled in the table. last week they recommended approval of the ordinance. as you have seen in the packet,

the department received three letters from the department of public health and the holds and massage council. appreciation to make it more permissible throughout the city and support for the hotel exception is included in the ordinance. >> this concludes staff presentation. we are available for questions. thank you. >> that concludes staff presentation. members of the public press star 3 to be added to the queue. you will have two minutes. >> linda chapman. i will express concern that you be cautious about any changes in requirements of conditional use

or loosening restrictions on massage establishments. of course, there are massage establishments that are legitimate. my sister's dear friend was an independent massage therapist. perhaps you might have lesser controls for places that are a seoul proprietor with no employees. there is no human trafficking or exploitation whatever the person is doing. you still need to have controls for places where they employ people. you know, a few years ago they turned the polk neighborhood district into an out-of-control entertainment and vice district. it has made amazing recovery since the chief responded to my e-mail rying back no hope --

writing back no hope. at that time a great many massage establishments including foot massage took advantage there were customers around. i want to tell you one of them over on the pine street was operating 2:00 a.m. men sitting outside in suvs waiting to get in for the foot massage would you say? you know, at the time when mayor newsome and the da made raids on these establishments they discovered horrors. they moved from place to place. they disappear one place and move to another. once you establish a conditional use that remains there. even when one hads moved away, even if it is legitimate and they move out the next

illegitimate one can move in. there was unsupstairs on post street where the planner reported. >> your time is up. >> i am eric dime. thanks for hearing my comments. i am from the landlord perspective. i manage 450sultter street in union scare. throughout the decades we have had a number of legitimate massage businesses come and go. to serve our other medical tenants providing massage, physical therapy massage and things to support medical treatment. as you all know, ground floor space the probatively expensive for this use.

where i support the modification for gym. if there was a massage in there that would be unintended consequence of this legislation. i guess i am asking for consideration of places like medical buildings, receive patients and treatment. prescribed by doctors or looking for something to treat their ailments. >> members of the public last call for public comment on this item. press star 3. no additional requests from members of the public, public comment portion of this hearing is closed. the matter is before you.

>> thank you. just a question to staff. is there any specific cut off depending on the floor level in the mt3 districts? i personally see a chiropractor on van ness and utilize their massage services. they are on the third level of that building. what can we look forward to with level cutoffs? any distinguishing lines on levels 2, 3, 4 or upwards? >> thank you, commissioner president koppel. i quickly looked up. you were inquiring about m c-3? >> yes. >> nc-3 after the help services

as the base it looks like it would be on the first floor conditionally permitted. second floor. not permitted on the third floor and above with the exception of the permitted floor located within a hotel. >> commissioner diamond. >> thank you. i have two questions. can you respond to the concern that was raised by the manager of 450 center to other medical office buildings. legitimate concern. is it unintended consequence massage therapists would no longer continue to offer services? is that what you intended or is there a particularser?

>> thank you, commissioner diamond. i want to go back to that additional set of corrections i mentioned as part of the recommended modifications. i specifically called out c2 and 3. these are zoning districts where massage establishments are permitted on any floor within the district. one of the unintended consequences is permanant controls to not permitted on this third floor and above. we identified this and the modification would be to ensure that massage establishments in c2 and 3, which includes 450 sutter, the controls would be

conditionally permitted on the second floor and above. permitted on the first floor. permitted on any floor for hotels. this language will be incorporated at a later date. the modification in your packet would be the same. it does resolve the concern raised by the gentlemen during the public comment. >> i have a second question. can we call back the person who spoke about the concern on 450 sutter to see if the modification ms. flores described addresses your concern? >> press star 3 if you are still with us in the hearing.

>> thank you. a conditional use could be for 450 sutter. that would be a step in the right direction. i don't know how much time that would take for approval. yes, i appreciate that for consideration. >> thank you. the massage establishments required for conditional use age to not change the scenario? >> correct. same for second floor and above. the change would be streamlined first floor, and just for the 450 sutter landlord and others interested, the message establishment is eligible to pursue conditional use authorization under the

community businesses priority possessing program. it is streamlined review in which case the eligible massage establishments would receive a hearing in 90 days and placed on the concept calendar. it would be more beneficial than the current circumstances today. >> address the concern raised that there is a policy shift that is proposed by this legislation. it does encourage small business. that is wonderful and the word has come a long way. how do we get comfortable with the issues that she raised. >> i will provide general feedback to concerns raised.

first, i just want to emphasize or share that the hotels establish a massage program once the state returned the controls back to that level. in 2014 or 2015. since then the permit itself has been more involved in the reviews of the establishments. they are able to enforce more clearly and easily on those bad contractors or those locations where there is human trafficking. because of the increased involvement we have been able to see fewer violations overall. because of that it is now leading to the opportunity where we have the chance to really

focus the planning code on the land use aspect of massage establishments throughout all of the massage program and moving forward if this were enacted. it would be reviewing all of the licensing. they would be reviewing the businesses operations of the massage establishments. we have the safe guard for opening up new massage establishment where there was one with health code violation and the ordinance ex spanned to three year prohibition on personal services. different ideas and approaches

to make sure it is reviewed appropriately. now we are able to focus on the land use side. i will just pause there to see any members of the team would like to add to this. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the zoning and compliance team of planning. after veronica's comments. back in 23006 there was a push to investigate massage establishments suspected of human trafficking. during the joint task vice presidentials two were suspect. the planning today code was modified to assist the city

family. since that tie i have to say you are done a tremendous job roping with this and blinking compliance to the bed players with regards to establishments. as previous member of this task force i support this legislation. win of the things that is the three year rule, massage establishment can not re-open as personal service use. that was a big problem a few years ago. it made it difficult to enforce. the three years will be them full. thank you.

>> part of what we are seeking here is balancing. while we are both allowing increase in locations where it can operate we want to balance with more precisely targeted enforcement mechanisms. the policy brings around bringing closer to the ground is one of the key recommendations that came through the dph request. understanding that would alter capacity to investigate those businesses. the three year prohibition for having a concerning bridge re-open under another name or brand. we try to be more balancing. we are sharpening the businesses

we might be concerned about down the line. fsa member of the public is -- if a member of the public is worried, who do they call? what is enforcement? what is the primary capability? who do they call if concerned? >> members of the public is welcome to contact all three agencies. we coordinate together to investigate the allegation and if there is ill licit

information found we will issue violation notice. >> thank you. commissioner fung. >> question for staff. can you provide or opine on the genesis for not permitting health services and now by correlation the message services above the second floor? >> commissioner, do you mind repeating or rephrasing the question? >> yes, my question is can you

provide or opine on the rational and history as to why health services and now by correlation massage services are not allowed on the third floor and above? where did that come from? >> i will start off by saying and i will invite my supervisor to add on in a moment. the massage establishments were pulled away from health services. around 2014-15 as separate land use. they were treated differently. however, this is a step in the opposite direction where we recognize that they should be

treated more similarly or the same as other health services. this is what a lot of what that ordinance is attempting to do to bring it back to the same land use review. then regarding the foundation or reasoning behind sell services not permitted third floor and above i will have to defer to mr. star on that one. >> it is not necessarily health services. in the c-3 district they are permitted. it is commercial districts. that probably comes from when they were created and the idea was to have the first and second floor for commercial and the floors above residential. it depends on the neighborhood as to whether or not it is permitted on second or third floor. it is individual control.

this ordinance is liberalizing massage establishments quite a bit into health services. the idea every -- of the requirement is enforcement. we were told by tph it makes their job easier to have massage on the first floor and under more scrutiny when they go above the first floor. >> the question is from a land use point of view, when you have commercial buildings or commercial podiums and i am not just addressing the c districts. including the nc districts, the third floors are the ones most

difficult probably to rent out. not that i agree with the premise that health services should in some districts be prohibited on both first and second floors. that is a different question for a different time. if one wants to encourage and expand upon small business opportunities given the status of empty storefronts, empty spaces, prevalent throughout all of our commercial districts, prohibiting this particular use if it is the subject of the day seems to be counterproductive. >> right. from the land use perspective history of not allowing more commercial activities on the upper floors comes when the

commercial districts were first established. the idea was to reserve the area for mixed use. retail office and residential. some charts are more liberal than others. i don't think it is true they are not always health services not permitted on the upper floors. you realize the commercial districts for that. >> they are not consistent, right. >> the basic storefronts are on the ground floor as well. this encourages the ground floors to be filled up more. >> i want to clarify what this ordinance would result in upper floors in c-3 district. health services permitted but

massage would require c.u. is that correct? >> that is what it reads. >> that is a legitimate question. prior to this. the policy rationale from the sponsor and why that is the case? why not have massage on the upper floors? >> that is my second question. >> it is for enforcement. we were asked by dph and the police department to allow to discourage upper floors because it is harder to enforce and deal with the sex trafficking on the upper floors because there is more cover. on the ground floor they are easier to access and more eyes on the street on them.

>> it is not necessarily a land use decision. >> we can have that debate. we talked about these could go further. this is where the city is right now. and how we are dealing with massage opening a bit in a few years if it doesn't seem to be too much issue maybe we can relax further. this was talk between three or four different departments but the sponsor's office where everyone was comfortable with. >> commissioners, you can make the recommendation to be morleneient on upper floors. >> i would like to. i will let the other commissioners bring forth their comments.

>> i will call on commissioner tanner. >> i am more in favorable in opening up and aligning more with wanting to take a slower approach. it is good to see the progress made by the police department to help get the industry in a place that is hopefully -- those operating legally can have a better part of it. i want to make sure i understand, ms. flores, sole practitioners above the second floor, third and above, would need conditional use authorization? that is the recommended change that you are recommending to ensure we don't get more restrictive, that we have the same, is that correct?

>> thank you, commissioner tanner. half and half. >> seoul practitioners under the ordinance would be classified as part of health services rather than massage establishment. in that case the sole practitioners would be permitted where health services are permitted and also in response to commissioner president koppel's question third floor above will have sole practitioner if it is up to two massage practitioners. sole practitioners would not require considerable use which is what i heard at the beginning

of your question. >> health services are allowed. they don't need c.u. to set up business where health services is principally permitted. there is a health service allowed with conditional use. they would need conditional use in that instance. >> exactly. m c-3 zoning district we discussed earlier and the c2 and c-3 districts. including the sole practitioners permitted on any floor. >> likewise, and i don't know if this come up if there is a health services that offers massage that has the permission, they may have the license through dph or through the state

now which is where we get the licenses but that would be more service to provide multiple services to different patients. those would discontinue you don't need ceu. they are in principally permitted place is that right? >> yes. [please stand by]

. . . >> do you have a sense of that? and anyone from the department of health is here? >> i don't believe we have anyone from d.p.h. here today, but from our understanding in some of the outreach leading up to the hearing, the department of public health has to do with how they have been able to grow and expand that program.

>> thank you. and yes, i think this legislation is thoughtfully crafted and thank you, other commissioners, and all of your questions. and in terms of the massage establishment in c3 and other entities and i wish that the department of public health or the police department can also talk about the human trafficking or in that status if there is an improvement and with the conditional uses that have improved into the introduction of that. but i also feel like the massage

establishment needs to be less restrictive. as to how we can improve it to this second or third floors, again, i think that will probably need some with the planning department and with modification. i will put that as the motion. >> second. >> okay, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to approve with modifications staff recommended modifications. on that motion, commissioner tanner?

>> did commissioner chan want to chime in one more time? i'm sorry. commissioner fong, you may be muted. >> sorry. if i could introduce a little bit further comments on the modifications, if we have the intent to support small business, to reduce the bureaucratic processes and to address the issues to bring forth, i would recommend whe consider two additional points as to be added to the first

recommended modification by staff where they talk about the exception for massage establishments within the personal service as a carve out for the gyms. i would add to that that we consider eliminating the conditional use process within the c2 district. for massage uses above the first and second floor. i would also add that we consider the allowance of massage establishments with conditional use above the second floor where health services are not permitted.

>> is that the maker of the motion interested in entertaining the friendly amendments? >> i would like to hear from the make arenaed seconder if they are open to the ideas and have comments after. >>ic before i amend -- i think before i amend, i would like to like some findings first and hear what commissioner ronen's office on this proposed

amendment. >> i mean, it's we would want to speak with d.p.h. about it because it is a bit of a departure and above the second floor and due to the higher floor and with the second recommendations and with the policy that d.p.h. is presented and bring in massage establishments and a little closer to the ground. and just to be clear, there is a net increase in the number of space increases and where they will be permitted across the city and increasing spaces

horizontally. and in place of drawing them down closer to the ground. >> commissioner tanner, do you want to go next? >> i remain supportive of the policy direction to allow the establishments and health services overall without -- while keeping them closer to the ground than i think some of the departments have mentioned. and i remain the incrementalist and encouraging that the departments can do that process and has impact and in 90 days they will be on the calendar under the consent calendar. so i am not sure what the cost for this is if it has a lower cost. i want to recognize it is still time and money for the applicants. but again, they could hopefully find a space on the second floor which would not require the cu

is my understanding. those are my thoughts. >> commissioner tanner? >> commissioner diamond. >> while i agree with commissioner fung from a purely land use perspective, we could be opening up to make them a little laxer more lax and the balancing after a number of interests that massage establishment were regulated in concerns over human trafficking and that still remains a concern for me and i much prefer the incremental approach. and if this works, hopefully the departments would come back to us and propose more relaxation and i would not be comfortable with the amendments as proposed to commissioner fung at this time. >> commissioner moore.

>> commissioner tanner and commissioner diamond spoke to my concerns. and i think it's an incremental approval and given the support with those agencies who came together to formulate this thing, i would support incremental approach with leaving it open for future to find another way to make it more flexibility an fully implemental in the future. >> my motion is not amendable. >> okay commissioners, and on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner chan.

commissioner diamond. commissioner fung. commissioner imperial. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are excited to bring this climate resilience report to you. as you will hear, each of these agencies have the unique interest in the project's success. our role springs from the charter obligations and state mandates. you will hear about topics that

are transportation, land use, urban design and environmental considerations. on interagency projects such as this, it is important to consider the rules of all involved. and so without detailing the purview of each. and let's consider the second port. they share the responsibility of transportation and planning and land use and urban design. the jurisdiction is tied specifically to port lands. the planning commission's interest spans all city lands whether it's the lands privately owned or those under city control. that means responsibility for considering the relationships between these city lands and the surrounding property and is uniquely our obligation together. the p.u.c., of course, wants to deliver their utilities and m.t.a. needs to meet transportation needs, but as we listen at times overlaps each others and is at times uniquely yours.

your skill extend beyond the standard planning issues and the state recently expanded the general requirements to address topics like environmental justice and climate change. and right now your staff are working hard to address the policy issues through multiple updates of the general plan. in my 22 years at the planning department, i have never seen so many simultaneous updates underway. and we're working now to update the housing element, the transportation element, the safety and resilience element. and we're adding some of these new topics into the general plan. the state now requires that we use the general plan and justice and climate change. >> and while we're working across the city on these policies, this project is enkapt lating these issues in one lace at islais creek. throughout this work, we are centering on equity. this project seeks to work with an environmental justice community t bayview, adjacent to, but dependent upon the project. as you will hear this, project defines these technical issues

and community needs while pointing the city towards comprehensive fixes. our hope is that you can help advance the dialogue and create momentum needed to ensure a resilient islais creek. certainly the investment is required for the city and for the community. so lastly, remember that capital projects envisioned here in this plan will require review and compliant with the policies in the general plan. flooding won't only impact infrastructure and also to the infrastructure and neighborhoods and now our project manager will introduce you to the team.

your slides are up. you may be muted. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, we can. >> sorry. let me go -- it wasn't letting me go back to webex. sorry, everyone. good afternoon. and good afternoon, commissioners. and president koppel, director hillis. i'm lisa fisher t resilience and sustainability lead for planning. and the proud project director of this effort. i wanted to quickly acknowledge and thank the project director as well as our core team. we have carrie from the port here. and tim from sfmta and ben

caldwell and robin and aaron for their work on the project. and our great consultant team led by acom. we are excited to share the robust effort in the short amount of time. we will quickly give you climate resilience context and share about our approach, some key strategies, as well as a preview of our deliverable to cal-tran. and so in terms of climate resilience, the central and southern part of san francisco are suffering disproportionately to climate change. they are experiencing the worst of the extreme heat t worst of the flooding, and when we overlay that with our social vulnerabilities, you can see these areas have such a great need including, of course, islais creek over here. these are shots of various m.t.a. and port facilities with

flooding around islais creek. this is an example of the city's climate resilience approach. what that means is we are seeking to not only adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change, but also seek for how to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in these efforts and have the synergies between climate mitigation and climate adaptation. and in this, we're coordinating a whole host of projects of which islais is one. this is also one of the 90 strategies in the hazard and climate resilience plan we published a year ago and coordinate with the climate action plan to get to a net zero emission city. and as ann marie mentioned, we are hoping to underpin the efforts in the general plan. so in terms of islais itself, this is a two and a half year effort funded by a caltrans grant and city agency staff. in the beginning of the project we focused on existing

conditions and analysis and really exciting technical flood analysis that louise will share with you as well as in pre-covid, great in-person engagement that carrie will review. in the last nine month, as we have developed our adaptation strategies, we have continued the equity approach and look at how to maximize benefits to the community and mike sure we are avoiding any unintended burdens. recently we were able to conduct a community circle back event virtually which we are so pleased to have president walton kick off for us. and attend many community-based organization meetings in the bayview. we're exciting to wrap this project up and deliver it to caltrans this month. with that, i would like to turn it over to carrie from the port. >> thank you, lisa. president koppel, commissioner, it is a great pleasure to be joining your staff today.

to provide some context, we will talk about the waterfront resilience program. the program is leading two efforts that encompass the 7 1/2 miles of shoreline managed by the port including the the islais bay view geography. and the first is the comprehensive adapt plan to reduce seismic and flood risk and enhance the bay shoreline. and the other is the u.s. army corps of engineers flood resilience si study in partnership with the port. given the overlap of the islais creek district and the port wide resilience planning, the port resilience program and coordinated the team to engage the community in advance of the planning work. when complete, the adaptation strategy for islais creek will provide a key plan about the

army corps study and examine a broader range of flood projections and adaptational alternatives to identify for a federally funded project. with the community of stakeholder adaptations and has been a community led effort. and the team was guided by community engagement principles such as ensuring an accessible and inclusive planning process that will recognize realities and covid-19 pandemic and adaptations that maximize co-benefits for the community. next slide.

the port is excited to help plan and excute community engagement that has reached thousands over the course of the program. the support and the city team engaged with community members early to develop the vision and goals that have informed the adaptation strategies. the engagement was equity based by focussing on removing barriers to participation, to hear about community needs, questions and concerns. before covid, the port and city team collaborated and to increase awareness about flood risks and to co-create community goals. and this included three in-person community workshops. the asset mapping exercise to identify places that people love. and that are important to the city.

and are concerned about the disaster. there was a halloween pop-up event with hunter's view residents. a holiday mixer at radio africa, and walking tours around islais creek led by sf planning and port staff that were very well attended. in all this series of events held and reached over 300 people. and in the last six months nine community benefit organizations hosted virtual meetings for status updates on the waterfront resilience program and islais creek strategy attended by 150 people in all. so this slide is describing the five key goals. during the in-person community meeting series, hundreds of neighbors help co-create five key goals that guide all flood

adaptation planning efforts for this geography. and the goal focus and the socially and environmentally resilience neighborhood, authentic and transparent public engagement, and the healthy environment for people and ecologies, and sustainable economy that benefits workers and industries. next slide. and regarding the goal for the sustainable economy and is important to point out two recently completed regional plans for economic growth and the growth objectives and first, the planned bay area, 2050, prepared by mtc and designates the islais creek q3 jooeography as a priority -- geography recovery and with the remaining

industrial area to thrive and grow and to expand middle wage jobs near more affordable housing. and the second regional policy is the bcdc plan. one of the goals is to reserve the port area to accommodate the future growth in maritime cargo with the need for bay fill in the future for future port development. piers 80 through 96 shown in gray on this map are designated port priority use with the value for the deepwater berth, the expansive terminal area and ground transportation routes to regional highways and recent the recent update to the cargo forecast expects growth in auto cargo and dry bulk cargo. and pier 96 was identified as a

key site to accommodate the growth and through piers 80 through 94 as well. and the last note is the cargo terminals with the public safety access and the city and fema disaster response plans rely upon for berthing large supply ships and staging mobile medical and hospital facilities and a variety of other emergency response operations. i will pass it to louise to describe the islais creek adaptation strategy. >> thank you. with staff and the project.

adjacent to the creek and from that area. the district is one of the coastal flooding and which is by development and as a result of climate change. and the main connection points and critical to the bay area residents. next please. and is dedicated to with the maritime industry and hosts the cool infrastructure elements to the city's function. and the district is also unique in providing jobs critical to support the entire city. next slide. >> it is important to wait for

this to provide support to the future. with the assets highlighted in orange. from the ends and with the federal emergency management agency. and with at risk of additional flooding. and with the from that area. this is from the year of 2080 and with the permanent area and

to combine with the 100-year storm. and with the 100-year storm and the areas along the shoreline may rise up to 8 feet. next please. with the frequent disruptions in filling back is expected u. as well as expected and the damaged infrastructure. and the head park and next slide please.

in order to deliver the defined community growth and draft the protections to prioritize based on the equity and standards. this slide shows the breakdown of the proposed and community goals. to enhance the greenway trail and enhancements to prevent flooding and waterfront access to all.

force to the east and west. and provisions is to ensure the industrial and vision and maritimes and with the improvements to the assets and the job training for future commerce and industries. next please. to protect from flooding and help improve the annual shoreline protections to expand open space and others are a waterfront and other locations. and finally the neighborhood together is the network of where partners and help manage to the neighborhoods.

next. and provide the diagram and what is to come in the future. and together and provide and with that area. with the most recent engagement and feedback received by the team. and to reflect the community and life and bayview communities. and with the concern and the feedback from partner agencies and was positive and highlighted the cooperation of the public

and believable in the next step. thank you. >> thank you. and a preview of the caltrans deliverables and included in the case packet and we're looking at the district as a whole and a set of comprehensive strategies which is a unique approach and we divided the district into five reaches. and the synergies in the geographies and each reach has a strategy and the six key strategies and those strategies are not supposed to read this and to show you these strategies in the near term and the long term. and then finally the strategies and the adaptation pathways approach. this is a trending approach that organizes strategies and

manageable steps to create a long-term commission and phase the decision making and respond better to the unpredictable nature of climate change and economic and market conditions and community needs. we can adjust along the way. for the seven key assets, a deeper dive and more illustrative strategies and the tool kit in a more robust way. and excited to wrap this up as carrie mentioned and the key city input into the study and continue to collaborate the partners and also keen in the community very keen to get a lot of the strategies teed up and the real project and there is a potential of the planning department and the bayview to add some more climate resilience and also expand the geographic

reach of that effort. we are happy to take any questions. thank you for having us. >> thank you. we will open up public comment and this is the opportunity to address the matter and press star and then 3 to be added to the queue. see nothing requests to speak, the public comment commissioners and the mater is closed and the matter is before you. >> go ahead. sorry. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i have a question to the staff and also thank you for the presentation that you have for us today and i guess my questions regarding the next steps and in terms of the next steps and in term of investment

as well, what are we anticipating in terms of funding for the next steps. part of the deliverables to caltran will include economic analysis of the strul strategies as well as the beginnings of the financing strategy. we will be taking that with our partner agencies and starting to dig in further about how do we prioritize amongst the strategies and how do we put them up for capital funding and private-partnerships and to consider the joint benefit authority and does anyone else add in any other ideas? does that answer your question, commissioner? >> and how are you integrating

federal funding when it comes to this climate resilience? and i believe the current administration is also aware about this. and where are we on that? >> the army corps flood city that carrie reviewed, that effort, any of the strategies that the federal government sees to meet the cost benefit and fund up to 65% of the efforts which, of course, would be great. and then we also are looking at different grants and we're also looking at different funding sources in that broader kind of climate resilient office of capital planning. >> well, thank you very much. i think those are my questions. i am looking forward to hearing the next steps in the next presentation. >> commissioners, may i add an answer to that?

and to that question about that funding tomorrow. and the deputy director with the port. and working close we are the lobbying delegation and if you want to say anything on the water resources development that will come before congress and making sure that san francisco can be competitive for federal resources. i don't know if you have details on that. and i don't have as many details as brad would have, and i'm sorry he wasn't able to make it today. and he is spending a great deal of time right now coordinating with other members of the city to go after not only funding but state funding that the city is eligible for. it is one of the primary thrusts of his work right now. and you are right. there are opportunities with this administration and working

very hard to coordinate with the other city departments. to set san francisco up with those funds. >> i understand it is a work in progress, which is kind of ironic as well. and there are studies in terms of climate resilience. and i really guess with the public service and state senators and senators and congress to prioritize that especially in the low income communities. thank you very much. you're welcome. >> commissioner fung. >> i had perhaps a more general question related to the overall resilience planning.

i noticed that the bus yards which are considered essential facilities there had been developed fairly recently. are there other essential facilities being planned by the various sister agencies that are being located in areas that are highly impacted? and as an aside, by the way, i thought your graphics very very well done since those are mostly an art. >> thank you so much, commissioner fung. the city adopted a capital planning and projects and many years ago so looking to to make sure city investments and city buildings are accommodating. and also some of the upgrades that are happening to the

facilities are considering that and of node in this project, we're working with public work on the planning for the two bridges to make sure that those investments can withstand up to 2080, but it's similar to our work that we have been doing along the waterfront with the major development projects. but really to make sure not only is every investment safe but also not kind of offloading to the next to the next piece of shoreline to the north or south. does that answer your question? >> not quite, but that is okay. >> it is definitely a goal of the integrated climate resilience and all the agencies involved and the latest science and analysis and support each other from doing the projects in

a climate resilient manner. >> commissioner fung, and deputy director of citywide planning to add to what we said there. and that we coach here and the office of planning and developed capital guidance for all projects over a certain size. and to consider sea level rise and the detailed design of the infrastructure project. new infrastructures and rehabilitation of assets and required to go through the process to analyze and understand the impacts and the asset and identify adaptation strategies that they would include in those projects. >> perhaps i could ask the question slightly differently. has any project been relocated

because of the impacts, and whether it's a financial impact and whether it's a desire to create less of of a hazard for an essential facility. >> i think to answer that question, there either is not in this slave creek and the closure of the the the recreational trail and armory and with that

project and relocation that is being pursued and ask project managers to identify to adapt or site and flood protection and other things. it will vary depending on the with the other strategy. >> part of the islais approach is the with the combined flood

facility and today's investments and what we are up against. an acommissioner tanner. i want to thank staff for tremendous interagency work and fill out a collaboration and second commissioner fung on the wonderful graphics that make it easy to see the complexity but not feel overwhelmed by it. although i am sure you all maybe had some big boards or i don't know how you did all this great long-range planning with a lot of different dynamics. a couple of questions about the near term and the experiences of home owners and businesses that are operating in the area with the storm water flooding and maybe we wish we had more flooding because we are in a drought and what you have heard from the industries and how or if any of the plans would address that in a near-term way. that the flooding that is

experienced by the private assets and public streets and things like that. i don't know if anyone can address how do we -- how are people experiencing it now? is there anything in the near term that we can do to mitigate that storm water flooding? >> i mean, luis, can you take this one? >> i can try. so we heard from a couple of business owners as well as mta -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but your audio is a little scratchy, so you might want to turn off your video and it might improve the audio. >> let's try that. can you hear better? >> it's a little better. let's try. >> okay. so in hearing from the businesses as well as the

public, there are experiencing delays in doing -- delays in traffic disruption during these flood times that are happening. i think what this project is trying to do is decide which projects should be prioritized in terms of the timeline to address the community concerns from the bayview and that is critical. >> thank you for that.

and encouraging the concept to finished project and the planning. and the ones that are coming to solve and take many, many years of the big planning projects that are really challenging but so necessary. but also thinking about the small businesses, third street, the community, and to so to the degree that we can do some of the projects earlier that mitigates today's problems. i think it will both help that community and help the city and also win more support for the other projects they are associated with this overall strategy. the smaller projects and near term are still accepted in san francisco. and not only third street an asset for the community and the transit line there and a lot of other public assets that are there that need protecting as well.

and what we are seeing and what we are visually going to see at the piers. will it be standing on the platform? and something that feels like a wall? will i just be higher up from the sea? if we have a sense of that level and what will the water line and shoreline look like with the strategy fully embodied. >> i can take that. so at this high level planning stage there aren't engineering design solutions but the idea at the terminal and the berths at the pier berth is to elevate the terminal edge. and particularly large vessels that can work across the elevated terminal edge. and it would have to slope down to meet the existing grade of

the terminal. long term it would be useful to elevate the entire terminal facility and in the process reduce some of the storm water ponding that occurred during heavy rain events. but that's much more expensive, so the new term solutions are really elevating the edge of the terminal. many hours of work and ongoing kwoshg work continues. we definitely heard a lot from our colleagues as well as from the community about the near term and i live pretty close to this neighborhood. i experienced it even personally. and a lot of the goal from the climate resilience work is to articulate what we are up against over time to inspire

near-term action. and we can inspire it to occur in a way that is going to protect us into the long term. and to be protected through 2080 and for the capital projects and the enterprise agencies and some of their own metrics for tra what triggers a project for them or not, it might not be until some of the later years. but they can leverage that and for these near-term actions. >> thanks very much to everybody. thanks, ann marie, for the leadership and this is a small portion of the city that has to deal with this topic. thanks again for everything. >> thanks, everyone. >> see nothing additional comments or questions, we can move on to item 7a and b for case numbers 2021-000444cua at

135 post street. this is a conditional use authorizization and office allocation. staff r you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. and the item before you is conditional use authorization for 135 post street at grand avenue. specifically t project would establish 49,000 square feet of office uses on floors 3 through 6 of an existing building. the building previously held the retail, backup house and retailer for a retailer which vacated in 2018. so in order to approve the project, the commission must grant conditional use authorization to allow nonretail sales and service at the third floor. son and allow office uses greater than 5,000 square feet on floors four through six. in addition, the commission must

grant the allocation to allow the establishment of the office uses. the property is in the c3r or downtown retail zoning district which applies to the area commonly known as union square. to that end, nonretail uses such as office space are prohibit and the first and second stories but permit and stories above subject to specific requirements. because of the space in question is locate and the upper floors, it is visually disengaged from the pedestrian mount and difficult to market for retail sales which rely on the informal merchandising of the store front window. and are not ready for the customers and from the end of the hallway and discourages the casual engagement between customers and makes for successful urban shopping districts.

and is experiencing the subtannial number of vacancies to close on retail opportunities in the ground floor spaces which are more desirable. and the operational deliveries associated with the office use. and however, the email did not indicate opposition to the project. i would like to note and correct two areas in the staff report. specifically the office allocation. from is what is transposed and on page nine within the

conditions of approval t first two have conflicting references to an 18-month approval period and three-year. they should always reference 18-month which is set by the planning code. in conclusion, approve will fill the space within the conservation district. the project will not dmin tish overall retail character of the union square area. and while indirectly support the retail businesses to shop at the restaurants and stores. i am available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> i am on the phone. >> great.

you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. from the the the project sponsor are retail levels of vacancy on upper floors and buildings occupied by large department stores with the shut down in collapse and ground floor spaces. this is no exception and the former tenant is a case study in the difficulty retailers face. gumsley leased the entire building using four floors with retail at floors one and two and corporate and back office at three and four. five and six were subleased. at the height, there were five

stores in five cities. by 2018 when it declared bankruptcy, this is the last remaining store. and relocated to the 200 block of post street. and the request to allow office uses on the third through sixth floor with retail below. and the upper floors used continuously from the 1990s. and the planning department indicated there wasn't a clear change to establish office and prop m requirements took effect and the request here is to formalize the long-standing use of the building's upper floors. next slide please. and the economy shut down and foot traffic and retail patrons back to the district.

and the building is attractive to office useers. and c3o and downtown office districts and is close and starts one lot over. next slide please. and upper floors are challenging for retailers. limited visibility made it difficult to attract retail tenants before covid and even more so now with so much street level space available. and you can see here the limited upper floor on post street and, next slide, on maden lane. and is through the small lobby and not ideal for busier, wider post street and the floor plates are also a problem. retailers don't want big upper floor spaces and divided too many small spaces to fill.

and also no open connection from ground level to the third floor like there is between the first and second. next slide. with the prime drill space and union square in red and pink. and upper floor space that can't compete. that said the street level and second floor retail space have been marketed since gumps vacated two and a half years ago. the ownership broker has 30 years of experience in the union square market. leasing efforts have included trips to major retailers in new york on top of extensive local efforts. and in 2019 the financial services company offered on the space for retail brokerage at the first and second floor and that deal fell through due the covid. negotiations understoodway and

the success of the retail lease efforts and to return to the downtown office. with the interest and similar patrols and the large floor plates and limited exposure to make it a poor candidate for that that is to the lot lines and with the 122 foot long building, individual units would be roughly 50 to 60 feet deep with and lot styles without mezzanines don't work either and

without removing and there isn't a residential tietypology that is a good fit for the building. with that, commissioners, i respectfully ask you approve the that project. >> thank you. that concludes project presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3. seeing no request to speak from members of the public t public comment portion is closed and the mater is now before you. [please stand by] . .

>> so yes there is a lease with a tenant called app annie for the third and fourth floors, so that's about each floor is about 12,000 square feet, so that's 24,000 square feet. they signed a lease in late 2019. they filed tenant improvement

permits in september. those permits are pending with the planning department. they can't be signed off without an approval today, and then they are actually -- the remainder of the building is not occupied. however, there is also a lease in place for 3500 square feet on the fifth floor, and that's with a company called topia, and they were there prior to covid, and i expect that they will return hopefully soon when offices are allowed to go back to normal occupancy. >> i am presently very interested in seeing these conversions not just being speculative moves but indeed addressing the real potential for tenancy. mr. gar, if you wouldn't mind weighing in. we had this discussion on another project nearby. there is a possibility should the business climate change

around union square these offices could revert back to retail; is that correct? >> absolutely. so under the zoning controls, those controls actually favor retail and they are principally permitted, so you know, presuming all that's done to the interior is tenant improvements, that could be modified in a way that's more adaptable to retail, there's nothing in the code legislatively that would prevent them from reverting back to a retail user. >> thank you for explaining that because i think it creates a type of flexibility by which we are not creating a change in land use by adaptive interim use or permanent use, depending on how the economy goes. could you please confirm that retail frontage as we are currently seeing it for the first and second floor would solely remain on post street and the access to the office would

remain through the door identified on lane. >> you're referring to the zoning controls or sort of the physical layout? >> physical layout. >> yes, if you could hold on just a moment, please. yeah, there are no modifications proposed to the lower two floors, so the existing access needs space would remain. >> there is a certain amount of nostalgia because the red awnings on the former -- side were really like a downtown marker when you came to union square. i mean, post street, given the type of stores that are there, are somewhat similar, but a particular exclamation point on that corner, and it's interesting to see if -- come back to that location. i'm happy to hear that he is

supporting on the return. i think they are in the former cartier space on post, kind of like a few buildings up on the other side of the street. there is a reoccurrence, and i think this is a very positive description given that there are, indeed, tenants and i am in support of what is being asked from us today. >> i would entertain a motion. commissioner fung? >> if there are no further comments, i would like the motion to grant the conditional use and to grant the office allocation. >> i second. >> thank you, commissioner fung. just to clarify, we're including the amendments read into the record by staff? >> yes. >> thank you. then if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion

that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended by staff. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye? commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us on item 8 for case no. 2020-011603, 2424 folk street. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff, clara sweeney. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 202.2, 303, 303.1 and

725 to allow a cannabis retail use called russian hill cannabis club with on-site smoking, vaporizing of cannabis products [indiscernible]. the project proposes to open a cannabis retail use within a 2500 square foot vacant commercial space in a one-story commercial building. tenant improvements on the ground floor with no expansion of the existing tenant space. the modifications are limited to installation of security cameras and new business signage which will be filed for under a separate permit. the project includes a request to authorize an on-site vaporizing lounge. local health safety building and licensing requirements to ensure the consumption lounge functions properly and does not impact adjacent people or property.

the establishment is required to demonstrate compliance with article 8 of the health code and obtain a consumption permit from the department of public health prior to allowing any consumption or vaporizing of cannabis products. the project complies with additional regulations of cannabis retail users. the closest open cannabis retail locations are the apoth carrian, approximately a mile away from the project site, and 212 california at 212 california street, which is approximately 1.2 miles away. the closest approved but not yet open cannabis retail location to this site are at 1735 -- in the general vicinity, the following locations were identified as potentially sensitive uses and cannot disqualify the location for the

use of a cannabis retailer. george sterling park is approximately 700 feet away. shermandale elementary school is approximately 1100 feet away, and galileo high school is approximately 1600 feet away. the equity applicant for the project is determined to meet the criteria of an equity applicant under the section of the code. this is the only application for which mr. galley is listed directly as the applicant. another member of the project team currently operates the mission cannabis club at 2441 mission street. if the commission approves this location for an on-site smoking and vaporizing lounge, the site will also require a type c consumption permit from the department of public health under health code article 8a. to receive a type c consumption permit, the business must contain an indoor designated smoking room that must be fully separate from the retail space with no air flow from the consumption lounge to the retail

space or any other area and with negative air flow into the room. doors between the smoking lounge and retail space must be self-sealing. the designated smoking room must also have a fully separated h vac system which fully filters exhaust from the space -- vented at the highest level of the property away from adjacent property. the department of public health will inspect the designated smoking room at least twice per year for regular inspections. additional inspections will occur if any complaint is received regarding the operation. if the consumption lounge is not operating in compliance with article 8a for any reason, such as a smoke or odour is escaping the space and leaking into the retail space or any other area or outside then the business is required to cease smoking operations until it's fixed. there may be a suspension or cancelation of the consumption permit. daily fines of up to $1,000 per

day or suspension or cancelation of the office of cannabis license for cannabis sales. for reference, here are some more required standards for the designated cannabis smoking room, rules and regulations for cannabis consumption under san francisco health code article 8a. the smoking room shall have a ventilation system that provides 60 cubic feet per minute of supply air per smoker, and that complies with the product [indiscernible] california mechanical code 505.0. and the smoking room shall exhaust 100% of the air directly to the outside through a pollution control unit and odour control unit that at minimum eliminates all detectible odours, smoke and by-products of combustions so as to prevent [indiscernible]. this means there is a zero tolerance policy for any smell or smoke outside the smoking

room, outside the building, within the rest of the [indiscernible] zero tolerance. the sponsor conducted outreach under the office of cannabis [indiscernible] which includes providing a mailed notice of the project to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site conducting an outreach meeting. additionally the there was a meeting on december 22, 2020. 33 people attended. questions were asked about public safety, preventing children from accessing cannabis products, possible economic impacts by businesses, security plans, customers double parking their cars, and air filtration for the smoking lunge. multiple attendees spoke in support of the project applicant adding a successful storefront in the mission [indiscernible]. two meeting of the -- and did a merchant walk in march 2021 to meet nearby businesses. the department has received five

messages of support and 14 messages of opposition to this project. support for the project stated that there will be increased traffic and more customers, a vibe of the business [indiscernible] in the area. mr. [indiscernible] business already and is a community-oriented person. there is local consumer interest in purchasing and consuming cannabis, and that there are no cannabis retailers in the area yet, even though cannabis is classified as an essential business. opposition to the project mentioned that some students walk to school on the street. polk street is already a busy high-traffic corridor. there is a residential character. a shopping district. a preschool is located near the project site. the smoking lounge could smell and possibly have a [indiscernible] style environment and could be allowed. parking, possible increase in crime, that dogs could potentially be poisoned if they

ingest cannabis products, and that the business will encourage more homeless people and public drug use in the area. an image of cheech and chong was also sent to the project sponsor. the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the general policies of the plan. vacant commercial space with a new type of retail business for the polk street commercial corridor and supports the city's equity program administered by the office of cannabis. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes the staff presentation. the project sponsor is here and has prepared a verbal presentation. we are ready to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, clara.

unfortunately i don't see the project sponsor. we were provided phil lesser's name and email address, as well as a phone number to unmute, and i don't see any of those in our attendee bucket. >> okay. >> is there another name or number i should be looking for? >> i will check. i will send you -- i'll send you another name, another email address that it could be. >> mr. lesser, alternatively you can raise your hand if you're on a different phone number than provided to us, and then when we get to you you can make your presentation, but not to delay the hearing. and again, because i don't see

the number you provided, your email address or your name in the list of attendees, we'll go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address this matter by pressing star then 3 to then be added to the queue. through the chair you'll be afforded one minute. when you hear that your line has been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> okay, great. hi. my name's lynn curvey. i am a long-term homeowner and resident. i live a half a block away on polk street, and i watch the high school students walk to high school before covid, and i just don't think it's a great idea to have a pot store right there, or lounge. i think it's easy walking distance to all the other pot stores in the neighborhood -- in the vicinity, and there are two already pre-approved within 0.6

miles. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david goldman. i've lived in san francisco as a homeowner and resident since 1973. i'm the president of the san francisco chapter of the browny mary democratic club of cannabis policy -- democratic club. i'm here in strong support of the project. i've known al shalla for over 10 years. when he was working as the head of sham bala, which is now the mission cannabis club, the federal government, through melinda hague, the u.s. attorney, tried to close them all down, but he stood up to the feds, won a case in court and allowed the cannabis community to continue having dispensaries in san francisco. he has run an exemplary dispensary at the mission cannabis club. i strongly urge you to support this project.

he will be a credit to the neighborhood. thank you. >> greetings, commissioners. my name is chrissy keeper. i run dance mission at 24th and mission, and i was an original founder of the mission cannabis club 10 years ago. my organization is a non-profit dance mission and we have benefited from the support of al sha arsene wenger for many years. i really want to talk about equity. he is a palestinian small business owner. as we witnessed the current news cycle, we have witnessed the suffering of palestinian people. he is a community-minded people and dedicated to a multicultural staff that works to provide jobs and leadership roles for women. i am confident that edwin galley who will be director and chief officer of the russian hill club will shine as a leader, not only of his club but as a light in the san francisco cannabis industry. i am thankful that san francisco is leading the way, setting

guidelines to serve and give back to communities even though -- historically taken the brunt of arrests, incarceration and family breakups. from selling marijuana, which is now legal, and a multi-billion dollar industry. the russian hill club under the direction of edwin galley will be a model club, a club we can all be proud of. and clearly will put a stone on the road to equity and further prosperity of bipoc communities. thank you. >> that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael cowan, and i just would like to speak a little bit about seniors having access to cannabis dispensaries. this cannabis dispensary will be a real asset to this neighborhood for a store that was there before, i think it was a furniture antique store, is no longer going to be there. it's going to be an empty storefront.

this will fill a spot in that neighborhood with a great business so people can walk there, and i also would like to comment that this neighborhood will benefit from a neighbor like al shalwat. he had his word, his rep -- he has his word, his reputation, and his track record. i repeat, his track record, if you look at it, it's incredibly, incredibly bright. the man is to be respected for what he has done in the cannabis movement, and i therefore urge you to vote in favor of this dispensary at 2424 polk street. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is teddy kramer and i'm a small business owner. the small business chair of the russian hill neighbors, and the founder of north beach delivers.

i am speaking in my personal capacity today, but i would like to express my support for this cannabis retail establishment on polk street. most importantly, this is a vendor who has an extremely long track record of operating in our community, someone who understands the importance of safety, professionalism and ensuring that his extremely responsible business does not create any disruption for the community. i think this is something that would really, really support a community that is struggling from a small business perspective. the block that he is looking to open up on currently has seven vacancies on it. it would support the surrounding small businesses, whether they be coffee shops or other retail establishments, and i highly recommend that you approve this can believe use.

thank you for your time. >> hello? commissioners? >> yes. >> this is diane josephs. i'm a little unfamiliar with this mute situation, so i am on, correct? >> yes, you are. >> okay. i live within 200 feet of -- or 250 of the project. i'm very familiar with the area. i have written a letter which i am not sure whether or not you are able to consider. do you know that? it was just sent in today. anyway, i guess i'll -- i'm just trying to save time. basically we have had no real input into this process. i'm speaking for about 10 people that i've spoken to. i just ran into them at the project site when they were taking photos. the pre-application meeting on

december 22 was not effective given the covid issues and other things. we all know this [indiscernible] building, and what we would like is just some input to the process. i did speak with al but was not able to really understand even his points. but if in fact you will not give us that extra time, which we're asking for two to four weeks, as opposed to the 18 months that every contractor gets because of the covid, then i would ask -- >> thank you. that's your time. >> okay. >> hi, greetings. my name is stella edleman, and i'm calling in support of this project. i was born and raised in san francisco, specifically the mission district, and i worked in multiple performing arts spaces, as well as with carnival san francisco and with a worker run collective. i also run the theater at dance

mission at the corner of 24th and mission streets, and i have been impressed with the mission cannabis club, his other project, the club support of other small businesses in the immediate area. i think the equity efforts on the part of our city are super important. there's always been the criminalization of people who use and sold cannabis. this effort to make communities kwhoel through this restoration project is important and just. everyone is looking closely at the cannabis industry in sf to make a difference in the distribution of resources, and this is a good first step in making up for the historical injustice. i wholeheartedly believe in edwin galley and think this is an exciting project. thanks so much for your time. >> hello. thank you. my name is lukas -- i was born and raised in san francisco. i went to bonavista for elementary school. i have my masters from nyu. i am currently living on the

corner of mend sino county. as everyone knows, covid has made a devastating impact on the arts. i am an artist. being in mendicino, witnessing first hand the cannabis world and all the hard work that goes into the ultimate sale of the product, it's my understanding from living here that the mission cannabis club is an exemplary operation, and the effort to expand the operations to another location would serve not only the clients of russian hill but the greater san francisco area, and the statewide industry as well. in these difficult times, as we come out of covid, this organization and this operation and its goals for expansion are goals that we can trust, and as an artist i'm grateful that the cannabis industry is continuing to operate as it provides meaningful employment for many people who lost jobs during covid.

thank you very much. >> yes, my name is yvonne web, and i'm in support of this project. i've known edwin galley in excess of 10 years. he's an outstanding father figure. he's been in san francisco for a very long time, and i know that his leadership will be a great asset to the community. thank you very much for your consideration in support of this initiative. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is rickarie donaldson. i'm the c.e.o. and equity applicant of the california street cannabis company at 1398 california on the corner of california and hide. you know, we have been operational for over a year now and are expanding into the inner richmond this summer, and with how far we've come, i have to say that i'm glad that al and his crew gave me a shot at an

entry-level bud tender position back in 2018. it was through my position at mission cannabis club that i was able to develop more of a passion for cannabis as a medicine and a plant. this team is a team that strives to not only hire people like me but also help and elevate them to their full potential. they are dedicated to equity and the city, and although their proposed location at 2424 polk street will bring more competition, i fully support them as operators in the neighborhood. please support their proposed project. thank you. >> hello, my name is kamani edwards. i'm a san francisco resident born and raised. i'm a music artist. i was just performing at carnival and i'm an entrepreneur, and i sell holistic products as well. i think one of the important things to remember is that the benefits of cannabis and that it's not just, you know, something to use recreationally

but something medicinal, and i feel like a lot of people would miss out on the opportunities if it's not in that certain neighborhood, you know, since a lot of people go to -- still go to street people to find cannabis, and i think it's very important to have a safe space for the community, and this community in that particular area definitely could use a nice place for this medicinal, you know, cannabis. and i appreciate that it's coming on. definitely. thank you. >> hi, my name is mike pains, and i wanted to voice my public support for this business. i've known edwin galley for many years, first meeting him as a regular customer at his place of work and then we eventually became friends, and i can attest that he's a high-quality person. i know he's been working at this dispensary opportunity for quite a few years now with diligence and extreme patience, and i believe he has shown that they will do what it takes, and they

deserve a chance to make this legitimate business work. thank you. >> hi, my name is sabrina rooms. i'm an sf native, a teacher and a member of the community. i wanted to express strong support for this project. i believe it's important to create safe spaces for people who are in need of cannabis and its healing remedies. i think this will not create any disruption to its environment. in fact, i believe having a space like this would actually enhance and create a safer place for the members of the community, not to mention that it's important more now than ever to stand by our neighbors and our bipoc small businesses, and i feel it's the local community's belief that this is an essential asset to the community and its members believe in its team and its growth then it will definitely be of benefit to the

neighborhood. so thank you. i just wanted to express my support. >> hello, my name's alanis score and i'm here to speak in public support of the russian hill cannabis club. i've worked with the management team at their mission cannabis club location for several years now as a vendor. i've worked with over 100 cannabis dispensary owners across california and i can confidently say that mission cannabis club runs one of the classiest and most professional cannabis businesses i have seen. if you are to grant any license in the russian hill area, it's definitely to this team. the store is beautifully designed and the staff are always kind, polite and professional, and when you shop at mission cannabis club, it feels more like a high-end neighborhood friendly retail experience than your average dispensary. i live only two blocks away, and as a local community member, i

find that the mission cannabis club has been a great addition to the neighborhood. it provides a safe place for local residents to purchase, learn about and safely consume cannabis without affecting the public. you know, this team really does take pride in their business, and they do everything they can to make sure that the community is involved and respected as they operate their business, and i'm fully confident that granting the russian hill cannabis club a license will be a great addition to the russian hill community as well. thank you. >> hello. my name is rocco. i'm a founder farmer of henry's original out of mendicino county, and i am calling in for support for al shawa and peter mar and the work they have done over the years at mission cannabis club is exceptional. i've heard everyone's testimony, and i could piggyback on all

those words, but they've supported the community outside of san francisco. we represent over 100 employees and directly indirectly they've been a big supporter of the mendicino community for many years, and as a long time member of the san francisco community, former resident, i've seen the impact that they've had in the community and the positive impact that they've been able to really develop young professionals in this industry and really give a platform at a high standard of what dispensaries should be. and to piggyback on the safe access, i feel these lounges are a necessity for safe access. this was the premise of dispensaries way back when, when i first opened the dispensary in santa barbara back in 2003/2004. so i can't stress the need for these lounges going forward. >> that's your time, sir.

>> hi. this is philip lesser, and i'm sorry that especially -- my apologies. we had the wrong telephone. whenever you'd like us to get on, we just have a very brief comments as project sponsor. >> you've got five minutes. >> okay, so if we can interject now, thank you much. basically, commissioners, you've been hearing as much of a love fest as you probably have ever heard on any project. i've been coming to the commission for 20 years, and it's well deserved. on a personal level, i'm not going to repeat what you've been hearing, i've known mr. shawa for 33 years. some of you may know i'm three-time past president of the mission merchants association, and i can tell you that wherever he's conducted business in the mission district, that area has found more vibrancy and it's

found more safety. it's always been an oasis in what is a tough neighborhood commercial district. at his current location, 441 mission street, he started as an mcd a little over a decade ago in 1900 square feet and subsequently has become a retail cannabis establishment that's 4,400 square feet. and the reason for the growth is, one, there's a tremendous demand for high-quality, legal cannabis products. two, there's a tremendous demand for knowledgeable staff. and three, there's a tremendous demand for having a safe, well-controlled environment for the sale and use of this product. mr. shawa's been providing all of that. as well as providing all of that, mr. shawa has been providing, as you heard from dracari donaldson, his expertise

to the next generation and to those who deserve to be equity applicants. we're very proud dracari being one of them, mr. shawa has gone on to do a tremendous job of the california street cannabis company, and for the last three years al has been mentoring edwin galley who's sitting next to me and would now like to take over and speak to you. thank you ever so much, commissioners. >> hello, commissioners, and everyone. i'm edwin galley, the equity partner with this project. i would like to start by thanking the city of san francisco and the office of cannabis for creating this plan, and i also offer my thanks to all of those that are here in support, and then for those of you with concerns, hopefully we can ease your worries and come to an agreement in the end. as a black man, husband and father of two young men raised in the city over the past 20 years, our family are extremely

excited about this opportunity to better our lives. you know, i've been laid off this past year. my wife's been laid off, and this business venture offers me and my family an opportunity to recover, and actually reinvent ourselves, and so this would be great for us. and also, you know, with mr. shawa, as has been mentioned, he's a great mentor. i've known him over the last ten years. in the last three years he's mentored me in the cannabis business. i believe with this project we can create a neighborhood friendly establishment as well as provide an essential service. thank you, commissioners, and i look forward to the opportunity. >> commissioners, that concludes the project sponsor presentation. thank you for taking us in out of sequence. >> very good, mr. lesser. we will proceed with public comment on this matter. again, members of the public, if

you wish to speak to this matter you need to express star 3 to enter the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted that's the indication for you to begin speak, and through the chair you'll have one minute. >> good afternoon. my name is will wick. i am the current tenant in the space that will hopefully become russian hill cannabis club. i am long-time russian hill tenant slash i was pretty much brought up in russian hill. i have been in strong support of this, and i just believe that this is a legal business, and there are bars down the street. there are liquor stores that sell alcohol. i believe that children, al would never sell to high school students, and so therefore that's kind of a mute point. his business down in the mission is unbelievable.

i've been down there, and it's just very, very well run, and al is a phenomenal person, and i am in strong, strong support of this. thank you. >> hi, my name is tara schneider. i am a partner of the mission cannabis club. i work for an edible company that is a multi-state operator and one of the largest manufacturers in the country -- an exceptional business partner in all aspects. i've spent a lot of time pre-covid in the dispensary, and i can say it's an absolute local favorite neighborhood spot. something that always stands out to me among the many dispensaries i work with is all of the local folks coming in for their cannabis needs and the friendly faces of the staff that have been there for the last two years, many of them, working

with -- really shows me how well al and peter and everyone on the management team take care of their people. i would love to see this new location open and add to the russian hill neighborhood. thank you, everyone. >> hi, my name is cheryl renstrom. i just wanted to say that i am in support of this project. this store is the most by the book retailer i work with, and i work with dispensaries from sacramento all the wi down to -- there's always security at the door. they don't use a bud tender or other employees that double as security guards. it's very safe. lots of cameras. they are involved with the community. a recent example is they did a fundraiser with their vendors to raise money for local restaurants and businesses that were struggling during the peak of the pandemic. the stigma of a dispensary being

surrounded by troublesome people is invalid. customers come in, make their purchase and continue on with their daily activities. mission cannabis club is very high class. it's like walking into zachs fifth avenue. please stop by and see it first hand. my final point is i have ahead runs of laerts from people fighting a multitude of ailments from cancer to depression to daily physical pain -- purchase their cannabis has changed their life. these are people who don't want to take doctor-prescribed mor phone or other products. >> thank you, ma'am. that's your time. >> hi, my name's aly greenstone. i work for one of the largest multi-state operators in the wellness space, and i can say with confidence from working with the mission cannabis club crew over the past three to four years that they are phenomenal to work with.

they put a heavy emphasis on wellness products and providing high-quality wellness products for the surrounding communities, ensuring their staff is fully educated and knowledgeable on these types of products and really just providing a pillar of knowledge and education and great customer service to the surrounding communities, so i am in full support of this project and hope to see russian hill cannabis club opening up soon. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is -- i live five blocks up on jones from the project. sounds like the sponsor's got a lot of support here. that's great. i have two specific concerns. one, on polk street you have bike lanes, you have buses, you have two lanes of traffic, you have shared spaces. so deliveries i think probably

should not be allowed at this location, just with all the double parking and whatnot. my other concern is that they are asking to be open until 10 p.m., and this block is really more residential in nature, so it would seem that 8 p.m. would be more reasonable, so i'd ask the commission to think about those two small tweaks if you are supporting this. thank you. >> hi, commissioners. my name is alicia bearden and i'm just speaking on behalf of my support for this project and mission cannabis. i've known al shawa for many years, and i can tell you that he's been a man of great integrity and his equity applicant edwin as well. i will speak -- i am a woman and a mom, and i am coming out of mission cannabis, i've never felt safer. parking my car in the vicinity,

greeted by security. in and out, no issues of concern or safety. i'll also a mom and -- i'm also a mom and would be okay with cannabis of al's calibre or mission cannabis's calibre entering in a near a preschool because the level of security that's provided by the cannabis retailer i feel is paramount. i mean, it's better than any other security that i've come across in san francisco. so again, i just want to speak on behalf of the integrity of al and mission cannabis and edwin and then also i think the safety of community members. thank you. >> this is graham goodwin of the san francisco social club public advocates for cannabis. i'm calling in in support of this project. we want each neighborhood should have all the products across the

board. no one would say it's convenient to go a mile to get a cup of coffee or to get an onion. it's convenient a mile away. each of the products should be represented in each of the neighborhoods. the other thing i want to say quickly is please, al's a great guy. i support him, and he's been courageous by putting in the consumption option in his space. the covid thing has shown us do you want people out on the street corners or in the parks? no. we want them in a safe environment for them and for the neighborhood. and anyone who's been outside a cannabis store, you can't smell anything. they have an hvac system that's top of the line, so just want to say support al, please commissioners make it unanimous.

thank you. >> hello, my name is darrell smith. i'm a black man born and raised in san francisco. i'm an arts curator in san francisco and work daily in the tenderloin for the last 30 years. i run the luggage store gallery, the bible 9 cultural center and the tenderloin national -- all located within the tenderloin and mid market neighborhoods. i see the gross economic distance entrenchment of people of color every day, especially of black people. who knows how many of those people went to jail because of selling weed and never got back on their feet. the poverty is a human rights abuse, and no effort to create economic and business opportunities for black people should be turned away. by giving edwin galley the opportunity to run his own shop

on polk street gives another person of color economic footing in this very competitive and economic uneven cultural city. thanks for all your efforts and thanks for listening. >> hello, commissioners. my name is angel davis. i'm a business owner here in the city and third generation san francisco resident. i'm calling in to ask that you support this project. you couldn't ask for better operators with al and edwin and their entire crew. you can see from the testaments that have come before me that they've created a professional, welcoming, safe space that's contributed to the community many times over, not only here in san francisco but you're getting calls from mendicino because the community created has been so far reaching. yeah, i just want to keep this short, but please support this

project. thank you. >> hi. my name is demi, and i am calling in support of edwin and al for the approval of the russian hill cannabis club. i'm an account manager for nanos distribution, one of the biggest cannabis distributors in the state. i handle all the accounts here in san francisco. i've had the pleasure of working closely with al over at mission cannabis club for the last four years. i have been lucky enough to be able to come to him with advice on how to better my own business skills, and i've seen him do the same with other business owners as well. one of the main reasons i stand behind the approval of this project is i've seen first-hand how they run their current business every decision made is for the benefit of their customers to give them the best and safest experience possible. the staff are knowledgeable and aim to educate their customers and i see them being a huge success in the russian hill area. i strongly support them and encourage the approval of this

project. thank you. >> yes, this is pen lope clark. my principal concern is with the smoking vaping lounges. when i look online, many of them seem to be, like, sports bars with televisions and sound, and this is seven days a week until 10:00 at night. i know that when there was an exercise studio next door, the residents of my apartment and cottage were like included in all the noise and mics and music, and basically it just made their life hell and they were on the phone with the police constantly. and also the ventilation system is not supposed to be within 15 feet of a neighboring building

or residence or commercial, and with a 25-foot lot, they cannot meet that health code. so please do something about the lounge. the dispensary i'm sure can be fine, but the lounge, it's a residential neighborhood. >> thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is alexa goldberg. i am in full support of this. i was in a serious car accident about five years ago and discovered the healing benefits of cannabis and was so inspired by it that i decided to make it also a career, and i got connected to al in 2018, and he hired me at shambala, and my career has grown alongside with the shop. i work directly with ed who is

one of the kindest people i've ever worked with, and he deserves this so much. the whole mcd team, they are all driven by passion for the plant and healing the community. and there are over 7,000 cannabis brands in california and only 700 dispensaries. these brands are struggling and patients need medicine, so while -- from having enough cannabis access for those who need it, we must support these businesses run by people who meanwhile are doing the right thing, so i really encourage you to support al and ed. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. >> hello, hi. my name is lawrence michaelson. i'm a san francisco native calling in support of this project. i have the pleasure of knowing

al and edwin galley over the last few years, and i can say that if there's anybody who deserves a chance, it's definitely edwin. he's one of the kindest, nicest and hard-working people i've met. along with al shawa, he is an amazing business operator, a flagship member of the community, and i think he deserves this chance, and i'm in full support of this project. >> this is kathleen courtney of the russian hill community association, and i'd like to call to your attention that this is a neighborhood and that the neighborhood north of union on polk street stranges into a fully residential area as opposed to the very commercial area to the south of union. i'd also like to call to your attention that you have approved a cannabis site at washington

and polk, which is five blocks away. if you choose to approve this site, then i ask that you approve it with three conditions. one, that there be no deliveries. two, that there be no lounge. i appreciate the fact that the daycare center, the infants 150 feet away are not covered by the regulations, but this is an issue of the spirit of the law rather than letter. the second thing is that i need you to understand that polk goes down, shared spaces. we've got too much traffic, so again, no deliveries, no lounge, and -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, this is joan walker, and i would like to speak in support of this project.

i personally have known edwin galley for over ten years. he's a family man. he's very good father. he's just anybody's best friend. he would run this business with integrity and would really carry this off well. i've also known al, and he's just as good as edwin. thank you so much. >> hi, this is glynn feronte. i am a neighborhood resident and very close vicinity, and i am calling against support of the vape lounge, but i would support the retail store with the modifications previously mentioned concerning no pick-ups or deliveries, as you call them, and modification of the hours at

night. regarding the vape lounge, my reservations are noise, as previously mentioned, and the vent system requirements. thank you. >> hi, i live in the neighborhood actually in the same block as the proposed location, and i attended the december 22 meeting, and it was actually very abrasive. al was dismiss of the neighbors, and it felt like most of the people that were calling in were on the same page to speak, a little bit like how people are calling in from mendicino when this is a neighborhood issue. there is a daycare that's 83 feet away. there's playground backs up to the back of this location, and if you approve this, you're creating a precedent of allowing cannabis next to children's uses. you're also really pushing out a well of preschool out of the

neighborhood and the parents will likely pull their children from the program. i would never send my child to a school that smells like marijuana. this is a conditional use authorization. it's not their right to go into our neighborhood. >> hi. hi, this is kayla. i am speaking in support of mission cannabis club. i actually grew up in the city and work in cannabis. i went to high school here and i think cannabis has really done great things for our city, and so has mission cannabis. i actually had a job there, and they got me started in a beautiful career. they have been nothing but supportive. i really encourage this to be a part of our community. i think it will add so much and will teach everybody about a really compassionate business.

thank you. >> hello. my name is gerald slabs. i'm an sf native. i'm an artist, and i curate the swim gallery in the tenderloin. i've worked with mr. shawa multiple times doing a series of art shows at the mission cannabis club, which was inside only during five to eight hours. mr. shawa was a pleasure to work with. we also involve the local food vendors in the neighborhood, and mr. shawa will bring a healing light to polk street. as a person of color i'm excited to see and support other people of color to have these kinds of opportunities in the city. thank you. >> [indiscernible] it's a sad

thing i didn't choose to be that way. it was a fun job. >> sir, are you submitting your public testimony? okay, we'll move on. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 2887 green street. i'm here to say i'm in full support of this project. i have three little children, and you know, i would never -- of all the dispensaries i've gone to in the city, it's my responsibility as a parent to allow my children do cannabis. there haven't been any issues of any dispensaries in san francisco allowing children or young children walking by to have cannabis, and i believe that as you guys have already heard, this operation that's run

by al at mission cannabis is at the top of following every rule that has been put in place, so please allow this to move forward. thank you. >> hi, there, i'm a senior director of oracle. i've known edwin galley for a long time. first from his former business and then as a friend. i experienced edwin is extremely hard-working professional and super dedicated to whatever he takes on. i think he absolutely deserves this opportunity. he's been so passionate about this project and invested lots of volunteers into it. i think you should give him the chance to make that happen. thank you very much. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star then 3 to

be added to the queue. you have one minute. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> my name is al smith. i've lived a block away in the 2500 street of polk for 40 years. my wife went to san francisco state. we both went to usf for our masters. we watch the parade of schoolchildren coming back and forth for 40 years going to galileo, and this is nothing like a bar. people don't hop in and out of a bar all day long while the kids are walking past it. i've been a member of russian hill neighbors and san francisco apartment association for over 30 years, and everyone thinks that this is not going to

attract tenants into the apartments that become vacant, and if it does, it's the wrong type of tenant that will be attracted to it, a retail outlet like that. and everyone in the russian hill neighbors that i talk to vehemently opposes this, so i speak for a lot of people in my 40 years of experience in san francisco. thank you. >> hi, this is joan albertson, and i am not part of the love fest. i oppose this institution being part of our neighborhood. i live in the neighborhood, and more than a few kids get off the 45 bus to go to galileo. what was done to notify galileo administration of this and what of the parents? how many parents of galileo students were notified? my daughter is a graduate of

galileo, and i live in the neighborhood, so i would certainly have wanted to know about this. i also fear for the crime that will increase, i fear, because of this. thank you. >> yes, hi, my name is doug dietz. i'm a san francisco native. i've known edwin galley and his wife and children for many years and he's always been a caring, giving, smart gentleman, as well as his family. as far as delivery drivers, i currently work in this business, and i can guarantee you there's no double parking, and al also has a spot in a garage in the neighborhood. but anyway, i believe edwin would be an amazing equity partner and deserves a chance as well as al, and thank you very

much. >> hello, this is denis plum calling. thank you, commissioners. i'd like to make a few comments about the pot clubs. first, deliveries to customers or pick-ups should not be allowed. the application has a much larger ambition where such -- can be accommodated. smoking vaporizing lounge should not be allowed. without prejudice, the applicants write, to seek further consideration after stuffing the information and neighborhood meetings have occurred there has been none about what occurs with a smoking lounge. finally, hours should be restricted in this residential neighborhood to from about 10 a.m. to perhaps 8 p.m., as was stated by somebody in an earlier conversation. i live about 250 feet away from this facility and think it will have a large detrimental effect on the neighborhood. additionally, the idea of having a smoking lounge during the time of covid when people from other

areas are coming into the area who probably will have covid is very detrimental to the neighborhood and will probably kill a bunch of us. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ali jamalian. i'm the founder of sunset connect, and on the cannabis service activity i'm a social equity applicant myself and operate san francisco's only social equity manufacturing and distribution business. i'm calling in in strong support of mr. al shawa and mission cannabis club. they are an exemplary business in the city. al on a personal level really did help me get to my build out and to bring my business online as he did with dracari and as he's doing with edwin now. i don't think any of the objections should stop you from our mission to create wealth for those that were disadvantaged in the war on drugs. thank you.

>> hi, my name is frederica kiefer. i was born in san francisco and i live one block from the mission cannabis club my whole life. before the club there was illegal selling of marijuana on every corner of 21st and mission. i have had the good fortune of knowing al since the beginning of the business of the club and i saw the real joy people compressed coming into the club. it's been a multicultural space in clientele and workers and often the people in charge of the club were women. i support the expansion on the polk street and know what an addition to the neighborhood a well run and beautifully appointed cannabis club this will be. i really hope you vote for the support of the russian hill club and see it as an important part of the neighborhood ecosystem. thank you so much. >> all right. thank you. commissioners, that will conclude the public comment portion of this item, and the matter is now before you.

>> while i'm waiting for the other commissioners, i'd like to express my support for the project today. i'm glad to see that the city is more equitably spreading out these locations throughout the various neighborhoods. commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i did have a question. excuse me. i was looking at the cannabis maps that [indiscernible] and the map at least shows that it is within 600 feet of an elementary school. so can you confirm the distance is less than 600 feet, the buffer around the dispensary and around the schools overlap, which may be inaccurate, but is a little concerning to me.

>> i'll pull up the map now. >> thank you. it seems to overlap with sherman elementary school. that's what i see, and hergel school. they both seem to overlap. >> commissioner tanner, if i may respond, department staff, the buffer is a bubble that you see is the 600-foot radius, and so if you have -- the bubble around the cannabis club touching the bubble around the school, it means that the school is 1200 feet away. so, like, sherman elementary school, for example, the bubble is just very -- >> it may be my connection -- i couldn't catch -- i heard you say the 600-foot buffer around

the cannabis club, and then i couldn't hear what you said after that. i'm sorry. i will turn off my video to see if that helps the connection. >> i'll turn mine off in case that's the issue. i apologize, but what you see represents the 600-foot buffer for each location. so if you have an -- when you look at the map and you see sherman elementary school, the fact that the bubbles overlap means that the sites are between 600 and 1200 feet away from each other they would only been within the 600 feet if the bubble around the russian hill cannabis club actually intersected the parcel containing the school. >> got it. thank you very much for that clarification. i appreciate that. i just wanted to clarify that, and then, you know, one of the things the neighbors and everyone who called in support,

could you perhaps explain a little bit about the vaporizing system? i know you said this in your report, but just to reiterate if any vape does escape, what happens or perhaps even just what precautions are required by the department of health to make sure that no vape does escape from the lounge facility. >> yeah. certainly. so the -- there's basically a zero tolerance policy for any smoke, smells, vapors leaving the space. it's three ways -- extremely robust ventilation systems are required. the department of public health inspects them, inspects the smoking rooms at least twice a year. if there was ever a complaint, they would come and inspect it then also. if there is a complaint, the lounge needs to close until it

has been inspected by dph and it has been deemed okay or that the issue has been fixed. if there is a problem, there can be fines of up to $1,000 a day, they can get their type c consumption permit pulled, or the state could just revoke their ability to operate as a cannabis center. there is a zero tolerance policy for ventilation systems and there are serious ramifications if there is a failure of the ventilation system. >> thank you for that. and can you also explain a little bit about the layout of this particular facility? there were some concerns around people go into the rear yard even though folks should not be there smoking. does it seem to you like folks could go from the retail and lounge area easily outside who aren't suppose to, like who aren't staff, for example, who may be taking care of business back there. could guests or patrons easily

access the rear yard for unauthorized activities? >> yes, thank you for that question. that was -- you are not the first person to ask that, as you mentioned. so the profit right now does have a yard behind the business, and there are windows and doors from the rear of the -- from the ideas to the backyard. the applicant knows and has been informed and per state law consumption they are strictly foreboden of letting ever having those doors open while the smoking lounge is functional. those doors will basically be sealed. so the yard will be there for some light, perhaps a view. if it's landscaped, and otherwise it will basically be dead space on the lot. they are not allowed to store anything there. they are not allowed to have customers go out there. it will be fully sealed off from the smoking room.

but yes, it is confusing seeing it right behind the smoking room. >> right. okay. thank you very much. those are my questions and i'll hear from other commissioners. thank you. >> commissioner imperial? >> thank you. i have a question regarding we have received some comments and also emails regarding the preschool that is not under the definition of schools, and i'm concerned in terms of the vaping or smoking area where it is 150 square -- or 150 feet away from the preschool. the definition of school and why are pre-schools are not protected under the definition of schools?schools are not protd under the definition of schools? >> i was not involved in the development of this policy years ago. i will see if i can find something about that.

>> okay. that's my question. while you're looking into that, i think for me, as i'm supportive of this project, my concern is that proximity to the preschool and the fact that it has smoking area at the same time. i understand that the ventilation will be, you know -- will be restricted, but i think for us in terms of this legislation, i'd like to know the history how schools were defined and what kind of analysis that were taken when there was a 600-feet buffer that was put in the legislation. so that was more of my concern. >> yeah, my colleague michael christenson is here to help with that. >> hello, commissioners. department staff. the regulation behind the 600-foot rule were devised in late 2017 through the

cannabis -- we had a committee, a task force that was formed to develop these regulations. there was a lot of discussion over what would really work well for san francisco as a very dense city with a high density of uses. there was a lot of debate over the right radius to schools and what should be defined as a school. in the end the choice was made to use the existing definition of a school that was already within the planning code, which is defined as a k-12 institution. part of that analysis was looking at the practical effect of prohibiting cannabis within 600 feet of a preschool. doing so in a dense -- in a city like san francisco which does have a high density of uses and does have a high density of preschools would have very, very severely limited the areas in the city where a cannabis

retailer can go. another factor that was taken into account is preschools generally you have parents bringing their children to the facility on a daily basis. it's not exactly common for a preschooler to walk independently to a preschool, and therefore walk by a site and maybe be exposed or confused by something that's going on at a location that's in the area. generally parents are bringing their kids to a preschool versus when you look at a middle school or a high school, it is much more common for students to actually walk independently from home to school. they may be walking by a site that's in the area. they maybe see something and be confused by it and not have a chance there to be able to explain what's going on -- and not have a parent there to be able to explain what's going on. so that was the basis for that. we have approved many locations

in the city that have been generally close -- you know, within 600 feet of preschools. we often do tell applicants early on in the process if they are very close to a preschool, like directly across the street or directly adjacent, we often will tell them that the department will not support the application, which actually this equity applicant, his first license application was directly next to a proposed preschool, and we told him that we wouldn't support it, and that's part of why the application was supported. and just another factor when it comes to something like consumption, we do generally -- we are concerned over consumption in public spaces. we do generally see providing a licensed indoor space that is regulated and not visible from the public right-of-way as a way to actually reduce the visibility and impact of

consumption. so that's kind of the backstory towards that. i'm happy to answer any questions if you have any follow-up. >> thank you, michael. thank you for letting me know, and us and the commission, about that background. so thank you. >> commissioner chen. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner tanner, for your question about the garden area. i also had a similar concern, but i'm satisfied with the response. i actually remember going to the site when it was a pop fizz eco-studio and remembered that patrons were not allowed to access that area. it was purely for visual, not for accessing, going through the doors. about the preschool, i wanted to ask staff, if public were concerned about proximity or maybe a buffer, there seems to be a legislative policy, right, so if member of the public wanted to address that, this

would be -- under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors and not the planning commission. is that correct? >> you're muted. >> apologies. the story of the year. if members of the public would like to see revisions of this they need to -- i recommend that they contact, yeah, their board of supervisors representative to talk about a legislative amendment. it would have to go through that way. the planning commission cannot change that rule. >> thank you for confirming. i want to lend my support for the project. i'm familiar with the neighborhood. i walk by the site quite often. i think the location makes sense for the zoning along the polk street ncd. even though there's an approved cannabis dispensary at 0.6 miles away, i don't consider this to

be an over-concentration, so those are my comments for now. thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> we received a letter yesterday morning around 11:00 which shows the property [indiscernible] map where the distance between the preschool and this particular application is only 83 feet. that remains of concern to me. the one thing i have not seen and i'm wondering, if this existing building is a single-story, very small building, it would require a rooftop ventilation equipment, correct? >> yes. there would be some rooftop equipment. the exhaust would be -- ventilation would go up through the roof, yes. >> well, we all know that rooftop equipment is not

particularly attributingive, particularly when seen on a single-story building. including the fact that we have residential nearby, not to talk about the humming noise that rooftop equipment inadvertently brings with it. the lack of disclosure on that particular subject is of concern to me because it is, indeed, a site that is tightly wedged in among other uses, many of them residential. across the street is all residential, and going further to the north it's all residential, and including buildings [indiscernible]. my concerns in addition to that neighbors express concern about the opening hours, actually asking that typically for the polk street corridor opening hours are from 10 a.m. to 9

p.m., if i have that correctly, asking that those hours would be actually the same for this particular establishment. people had expressed concern about delivery, the on-site delivery. i think that is always an issue, particularly if it's not just once a day but frequently doing the rest of the day. i would question that or wonder how that is being handled. there was not many speakers in opposition, although there were apparently 15 speakers from -- i would like the commission to consider that those particular concerns are real, at least they are for me, that is, opening time, deliveries and the lack of disclosure on the rooftop equipment. so i would be more inclined to support this establishment without on-site consumption. i'm wondering if other commissioners have any thoughts about that.

thank you. >> commissioner moore, do you want any further information about some of your comments you raised? >> would you repeat that again? i didn't hear you. >> would you want further information about comments you raised? >> yes, if you don't mind. if you have them, yes. >> yeah. so within section 8l of the health code it specifically says that the ventilation systems and all mechanical equipment must be designed to comply with the san francisco noise ordinance article 29. so the awareness of sound is within the code, to have them not be -- you have the equipment not be, you know, loud and bothersome. and the projects will be subject to screening requirements, the rooftop mechanical equipment. >> except this is a specifically very delicate -- i'm not sure people have looked at the photograph or elevation drawings. it's a very delicate small building, and i think any kind

of oversized equipment or screening could indeed completely destroy the look of this building. this is a very special street, particularly that segment as you move north, just some wonderful residential buildingsh and i believe that we need to pay attention for the physical alterations that come with this particular use as well. but thank you for quoting me the code relative to noise. thanks so much. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wonder if ms. feeney could follow up on the two other

issues that commissioner moore raised about the hours in the neighborhood and deliveries. >> yeah. so right now it's proposing to be open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. state law limits cannabis businesses that cannot be open from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., basically overnight. so this is compliant with that. and then the polk street mcd zoning district, which has been 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., so this business is sustainable less than the hours available within the zoning district. >> and the issues that were raised about concerns with deliveries, did staff look at that? >> yes. so the applicant at their mission location, i believe, got a loading or a right or the yellow zones. i'm forgetting which color means which, but they got a loading zone put in front of the business so there would be space for a car to come in without having to double park, and i believe they are open to doing that here also. >> so is that a -- they are applying for one but we don't know if it's been granted yet?

is that correct? >> they are open to applying for one. i am not aware of them ever being denied, but that is something that they are happy to do. >> so we could add a condition that indicates they have so apply for a loading -- they have to apply for a loading zone permit? >> i can add that into the packet, yeah. >> well, i would be in favor of that condition if we move forward. so my general comments are that to me the -- i have no problem with the cannabis dispensary. it's the smoking and vaping lounge, the controversial aspect of this project, in my mind, and that it raises issues that pull in two different directions, for me. and one in favor of it is that apartments are increasingly restrictive, people being able to smoke in apartments, and so if we don't have smoking and vaping lounges, then we have an

equity issue, which is people who live in single-family residences can smoke and vape at home, and people in apartments can't, and they end up in parks and street corners and, therefore, it seems better to me and fairer to have smoking and vaping lounges in order to create places that allow everybody to have an opportunity to smoke and vape rather than being in public spaces. but on the flip side, i would like to have a lot of confidence in the enforcement of that zero tolerance policy, because while i think it is appropriate to have smoking and vaping lounges, i think that is -- needs to be implemented in such a way that there is absolutely no smoke or smell escaping outside the building. so what is our past experience with other lounges? with respect to -- i know we don't have many, but we do have

some. what is the past experience with other lounges in this city being able to contain 100% of the smoke and smell inside the facility? >> i will defer to my colleague, michael christenson, as he has licensed more of these businesses before me. >> sure. in response, commissioner diamond, the city previously used to allow cannabis consumption at cannabis retailers without actually having any regulation. so those sites are now considered grandfathered locations for the department of public health. they can continue to operate without all of this equipment, but at some point they will need to either cease operation, whenever they change ownership, or upgrade. even in those locations, you know, it's typical, like spark on mission street, or there's

one on market, you would enter the retail space. you could purchase products and then just go to a table within the same space without any ventilation and smoke cannabis. even in those locations we didn't really receive a lot of complaints about that activity. not enough that the department of public health has had to shut any of them down. the new regulations, you know, admittedly we don't have quite as much -- quite enough data to show how new sites under the new regulations have operated because they were all legally required to shut down for all of the last year, which is the exact time that this entire crop of new sites have come through. that said, i can say we've had a number of locations that the

planning commission has approved a smoke ventilation lounge, and then the site has been going through the permit process, and because of the cost of the amount of equipment that's required they routinely will get up into the 300 or $400,000 range for upgrades of hvac equipment. a number of sites have actually ended up abandoning the concept because they can't afford the level of investment that the city requires for these spaces. our cannabis smoking regulations are the most stringent in the united states, and we are routinely receiving requests from other jurisdictions for information on them and how to copy them because they are seen as industry leading. so at this point -- like i said, unfortunately we don't have exact metrics because most of these locations have been

legally required to shut down during the entire pandemic. they very recently have been allowed to reopen. but given the complexity of the regulations, the regular inspections and the fact that we have very strong enforcement mechanisms, including potentially losing your entire license to sell cannabis, the department does not consider it a very risky call. i don't really believe that there's much of a risk that these are going to be, you know, causing smoke to be spilling out to other portions of the premise or other properties. >> okay. thank you for that. and in light of that information, i am inclined to support this project because of my desire to make sure that we do have a place for people to smoke and vape that is not in parks or on street corners for

those people who don't live in single-family houses. but i would like to see a condition attached that indicates that they have to apply for a white zone in front of the property. >> i would also be supportive of that, commissioner diamond. commissioner fung? >> i'm supportive of the retailer operation. i am not supportive of the vaping lounge. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. so [indiscernible] support the vaping lounge, and for me part of the issue is the proximity to the preschool and that it's directly [indiscernible] kind of in the vicinity, the smoking added to it. ms. feeney, i was looking at the plans, can you identify if those doors, you said they are essentially sealed, but do you know if they don't need those

rear doors for egress? [indiscernible] care for the rear yard, could they be alarmed that if they are opened if their alarm goes off? i'm concerned about that, and also the windows looking out, if they are operable or not operable. >> commissioner tanner, i'm sorry to interrupt, but you might want to try -- >> no video? >> yeah. >> okay. >> your comments were a bit choppy. >> okay. i don't know if you caught, ms. feeney. it's just about the doors and the windows being able to be opened and operated and more assurances that they would be alarmed or that the windows are inoperable. i'm not sure if that's -- i couldn't find that in the plans, but i may not have been looking at the right notations. >> yeah, so they are -- there will be security cameras in the backyard as it's part of the premises and cannabis businesses have extensive security plans.

we can certainly have security -- excuse me -- alarms go on the doors if they are ever opened. i imagine that might have already been part of the plan, but that's something we can do, and i am not -- i do not know off the top of my head if the windows are operable in the back, but we can require that the windows either be inoperable or be locked during business hours, inaccessible to customers. if they are operable, it's a rear facade, so it could be possible to switch out the windows and put in more secure windows. but yeah, there can be -- >> certainly. >> there can be an alarm on the door, and the windows and doors cannot be operable while smoking lounge is operating. >> okay, and then you said, and i think mr. christenson, you may

have mentioned that the department of public health will inspect these twice a year to maintain their permit. is that correct? it's not just inspecting at the beginning but ongoing, the operations, this vaping lounge will be inspected twice a year. is that correct? >> correct. it will be inspected as long as it is open. >> okay. commissioners, i think, you know, i would be supportive of the lounge with the loading zone added and reference to making sure that the windows in the rear and in the lounge section are not operable and that the doors are alarmed such that they can't be opened during the hours of the operations. those would be my comments. >> commissioner moore? >> i would ask that the department is capable of answering the question as to whether or not those rear doors need to be operable in case of

an emergency for any room of assembly. i'm not sure how many people can be in that particular room, there has to be an option of egress, and that would be out the rear of the building. that being said, i would support the cannabis operation minus the vaping lounge. >> and just before someone would like to make a motion, being on the commission for about five years now, some neighborhood requests the vaping and smoking lounges, that there will be less smoking on the streets. commissioner diamond? >> i'd like to move to approve the project as proposed by staff with the following conditions: that the politic apply for a loading zone. i don't want to -- that the applicant apply for a loading zone. i don't want to make it an absolutely condition of approval that they have to get it. we don't know whether mpa would

grant it. the condition has to be for application. that the doors in the smoking lounge are alarmed, so if they open the alarm goes off, and that the windows are either inoperable or are rendered inoperable during all hours of operation of the smoking and vaping lounge. >> second. >> second. >> okay, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from commissioners, i have a motion that has been seconded to approve the object as proposed with two additional conditions. one is that the applicant apply for a loading zone, and commissioner diamond, could you specify, you mentioned a yellow zone, but i believe the passenger loading is a white zone. >> yes. >> i believe that's what you were meaning, is the passenger loading zone, a white zone, and

that to the doors adjacent to the vaping lounge be alarmed, and that the windows be inoperable or closed during operations. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> no. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners fung and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item 9 for case number

2020-003223cua, 249 texas street. conditional use authorization. please note that on march 4, 2021, after hearing and closing public comment, this body continued the matter to april 1 by a vote of 7-0. and again, without hearing, continued to april 15 and then from april 15 without hearing continued to may 13, and again to this date without hearing. commissioners, generally we reduce project presentation time when a matter has already been heard. in this particular case, the commission president has authorized the project sponsor six minutes and organized opposition six minutes to present. public comment will remain at one minute. project sponsor, you have six minutes. are you with us, mr. enwooj?

>> i am, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i along with the project architect represent the project sponsor terry shapiro and joyan su. slide one, please. can we have slide one? >> sorry. i've paused your time. i need to make mr. westoff the presenter. okay, your slides are up. >> great. so this project, as you know, involves the replacement of a structure that has one lawful unit and a second unlawful unit. it is being replaced with a two-unit building. you held a hearing three months ago. i'm not going into detail here about all the architectural details and design of the

project. commissioners chan and moore raised issues about the size of the lower unit. commissioner moore suggested adjusting the roof deck to have it set back five feet at all locations, and there were -- there was some substantial confusion about the history of the unauthorized unit at the property. slide two, please. to respond to the commissioners [indiscernible] could we have slide two, please? to respond to the commissioners design-related issues, we've modified the project in four ways. we substantially increased the size of the lower unit, added a laundry space, reduced the roof deck, and we changed the window treatments to add more privacy. slide three, please. this drawing illustrates in red the changes to the lower units. by incorporating the rear room

into the lower unit, we increased the size of the unit almost 30%, making it a 1,086 square foot unit. we also added the washer drier. slide four, please -- washer dryer. this drawing shows where the deck has been modified to provide at least a five-foot buffer from all neighboring property lines. regarding the history and impact of the unauthorized dwelling unit, we and your staff did additional research and then we collectively put our heads together to try to address the issues associated with the unauthorized dwelling unit. i want to thank those who helped for their solution-oriented approach and their knowledge of the complicated rules in this area. look, we all know that the city doesn't want to lose dwelling units. here there would be no loss. we are replaced one authorized and one unauthorized dwelling

unit with two authorized dwelling units. we also know that the city doesn't want to lose rent control bat lgs. here things get complicated given the spotty records about the history of the building. as it stands does it have zero, one or two rent controlled units? rather than debate this history, we all agreed to treat the building in the manner -- in a manner most favorable to rent control. the project sponsors have agreed to impose a condition of approval on the property subjecting both units to the rent ordinance going forward. while that may sound like a simple solution, there are some legal complications of the city imposing such a condition, but we worked collaboratively with your staff and the city attorney to overcome those complications. slide five, please. so the end result of this effort is the transformation of a building with one code-compliant unit and one non-code-compliant unit into two units, both fully code compliant within the

building. there will be no office housing. plus with the new conditional approval, there will be no loss of rent controlled units. the project sponsors are not developers. they are not going to flip this property. they simply want to have a home where they can raise their family and provide a safe space for joanne's 81-year-old mother to reside. mr. kelko is on the line and available to answer any questions that you may have about the units' designs. thank you very much. >> thanks. if that concludes project sponsors presentation, i need to apology. mr. westoff, i completely overlooked staff presentation, and so we should hear from you now before we go to organized opposition. >> yes. yes, thank you, jonas, and thank you, mr. embridge. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the planning

commission. alex westoff, department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 to demolish an existing three-story, 20 foot 2 inch tall one unit residential building with an unauthorized dwelling unit and construct the new project as mr. embridge described. the subject property lies at 249 texas street, parcel block 4001, plot 17a in the -- neighborhood, rh2 zoning district. prior to the permit application being submitted, a historic resource assessment was conducted which determined that the existing building is not a historic resource. a copy of this assessment was included in your packet. as noted in the staff report, the department has received much public comment on the proposal. the public comments have included concerns over the

building's character, impacts to light, air circulation and privacy, traffic, noise and debris which may occur during construction, environmental impacts from development on the slope, concerns on potential displacement from the subject property, inaccurate characterization of the house being dilapidated, history of rent control at this site, legalization costs inaccurate based on comps, concerns over notification procedures, disagreement with the historic resource assessment, and misrepresentation of information, and general challenges with sponsor communication. one letter in full support of the project has also been received. the proposed project is modern in character and fully compliant with the planning code. overall the department finds the project to be necessary and desirable for the neighborhood. the proposal [indiscernible] compliant housing unit to prevent the loss of a rent

controlled unit the project sponsors are willing to impose a restriction on the project such that the two net new units -- sorry, such as the two new units will be subject to the rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance. staff have since issuance of this staff report the incorporation of an additional condition of approval, as well as a modification of another conditional approval, are proposed as follows. community liaison prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the project and implement the approved use, the project sponsor shall appoint a community liaison officer to deal with the issues of concern to owners and occupants of nearby properties. the project sponsor shall provide the zoning administrator and all registered neighborhood groups of the area with written notice of the name, business address and telephone number of

the community liaison. should the contact information change, the zoning administrator and registered neighborhood groups shall be made aware of such change. the community liaison shall report to the zoning administrator what issues, if any, are of concern to the community and what issues have not been resolved by the project sponsor. and secondly, a modification to the rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance commission -- condition, sorry, as required by california sb330, the projects shall be subject to the city's rent ordinance, administrative code chapter 37 and the project sponsor shall forward a restriction on the property record that both units shall be subject to the city's rent ordinance and shall comply with all applicable provisions of chapter 37 and california sp330. the department recommends approval with conditions of this

project, and the sponsor had made a presentation, but department staff and the sponsor are available for questions, and i believe we'll now pass it to the organized opposition presentations. thank you. >> thank you, mr. westoff. mr. bowden, i am unmuting your phone. are you with us, mr. bowden? >> yes, we're with you. hi. >> okay, and you have your three speakers lined up? >> we sure do. we're all here. >> okay. you have six minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. here together is myself, kathleen block, who represents the four units rent controlled buildings and -- matt bowden of 243 texas street. 249 texas street has long been a two-unit dwelling despite the sponsor's misrepresenting this fact on public record on march 4.

commissioner tanner, the sponsor stated that the second unit has been legally removed when in fact they never abated the permit to remove the unit. the second unit includes three bedrooms, is nearly one half the square footage of the entire current home, was re-modeled in 2016 and has a decades' long history of providing rent controlled affordable housing to tenants of the owners of that second unit. pages 10 through 12 of our brief show this project only five of the 18 criteria for demolition. >> hi, this is matt. the planned unit is not consistent with the size or shape of any other family homes on this street, and especially our home at 243 texas. alex, can you please show slide one now. looks like it's being shown. okay, great. and then now can you show slide 2, alex. they can see in the first slide the street, and here is the second slide, which shows that

home which comes in and towers over. the planned home does not actually increase housing stock. it has a smaller second unit with less bedrooms and the second unit is intended for family visitors, not for renters. the sponsors claim that it costs too much to renovate the existing unit because an excavation is required to raise the ceiling height. however, the former owner asserts that the ceiling heights are at least eight feet. the sponsors claims regarding ceiling height are suspect and should be independently investigated by the planning department, given the sponsors have already deceived the commission before. in addition to the second unit, another instance of deception is in regard to the tenant's displacement during the pandemic eviction moratorium. the sponsors' attempt to distract from the fact by providing irrelevant information. for example, focusing on a short tenancy in common of the prior owner. the fact remains they plan to demolish a two-unit structure

that could continue to provide affordable rent-controlled housing. >> the sponsors have not communicated or compromised with any neighbor during the planning process, despite the enormous impact the monster home will have. alex, please show slide three. their planned home towered over our own, impacts both our light and privacy and blocks the central light well in the adjacent building at 251 texas. alex, please show slide 4. most recently, on april 30, we asked the sponsor -- [indiscernible] this deck comes right up to our property line and provides a close and unobstructed view into the skylights to look into our master bedroom, hallways and bedroom. on the slide you'll see the red arrow indicating where the sponsors will stand on their deck and peer right into our home. this issue was noted by commissioners tanner and moore at the last hearing. we asked the sponsors if they would make a compromise.

they said no. this is but one of numerous examples of the sponsors' rejecting compromise. instead they are focused on issues. the owner's single communication with us -- i'm sorry, 15 months after we expressed concerns and immediately prior to last hearing was to offer cash that would alter our own home contingent upon withdrawing opposition. they would rather have us modify our own home, a well-maintained original victorian, than change a single aspect of their own not-yet-built home. the deception and smoke and mirrors that you experienced at the last hearing is what we have dealt with the last 18 months. the sponsor lied on the record. they should be held accountable. we ask you commissioners to consider our request for changes outlined on page 3 of the executive summary. we neighbors are unified in our requests. most importantly, we request that the planned home be built no higher than the existing structure.

as pointed out by the architect last time, the roof height is a mere 4.5 feet higher than the existing home. on the slide, the blue line shows the proposed versus existing height. this small reduction would present no limitation to their maximizing density and achieving the same square footage as they would lower each floor by as little as 14 inches to achieve this goal. however, this small compromise for them would address multiple concerns for us. two upper units at the apartment at 251 texas would retain their light well and open air, and our house would continue to receive sunlight through skylights and windows into rooms where we live and work. a shorter structure would also address other neighbors' concerns because it would truly conform to the sloping topography of the street and to the size of all two-family homes here. we ask that the deck on the top floor of the planned home be removed as discussed and request the roof deck be removed also.

there is ample open space for the upper unit and plans already call for the elevators to terminate at the ground level. lastly, we ask that you reconsider the length of the planned home so it's the same as the existing home and it won't block light into our office where we both work remotely 100% of the time as public health workers. nor will it block light from the deck. we ask you, commissioners, to please intervene to ensure an equitable outcome for all. while we didn't feel that this build is right and it goes against the sf general plan and the mandates of that plan, we have been told time and time from the planning commission -- i'm sorry, from the planning department at all levels that we're not going to be listened to and we must compromise, so we at least ask you to moderate a compromise. and very lastly, i just want to let you know that though this has been a big problem in this case, right now the notice on the -- >> thank you, that is your time. >> okay. >> okay, members of the public, this is your opportunity to

speak to this matter by pressing star then 3. through the chair you will be provided with one minute. >> hello, commissioners. the previous owner has asked me to stand in for him today to clarify some misleading claims made by the sponsor. ernesto said contemporary to the sponsors -- contrary to the sponsors claims i lived in the first and bottom unit. it is not dilapidated and i sent him picture of the remodel too. the new owners brought up in the brief my tenancy in common which lasted for a few months as a distraction. it does not change the fact. it is a second-family dwelling and there was a history of rent controlled tenancies. i provided evidence of those to the planning department and the commissioners. the ceiling heights stated are inaccurate and another deception to get around the fact that criteria is not met to demolish. also last time commissioner moore expressed concern about a sidewalk tree, but there is

another 40-foot fruit bearing avocado tree that deserves to be preserved in the backyard. thank you. >> i am leila, a mother of four who lives two houses down from this proposed building. despite our proximity, we have been excluded from communications on this project. we were not given notice of the continuance that has been rescheduled multiple times. on march 4, we were told the continuance would be delayed until april 15, but we have not heard anything since, and even the notice on the buildings have not alert neighbors of today's hearing. all neighbors who contacted the architect received a canned response asserting that we need to accept that, quote, construction in an urban environment is not pleasant. san francisco is urban, yes, but our neighborhood is mostly residential. it's families whose needs should also be considered. by a long-time resident to actually already lived here be in favor of newcomers with more money and influence. the sponsors made absolutely no

attempt to compromise to adjust plans since the last hearing, even after some commissioners themselves had concerns about the impacts. here is what we are asking. please reconsider demolishing a two-family dwelling to erect a one-family mansion not in scale or character with the other single-family homes on the street. thank you. >> hi, my name is kristen, and i've been following this case for a while. it was featured in our local newspaper here. it says the proposed unit will be subject to rent control, so it doesn't matter that the sponsor is offering to follow the rent ordinance, because the new unit meets the criteria for rent control. but i think we need to understand what is really happening here. it's a fake concession. the sponsor has stated no intention to rent but offers up this fact: we need to take reality of what the results will be if you approve this building, and that would be yet another approval made in violation of

san francisco's general plan. i urge you to listen to the neighbors on this case and read beyond the code. thank you. >> hi name is juniper and i'm 14 years old. i live on texas street near the building that is being discussed. a lot of my neighbors are upset that this build that is going to happen will be disruptive to our lives. i am starting high school this year and i'm scared that it will be hard to concentrate on my homework with this sound from the construction nearby. we are asking for the commissioners to intervene and mediate some compromises from the new owners. even though they call 249 texas an illegal unit, that was someone's home that was made before these codes existed. it housed a really nice family, our neighbors, for many years. hearing that unit called illegal feels dismiss to ernesto and his family. kind of feels like you are calling them illegal. they are people. please respect that. thank you.

>> i'm clementine. i'm 12 years old and live two doors down from the proposed build. there are quite a few people living in this neighborhood with health concerns. cancers, autoimmune diseases and more. two members of my family have asthma, including me. life would be easier for many of us here on texas and mississippi streets if the new owners could spend time empathizing with the realities of people who live here and how they would be affected by an 18-month unnecessary excavation and demolition of a home. also my two cats will be terrified by this construction project. please keep all of us in mind as you respond to this proposal. i just want to be able to breathe. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aussie rel with san francisco i

am youth coalition. two rent controlled units in a city whose general plan policy is a preservation and not the demolition of such units. there's a long history of tenant occupancy in this building. previous owner and the tenants union rep can both attest to that. whether or not current tenants who are short-term renters agree to vacate the premises does not change the fact. and furthermore, the owners claim that the unit cannot be legalized is not valid. the unit has legal floor-to-ceiling heights and can easily be legalized. also, the owners promised to put the replacement luxury units under rent control is preposterous. this commission has no authority to stipulate this as part of their approval condition as the city attorney can attest to that. so let's be clear. should you approve the demolition of two rent-controlled units, you are

not upholding the general plan policy of the city whose planning commission you've been appointed to. that's why we urge you to just say no to this demolition. >> thank you. that's your time. >> rent controls -- >> good afternoon, commissioners. sponsors say they will submit their new unit to the rent stabilization arbitration ordinance as some sort of concession for taking away rent-controlled housing. however, the planning department has claimed it cannot make determinations about rent board issues, which creates the impression that the department is uncertain if they are removing rent-controlled units or not. this impression is both misleading and entirely false concerning the planning department's purview. section 317 legally requires the department to determine if a project will remove rent-controlled housing and to examine the permit history. sponsors framing this as a compromise on their part is misleading because they have already said they have no intention of renting the unit.

every two month the owners change their story about what the second unit is intended for, trying to skirt around an illegal demolition. furthermore, a single family of three requiring a 4,000 square foot estate to care for one parent is absurd and outside the lived realities of san franciscans. thank you. >> i'm elliott. for two months the notice posted on 249 texas street erroneously notifies the public that the cua hearing is on april 15, 2021. this poster implies that the hearing already passed and that citizens no longer have the opportunity to participate. there should have been a cua hearing notice posted 20 days prior to this june 3 hearing continuing. additionally, no neighbors within the 300-foot radius received a notice in the mail of the cua. the spirit of section 333 and the sunshine ordinance is to give the public the opportunity

to participate in scheduled hearings. it states that surrounding neighbors should receive notifications of all scheduled hearings, policies don't state that this applies to only the first scheduled cua for the same subject building. a whole new set of stats came to light at the last hearing and new notice is warranted. any ambiguous language and notice requirements should be interpreted in favor of public participation, not against it. thank you. [please stand by]

these are rent controlled units. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm kyle. at the prior hearing the sponsors to apply for permit to abate a second unit told the commissioners the opposite, that the unit did not exist. how often are architects and their clients getting away with this kind of behavior while everyone looks away? the sponsor has recently submitted new paperwork, but the planners need to investigate the reality of what is in the document. maybe planners should come here,

protect the street and verify. the whole fiasco has created additional work for the planning department as well as the neighbors and opposition groups. also, has anyone even tried to find these tenants that supposedly moved out of the city, but we know live down the block. thanks for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is bruce. this project is part of a familiar and disturbing pattern. data underlying the analysis last year regarding changes made to section 317 show that during a recent time period 40% of the demolition of the relevant buildings in san francisco were projects of mr. min and others have been in heights. these involve demo of sound housing on dubious claims. they have in some cases provided

less than equitable second units. and those projects have not involved tenants, the rendering of the fabric of the neighborhood -- please listen carefully to the neighbors and stop this destructive pattern of behavior. thank you. >> hi. my father and i own 231 texas street three doors down from the proposed building. we did not receive a notice of this hearing even though a brand new set of facts were presented at the last hearing. further, the notice on the building says april 15. it seems as though the planning department is discouraging public participation. as i said last time, my family has long history here on texas street, 115 years, leading back

to my great grandparents who built our victorian in 1906. they heard us pleading with communication and compromise and nothing changed at all from the march 4 hearing to now, except perhaps the slandering of the prior owner. i find it these owners would want to move in where everyone is up set at them. especially if they plan on living here in the neighborhood. i ask that you not ignore us. i ask that you not just continue to talk about basement rooms and square footage and actually consider about the lives and the long-term effects that you're having on us and our neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you, ma'am, that is your time. >> commissioners, well, i should ask, members of the public, if you wish to speak to this

matter, this is last call for public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. okay. >> i just beg you not to ignore us, please. >> okay, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of this hearing. and the matter is now before you. i have another late request for comment. you have one minute. if you've already spoken, you don't get a second bite of the apple. >> this is layla, i'm councillor with the san francisco tenants union. they've tried to down play what

happened. i want to convince you that the second unit was not a habitable space, cannot be brought up to code and therefore should be demolished. the tenants union database sounds the tenant sought counseling after the application date of the permits. the tenant says she lived in a two-bedroom with a total rent of $3800. that's a healthy rent for what they claim needs to be demolished. they claimed they left the city of their own volition to find a backyard for their dog. neighbors came forward last time implying these tenants who are from another country felt buelled and left under duress. thank you.

>> i do need the light well slide up. i manage a property at 251 texas street and represent the tenants there. they asked how to mitigate the concerns about the excessive light that shines directly through the tenants windows. the sponsor said the glass would be obscure and opaque, but this is not true. there are sidelight that will not be obscured. it will be clear glass and less than five feet away from the tenants' windows and it will shine excessive light, if not more at night.

essentially illuminating at night. the sponsor is unwilling to compromise and we're asking you to intervene and reduce the number of in their lightwell. >> my name is gavin murphy. i know there is a lot of information mentioned about this project. i'm just wondering if attention has been paid to the fact whether or not this will be a two unit building. it's been confusing whether it will be a single unit or a two-unit building where it's only available to the in-laws, not rented to the market. that is a critical concern for the planning commission whether this two-unit building will be torn down and replaced with a

one-unit building, best case one unit with in-laws visiting. that should be looked at seriously and evaluated in the permitting process. and i would like to know what the resolution on that is. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, that concludes the public comment portion of this hearing and the matter is now before you. waiting for others to chime in, i'll express my support for staff recommendation. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i did have a few questions. about the notice we heard complaints about the noticing. my guess is that part of our noticing is that we do have the initial notice of the hearing which was held and then the item was continued, then continued several times. is a new poster required or is

the idea that those interested will follow the case and the continuances which have been to date certain? if you'd like to respond to that. >> commissioner tanner, happy to address the question. that's correct. so when an item is continued from the first hearing, we do not provide new noticing. basically the idea is you should be able to look at the commission's agenda and see the chain. we did conduct new neighborhood notice for this project when the udu was uncovered. so a new set of neighborhood notice for the original hearing was completed to basically clarify the project scope at the time. so after the first hearing we did undertake new neighborhood notice that addressed the udu requirement. >> thank you. and so the product sponsor was not required to post a new sign with a new notice -- with the new hearing date?

well, many hearing dates because it's been continued a couple of times. that was not required of the sponsor. >> that's right, commissioner tanner. the commission's agenda essentially comprises the new noticing and satisfies that requirement of noticing. and given the fact that we have organized opposition and the number of speakers it's clear that the neighborhood is aware of the project. >> i would agree with that and i want to make sure that the neighbors understand kind of how the city is noticing and process works for this type of item. so it can be confusing to some. i also wanted to note that i saw the appraiser kind of -- appraisal attached to the report, i believe, provided by the project sponsor. i did note that the appraiser, at least the time, this is back in 2019, did note some low ceiling heights in that second unit. so i wanted to say i understand that there has been assertion

that it is higher and then we have the professional appraiser putting his credibility to say that it is, i think it was between 6 or 7, just over 7 feet. i just want to put that out there as part of the information we've gotten as commissioners. i do want to understand a little bit more from the department about the rent control being applied to these two units and also sb330. my understanding is that both units are subject to rent control in agreement with the project sponsor and under sb30, the current tenants, even though they're short-term, would have the right to return to the completed unit and that the project sponsor must provide them with notice that they have that right and i'm assuming provide them notice when the unit is completed just that they could return. i see ms. connor here. do you want to provide insight into the rent control and sb330.

>>, of course. sb330, contains replacement and -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but if you could get closer to the mic, it's difficult to hear you. >> sorry. how about now? >> that's better. let's try that. >> so for sb330 that contains replacement and relocation of projects filed after january 1, 2020. this applies to what is deemed protected units and protected units include permanent deed restricted units, any units that were subject to price or rent control. any units occupied by tenants that were earning 80% ami or less. and the fourth category is units withdrawn from the market due to ellis within the last 10 years. so for this project considering the age of the building, we can presume and the existence of the

authorized dwelling unit, we can presume that the units are subject to rent control. therefore, they're considered protected units under sb330. when we look at the replacement of the units, we have to take into account the income level of the previous tenants. right now, the project sponsor has been able to confirm that the primary unit, the income level was 80% -- was over 80% ami, therefore, we would replace it with a unit that is subject to rent control. in terms of the unauthorized dwelling unit, the project sponsor is doing research to determine what that income level is. it is tricky information to obtain because we have to do a five-year lookback. so right now there is approval of the condition -- in terms of the actual relocation and right of first refusal, that only

applies to current occupants. that would be for the current tenants. >> thank you very much for that summary. i know that's a lot. hopefully, also the members of the public who are interested can follow that and see the staff report to understand more about those provisions. i did want to ask the project sponsor if the sponsor is available, we heard some testimony about the previous tenants that you rented to that they were requested to leave at your request because of nonpayment of rent and that it was under duress. can you respond to those assertions? do we have anyone from the sponsor. >> sorry, commissioner tanner, i need to find them and unmute them. are you available? >> yes, i am available. can you hear me now?

>> yes, we can. >> i'm sorry, the project sponsor, because of the technology, i've got mr. man scalpco on the phone, but what i can tell you is, there are two tenancies since the project sponsor purchased the building. both are for the upper unit. there were -- there was a couple in there that as we did indicate before, voluntarily left and because they wanted to relocate out of the city with the larger space. >> so you maintain they were not requested to leave at the request of the sponsor? >> absolutely not. in fact, we weren't trying to do sort of any back way because the project sponsor promptly re-rented it to another couple who are in there. and from whom you have a letter in your file where they

understood they're renting to are one year and intend to leave after the one year is up. >> commissioner tanner: okay, thank you. i'm generally supportive of the project. i would welcome design comments. it's not my area of expertise, but i am sensitive to the neighbors that have the skylight that is adjacent to the deck and that would be facing their skylight. otherwise, i'm appreciative and happy to see the much larger thousand plus square foot ground floor unit. rent control is very important and i take very seriously. even if the sponsor didn't change anything about the building, there is nothing that compels him to rent the second unit. they would not be compelled to legalize it. so i just want to present that, even if they kept the building as is, there is no requirement

they become landlords and rent out the unit. i do hope they rent out the second unit. i hope they rent it to a family or to an individual, whoever wants to rent it, but i know that's not something we can compel them to do beyond the boundaries of sb330. those are my comments. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner tanner, for your questions and comments. i have questions as well in terms of the rent control. so, under page 8, i believe under the demolition, residential demolition findings. i am baffled by the planning findings in terms of the project rental unit subject to rent and arbitration ordinance.

the department finds that the single-family home, under the rent stabilization arbitration argument, even when authorized dwelling unit. as far as i know this single-family home, even with an authorized dwelling unit will be subject into rent stabilization arbitration, or that means it is rent controlled. as far as my experience my other job is to let's say there is a current tenant in a udu and they have complaints to a landlord. they can go to the rent board and they can file a complaint. so, i'm wondering as to -- for the planning staff, whether they can answer on this issue on the status of this single-family home as not being determined on the rent board?

>> sure. commissioner imperial, i'm happy to answer any questions, but i might defer to our director or our housing specialist, kate connor, regarding the specific question on whether rent control applies to this specific property. obviously, we know that it is a single family dwelling with unauthorized dwelling unit. so we presume it would be subject to the rent control ordinance. correct me if i'm wrong, commissioner, director hillis. >> i was going to defer to kate because she and i had the exact conversation today. >> thank you. kate connor planning department staff. although it's not necessarily the purview of the planning department to make that determination, it is really the rent board. we can definitely say that it is the presumption that considering that there are two units in the building, that it would be subject to rent control.

>> commissioner -- sorry. i think that's consistent with your understanding as well, that it is subject to rent control. >> yes. what i'm talking about is the current project, or the current house, not the proposed project that will be subject under rent control under sb330. but the house right now as it is is under rent control and even an authorized dwelling unit. so i am just baffled -- i am pretty baffled by the statement in our packet that the planning department cannot determine whether or not the single-family home was an authorized dwelling unit is subject to rent stabilization, arbitration, ordinance. it seems to be -- we were trying to emphasize the replacement of units to rent control units when it is currently a rent control unit. so that is my point right here

in terms of our findings of rent control. and although i do -- i think in terms of the demolition of the -- again, the rent control unit, i think that we have, i believe, in the planning department, working through that when it comes to demolition. so, that's just -- that is my main concern that we are actually demolishing a rent-controlled unit. we should admit that. and i understand that it is going to be replaced under sb330 with a rent controlled -- the second unit. so that is my -- what i'm trying to cover here. >> yeah, and i think we are in agreement with you on that. sometimes the rent board is not as, you know, is not as clear on broadly what their policies are.

they like to look at buildings and make determinations case by case when it's before them. but correct me if i'm wrong, but we are -- we are in agreement that the units -- that the existing building with the udu is subject to rent control which then allows us to utilize sb330 and require that the new project, the two units be under and subject to the rent ordinance. >> yeah, also address the packet, you know, just because we do include standard language under advisement of the city attorney, regarding opining rent control. you know, as kate mentioned, it is something that is subject to the rent board specifically. so unless we get an affirmative declaration from them that states, you know, specific units are for the purposes of the planning commission motions, we don't make -- we don't recommend making those statements without

that affirmation. but, obviously, the commissioners are welcome to adjust the findings that are in the motion accordingly as you see fit. so... >> some of the public raised the issue, like we in the past have had difficult saying rent control will apply, either voluntarily or not by the project sponsor to a project. but in this case in work with the city attorney, to be able to do that through sb330, which is different than the way we did it in the past. that gives us that ability to require that the new units be subject to rent control. thank you for all the explanation, but i do see this as a concern in the future as well.

we're still going through that. i think we really need to be careful. i think the planning department really -- i think we need to have close relationship with the rent board or have, if anything, you know, what can we do in the planning department in order to preserve the rent control housing? whether single-family homes, because they are going to see that and already seen that. so those are my main concerns. my other concern -- thank you, director hillis, and ms. kate connor, is to the project sponsor in terms of the udu, when it comes to appraisal it's not financial visible which i am baffled as well. how is that not financial -- for the project sponsor?

i understand i see it in our packet, but i mean there is a proposal of rebuilding or construction of the two units. >> jonas? is my mic on. >> thank you, commissioner, for the question. so, since the last hearing, the department asked us to go through this analysis which the department outlines the rules for about what is the comparison between the cost of renovating the unit to the existing udu, to bring it up to code and make it a code-compliant unit versus the value of doing that. and that's where you bring in appraisers. so we had a contractor come out and give us an estimate which was approximately $400,000 to do

the work that would be required to bring that unit up to code. appraiser concluded that the added value to that -- to the overall building to bring the unit up to code would be approximately $100,000. so you have to spend $400,000 to create $100,000 of value which is the basis of considering that is not a feasible way to pursue. i think the staff could also respond to that. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> vice president moore: this is designed as a single-family home, and if that leaves a question, my question to you is will the title to the project be amended to become -- to be a two-unit building. >> well, there will be a restriction reported on the project that specifies that it is two controlled units. it will maintain the way it is today. there are separate entrances, but obviously, the elevator will facilitate the 81-year-old mother who doesn't need to be used by [inaudible] in the future. >> vice president moore: unfortunately, the need for rent controlled units is now,

but i'm glad that you say they would remain rent controlled units. those are my comments. i'm happy to hear other comments. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm happy with the changes that were made since last hearing. i just want to confirm, these meet our residential design guidelines. >> yes. >> commissioner diamond: and so whether or not the owner stays there or not, this is two code complying units that we are creating at this spot, create, each of which is rent

controlled? >> yes, correct. >> commissioner diamond: and they stay rent controlled? >> yes. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so with all of that, i am in favor of the project. i would be receptive to any design changes that other commissioners might want to propose with respect to the sky light if they feel that something could be done with that, but i am in favor of the project. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you. i just want to thank everyone for bringing back this project. i am generally leaning towards supporting this resides project, knowing that it's a two-unit building, it's going to be subject to the rent ordinance. i do want to follow up on commissioner moore's comments,

that if this building is under rent control, that we put the specifically language in there. it might not take too much effort to add a sentence or two to codify that for this particular site. i also want to ask about this because we've been talking about this, but what would it take to work in coordination with the rent board

[inaudible]. >> director hillis: -- but our questions, but i think that we're comfortable with kind of your request to say that this building as it is today is, you know, subject to the rent ordinance. it's a single-family but has a u.d.u., and again, i think that's an unusual circumstance, but from all indications, from -- from the personnel at the rent board, that's subject -- >> clerk: commissioner chan, if i may interject, as well, the rent control ordinance is hardly cut and dry. we've had the director of the rent board come and provide an informational presentation, and it was fairly clear that each case is an individual determination on a case-by-case basis. >> director hillis: just to give you some of the complications is, you know, if

the u.d.u. was added to the built post 1979 or in the 90s, you know, that may make it not subject to the rent restrictions. the. >> commissioner chan: okay. so it's very complicated, it's a case-by-case basis. it sounds like, as a department, we do consult with the rent board. maybe we can include that in the packets going forward so as those questions come up, we can answer those questions for the rent board, you know, for each project. to seems -- it seems that we

should have that information moving forward on an on going progress. >> director hillis: if we can include it, we will continue to do so. >> commissioner chan: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: move to grant the conditional use. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: commissioner fung, there was a request from commissioner chan to include findings related to the rent control ordinance. >> commissioner fung: i think that's been answered. >> clerk: okay. in that case, if there's nothing further, there has been a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-2, with commissioners imperial and more voting against, and just to be clear, that included conditions recommended by staff. commissioners, that will place us on the final item on today's agenda. the d.r. portion of 2455 harrison has been withdrawn, leaving us for 10-a, 2019-006578-s.h.d. at 2455 harrison street. this is four shadow findings. mr. westhoff?

>> hello again, commissioners. the subject property lies on the east side of harrison street between 20 and 21 streets, lot 26 of assessor's block 4084, district nine. the subject property is located within the urban mixed use zoning district. the proposed project is the construction of a four-story over basement 48-foot tall, 11,125 square foot mixed use building. floors one and two, as well as a portion of the basement, will be used for nonlife science company, and floors three and

four will be used for residential units. a shadow study was conducted to determine the effects of the proposed shadow on the recreation center. the study concluded that the amount of net new shadow on the recreation center would be 406,324 annual new net square feet of shadow, thus increasing shadow 4.5% over current levels. it could cast shadow across a portion of the southern soccer field and parking lot until 7:00 a.m., however, the recreation center does not open until 10:00 a.m. on march 25, 2021, a hearing

was held before the planning commission. for the project to move forward, the commission must adopt findings with the recommendation of the recreation and park commission that the need -- net new shadow cast by the proposed project would not adversely affect the recreation center. the staff recommends approval of the findings, and the project sponsor will now make a presentation. >> clerk: mr. morris, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. toby morris, architect, representing the project sponsor. could i have the slides? thank you. the proposed project is located on the east side of harrison street between 20 and 21

street. it involves the removal of a small one story auto repair shop, replacing it with a four-story mixed use building compatible with the district in which it resides. next slide. building has been designed to fit in with the local context and neighborhood character. we've worked with the urban design advisory team and local community organizations to meet this goal. this project is compliant with the planning code -- [inaudible] -- sorry? the building is code compliant with the planning code and therefore we're not seeking any

additional use. a nonlicense science lab space principally permitted and allowed in this space and residential units will be in the upper units. next slide. here's the view from the rear. next slide. in early 2020, a shadow consultant evaluated the net new shadow impact on the mission rec center across the street. next slide. most of the rec center program is inside the rec center building. there's an outdoor soccer field and parking lot on the site. the earliest mission rec center opens on any day is 9:00 a.m. the shadow analysis found that the most shadow occurs at 7:16

a.m. on july 19, and the proposed shadow never reaches the soccer field after 8:30 a.m., and the parking area, not an area of concern for rec and park, experiences the last shadow at 9:15. on march 19, the full commission concurred, unanimously adopting and recommending to this commission that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the rec center. thank you for your time. >> clerk: if that concludes sponsor presentation, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your chance to provide public comment by pressing star, three. once you hear that your line has been unmuted, you can begin

speaking. you'll have two minutes. >> hi. i'm calling the bulk of the penthouse structure. i believe that modifications to the design of the penthouse, including reducing the bulk of the stairs and removing the roof covered area would reduce the bulk of the building that casts a significant shadow to the east and west of the building, including my building, 832 alabama street. the planning code [inaudible] of 16 feet, limited to the footprint of the elevator shaft. it's unclear from this submission whether this is an elevator shaft or a stair penthouse or something else, however, there is also an additional covered area beyond

the stairs beyond the elevator shaft that does not seem to be permitted by code, and i was wondering if either the planner or sponsor to address the space. it would be much appreciated if -- by the neighbors if it could be addressed before or after. the project is a fifth story, and including the mezzanine, it's a six story monster that the neighbors would be impacted by. i know that the developer has taken great care to do setbacks in the rear, which is very much appreciated, and it is hopeful that the developer if they would be willing to consider to

reduce the size of the penthouse, for example, lowering the height of the elevator shaft and the bulk of the staircase which occupies about a third -- >> clerk: thank you, that is your time. >> would you like me to respond to this? >> clerk: this is not a question-and-answer period, mr. morris, so unless the commissioners ask a direct question of you, you are not required to answer. sorry to interrupt you. >> hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> yes. i live directly next door at 2453 harrison street, and

nowhere on the plans does it show that the building would completely take over our windows, and we would like the people to change their plans, taking into account whether this is an alleyway between 2453 or 2455. also, the building on 2455 harrison street takes away most of the ventilation in our house, as well. also, we have concerns for the construction and debris. they'd have to reconstruct our windows. there is an existing structure of a one-story building. we would like for them to build no larger than that. please, i'm asking the commission to please intervene. i don't know if this is legal,

but if it is, it shouldn't be. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter? seeing no additional members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is now closed, and this matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: yes, i would like mr. morris to speak to the questions by the commenter. i was very interested in that question. the building itself is not before us, i know, but the shadow findings are. >> mr. westhoff, i believe we had pictures at the end of our slide in case this issue came up. i'm hoping there's a roof plan -- that last one --

[inaudible]. so i know this is a little small, but basically, you have an elevator shaft with a 16-foot overrun, and sometimes, depending on the size, you can get that down to 15 or 14.5, and then, we have the two stair penthouses with 7.5, maybe eight-foot head room with daylight. the additional structure that the caller was referring to, i'm not sure whether he's talking about a small overhang at the -- or enclosure at the elevator landing or a -- an exhaust vent that is also at that roof level. so, i mean my sense is that we design this to sort of the minimum standards that we've

been doing this for decades and working closely with the planning department to minimize elevator and penthouse shafts, so it's a small footprint. it's a 25-foot wide lot. we did move the elevator shaft and the penthouse to the southside for the benefit of the d.r. requester to the north, but that's kind of where we are. >> vice president moore: thank you very much for that explanation. the drawing is a little bit heard to see -- hard to see, but one can identify the elevator shaft and the equipment based on how you describe it. would you mind answering, what is a nonlife science laboratory? >> well, it's a light p.d.r. it's associated with laboratory

use, you know, not of biological nature. alex, maybe you have a more specific code definition for that. >> yeah, we think we can pull up the planning code. there's a pretty lengthy definition for what that is. certain uses are not permitted in the districts but other sorts of laboratory uses are, so we're happy to share that if that would be helpful. i just need a minute to pull it up.

>> vice president moore: also, i'm just curious that this use is compatible with residential. we're not really talking about the building, our discussion is to focus on the shadow. i believe that the shadow explanation is sufficient given that it's on the soccer field at a time when it's not used. i hope that does not set precedent. principally, i do not support shadow on any public open space, but this one is minimal, and i'm in support of it.

>> just to respond, there is a definition of life science in the planning code, and it's several sentences, but to summarize, a nonretail sales and service use. that includes advanced engineering and advanced life science techniques, to analyze and detect various illnesses, design of projects that combat illnesses, so essentially, the nonlife science laboratory use would include the other laboratory uses that are permitted in the code under the laboratory definition. >> vice president moore: okay. thank you so much for that. i'm in support of the project and move to approve. >> president koppel: second. commissioner tanner?

>> commissioner tanner: yes. i'm in support, but the one caller was very distressed about the windows adjacent to the property. the windows seemed to be property line windows, which my understanding is those are not subject to protection. i don't know if the project sponsor can speak to any conversations that they have had with that building or may have had with that building regarding those property line windows. i'm just curious if that's something you've done or plan to do, and if that gentleman in the building is someone you may be speaking with. can you speak to that? >> i can. i can. >> commissioner tanner: great. >> that is the subject matter of the d.r. that was withdrawn. the adjacent dwelling unit in that building only has property line windows, so while it is functioning as a dwelling unit, it does not have code complying

light and air by the building code, so there were a lot of conversations around that. of course if that dwelling unit had been completed with a permit, an ad-009 would have been filed which would have made it clear that those windows would have been closed up in the event that our building was expanded, and ultimately, the owner of that building dropped that d.r. for reasons around those kinds of issues. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. so if the caller is still there, you may want to speak with your landlord about that unit. certainly, i sense your emotion. it's very real, but the topic

of that is no longer before us, so i'm fully in support of adopting these findings. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, seeing no further requests to speak from other commissioners, there is a motion that's been seconded to adopt shadow findings. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 and concludes your agenda for this first hearing in june already. i would like to take this opportunity to remind you, except commissioner chan, that you have a closed session scheduled for 10:00 a.m. next thursday, so there will likely be a small break between the closed session and the regular

hearing. >> vice president moore: i haddy -- i'd like to wish commissioner chan a good leave of absence. >> thank you. >> vice president moore: bye-bye. >> commissioner tanner: bye-bye.

infrastructure. >> this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure, tuesday, june 1, 2021. welcome to members of the public streams or listening live as well as staff and those presenting today's meeting. following the guidelines set by local and state officials the members of this commission are meeting remotely to ensure safety of everyone including members of the public. thank you for joining us today. >> call the first item. >> 1. roll call. commission members please respond. commissioner brackett. >> present. >> commissioner bycer. >> here. >> commissioner scott is absent. vice chair rosales. >> present. >> chair bustos.