so, first of all, thank you all for coming here today. we appreciate the presence of labor and the building trades. thank you, rudy gonzalez, and larry mazzola jr. for joining us. we know that army morgan has a rich and deep history with labor not just as the business representative for local three, but also serving, you know, as a liaison for the building trades, for the labor counsel. we know that having an

important voice to represent labor on our commission is significant and sadly we lost one of those voices and tony rodriguez who we all knew and love, he was an incredible person and we definitely feel the loss, but we also know that he would be happy and proud that you would be serving in the capacity to step in and serve with our good commissioners that are joining us here today. and those who serve on the commission will be the ones that provide you with guidance and help during this process as well as our good chief. the fire commission is near and dear to my heart as many of you know and thank you to supervisor safai for joining us as well. it's near and dear to my heart heart.

i served for two years before i was elected to the board of supervisors. making sure that you listen on the fire commission and listening to the men and women of the department that you're working hand in hand with the chief. the department has many challenges. we've got to get this training facility open. we have to make sure we deal with ambulance response times and continue to support the important work of serving and protecting the city and county of san francisco. it is a great honor to serve on this prestigious commission, one that is highly coveted by so many people and so of all the many people that wanted this opportunity, of course, you were chosen mostly for your work with labor, but also for your commitment to providing opportunity to people of san francisco especially your work with city build and how you've worked hand in hand to ensure that the next generation of

young people growing up in this city have real access to good paying labor jobs especially in the trade. so we know it's not easy work, but we know you're committed to that work and the same i think work ethic that you brought to labor and in your role is going to be very similar to what you bring to the fire department and our desires to try and ensure that people and young folks growing up in this city have access to these incredible opportunities. i know the chief is very much committed to this and so i know she's going to be very thrilled to have a partner who will help her in this effort. at this time, i'm going to ask you to come forward and then we're going to swear you in and then we're going to hear a few words from you as commissioner morgan. with that, come on up. where are we expected to stand? okay. let's do it. all right.

you can take off your mask and keep a little distance there. all right. so please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, state your name, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic that i bare true faith and allegiance to the same that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to

enter and during such time as i serve as a commissioner for the fire department of the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [cheers and applause] >> here's your official city pin now. please wear it now along with your local three pin. you can wear them both at the same time if you want. so with that, commissioner morgan, please say a few words. >> thank you, mayor breed. i didn't expect all of this. thank you and this is a great honor to serve on this commission. it's a great honor to, you know, try to fill the shoes of tony rodriguez as a replacement, i take it as an honor. and i'd like to thank everybody

for coming. the fire chief and the other commissioners and supervisor safai and this is a very big honor for me. you know, i've been serving in labor for the last almost ten years and, you know, trying to fight the good fight to keep people working in the city and i try to tell the kids 'dirty hands, clean money' it's all good money. keep out of trouble and make a good living wage and have some integrity in your life, you know, because that's what union work has done for me. you know, i'm a union person. my family was union.

my father drove for the muni for 20 years. my grandfather, his father was part of the laborers union. i won't say that too loud. i think he worked on the golden gate bridge or the bay bridge, one of them. he might of worked on both of them. so i'm kind of like third generation. i've always considered san francisco my home even though i moved away when i was 15 even though i've come back in stints but i've always considered san francisco my home. i won't bore you. i'm not great at public speaking. i want to say thanks again and i'll turn it back over to the mayor. [ applause ] >> greetings everyone and welcome and congratulations. we are so happy to have you aboard the san francisco fire commission and thank you, mayor breed, as always for giving us

another star and, yes, we all loved and miss tony rodriguez but we will all help guide you along the way and i think it will be an interesting ride for you. so we look forward to it. so, again, congratulations and thank every one of your labor pals for being here and as well as our commissioners and command staff. so welcome aboard, commissioner morgan. [ applause ]

>> and, mr. covington, since our president is not joining us here today, as the president of the commission would you like to welcome him. oh, well, of course. >> thank you very much, madam mayor, for that occasion and this honor. i wanted to congratulate commissioner morgan. i stand here with your fellow commissioner. it's going to be a really wonderful experience that you're going to be having. the fact that you are taking the spot of tony rodriguez was

very important. i was able to finish off his term as vice president. you know join us as his labor representative, but more than that, a san franciscan. and we know your contribution to our team is going to be wonderful. commissioner covington. >> thank you, sir. it's wonderful that you're going to be joining us. we do need a full complement of commissioners. there is a lot of work to be done and i know from what i have heard that you are well-able, and up to the task. we have many things that need to be done and we are, as a commission, we are a cohesive group, we are of one mind that we are serving our city as citizen volunteers and a very

sometimes challenging but always rewarding role. so welcome welcome. [ applause ] >> we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant

community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said

attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible

to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies

it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i

already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing). >> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise

your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i

said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself

there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this worthwhile. >> ♪♪ ♪♪remote hearing require

everyone's attention and you're patience. sfgovtv is broadcasting this hearing live. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 1-415-655-0001. enter access code 2491 678 1281. when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your

indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i will announce your time is up and take the next person. best practices are to call from a quiet location, please mute the volume on television or computer. i'd like to take roll. >> president koppel: here. >> vice president moore: here. >> commissioner diamond: here. >> commissioner fung: here. >> commissioner imperial: here. >> commissioner tanner: here. >> thank you, commissioners. we do expect commissioner chan to be absent today. first is items proposed for continuance. items 1a and b, for the property at 2867 san bruno avenue,

conditional use authorization and variances are continued to november 4, 2021. 460 vallejo street, proposed for november 18. 1433 diamond street has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of the items proposed for continuance by pressing star 3 to be added to

the queue. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is closed. and the items proposed for continuance are now before you. >> commissioner imperial: move to continue all items as proposed. >> second. >> thank you, to move that motion -- >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. aye. >> president koppel: aye. that motion passes us unanimously. >> president koppel: i will also continue 1b for 2867 san bruno

to november 4. now we can move to the consent calendar. all matters listed consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission. there will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the staff requests. the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately. item 4, case number, 6243, 6202 third street. and item 5, 2040 fillmore street, a conditional use authorization. members of the public, if you would like either of these two consent calendar items to be heard at the end of the agenda, please press star 3 to request that either of them or both of

them be removed. seeing no request to speak, they are now before you. >> commissioner diamond: yes, i wanted to let the commissioners know that i have an indirect interest in a small number of at&t shares. at&t is the project sponsor on item 4 on the agenda. i believe i fall under the small shareholder exception or don't have economic interest as defined by the regulations, but these regulations are fact-specific and complex and i lack the access and resources to obtain the answer with 100% certainty. there is a lack of information in the advice letters how to interpret some of these issues. so out of abundance of caution, i would like to recuse myself

from voting on the third street item. >> thank you. correct me if i'm wrong, we'd entertain a motion. >> jonas: we should, since this is unclear. if it's certain that commissioner diamond should be recusing herself, we don't need a motion, but in this case, it sounds like we should. >> vice president moore: move to recuse commissioner diamond for voting on that matter. >> second. >> thank you, on that motion when to recuse commissioner? >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> president koppel: aye. so moved. commissioners, you're hereby recused commissioner diamond for the third street matter. i believe we should take that matter first.

>> commissioner imperial: move to approve item 4. >> second. >> jonas: thank you on that motion to approve item 4, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> vice president moore: aye. >> president koppel: aye. that motion passes unanimously and the ethics commission requires that you submit the reason why you requested to be recuse, commissioner diamond, and submit that electronically. do i hear a motion for item 5? >> commissioner tanner: move to approve item 5. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, on that motion to approve item 5 under consent calendar? >> commissioner tanner: aye.

>> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. so moved, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0 and will place us under commission matters. 6, commission comments and questions. if there are no comments or with questions from commissioners, we can move on to item 7, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, no announcements today. >> jonas: item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> the committee considered supervisor peskin's ordinance that would -- this was heard

last week and continued because of substantive changes to be made to the ordinance. linda chapman had concerns. this was recommended to the full board. they heard supervisor stefani's ordinance that amends the gary ma signic. -- or anywhere in san francisco, if not allocated within two years of payment. the commission waived their opportunity to hear the item because it was incorporating a recommendation made in january of 2020. it was to earmark collected impact fees for district 2 or the vicinity. during the hearing, supervisor stefani requested two amendments to expand to a mile and a half in order to include more of district 2 and to increase the

allocation time frame from two years to five years. commended supervisor stefani on the efforts. there were no public comments. supervisor preston made a motion for the two amendments described and clerical amendments. these passed unanimously. they voted to forward the item to the full board. considered the landmark designation of the bar at 396 12th street. as san francisco longest running leather bar. it will be the 7th city landmark associated with lgbtq history. they voted in support of the recommendation in may of this year and the committee voted to recommend the designation to the full board. lastly, the committee held a hearing on short-term rental

registration. this hearing was called by of is peskin. zoning administrator reported on the current state of the immediate lane occupancy program, noting that the lack of applicants has made reporting impossible. the rent board also reported on their role in implementing the intermediate lane occupancy program. then sanchez, who manages the rental team provided a report. supervisor peskin had questions about the total number of applicants filed and the number of approval, denials and withdrawals. regulations concerning the pending application. supervisor peskin also had questions on the penalties and noted discrepancy between what was reported in the 2018 report

and the current report. committed to providing explanation for the discrepancy and will meet with his staff. other comments focused on the implementation of the ill program, noting concerns. because of the outstanding questions with the i.l.l., supervisor peskin made a motion to continue the hearing to the call of the chair. the landmark designation for sundial park passed the second read. the landmark designation for the making of a fresco showing the building in a city, done by rivera and sponsored by supervisor peskin passed first read. the appeal of the conditional use was continued at the request

of the appellant and project sponsor. the board did hear the c.u. for farrell street. a new c.u. was required for the project because they wanted to change the budget from 176 dwelling units to 316 group housing units. the planning commission approved the cu for the revised project this year with a vote of 4-2. in approving the revised project, the commission included conditions that instructed the project sponsor to provide more large group housing bedrooms by removing ground floor retail space and by exploring group housing rooms on the basement level. commission also had a condition to increase the bicycle parking from the required 136 class one

spaces. and to maximize the balcony on all street frontage. the project was appealed by the pacific bay inn. the applicants raised three main issues in the appeal. lack of due consideration, disclosure or analysis of the health, safety and welfare of the tenderloin community and the pacific bay inn. it is not compatible with the tenderloin community that is saturated with market rate housing. many callers for the appeal citing the need for more family housing in the tenderloin, a neighborhood dominated by s.r.o. they cited the need for a new church facility. or the need for more housing overall. unlike the appeal, there were a lot of questions from the

supervisors. most of the questions focused on the grandparenting of the project at 13% rather than the 20-plus currently required. they also questioned the -- planner held the barrage of questions from the supervisors. the supervisors seemed skeptical of the project now that it had been revised. however, we'll have to wait for the outcome of this project as one's public comment is done. supervisor haney made a motion to continue the appeal for one week. that passed unanimously. supervisor mandelman introduced an ordinance to amend 190 to extend the time that existing can go from mcd to cannabis retail. they would be 2022 to 2023.

a similar amendment was also done last year. the extension is necessary because the time it is taking to process cannabis retail applicants which were given priority over existing mcd. they do not plan on taking that to you for hearing unless they hear differently from you today. i'm here for any questions. >> jonas: thank you. quite the report today. if there are no immediate questions from the commissioners, i don't believe we have a report from the board of appeals or minister teague. >> there was no board of appeals hearing last night. >> jonas: very good. in that case, we should move on to public comment. members of the public may

address the commission. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. through the chair, each member of the public will have two minutes. and if you would like to speak under general public comment, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, good afternoon. it's georgia shutis. i hope everything is well. i sent e-mail on diamond which was withdrawn. that was one of the earliest projects that helped to make noe valley the center of demolitions. i wrote an e-mail with other projects and that was sent to the people in the city.

and i attached that with my e-mail and i hope you read that. back then, the demo calcs weren't an issue because i don't think anybody understood them. this project had no published demo calcs. on monday, i sent another e-mail with a map showing all the spec projects, at least that i've been able to account for, that have contributed to the accelerated price increases and intensified noe valley as the epicenter of demolition. i said there are three or four projects that were currently under construction that were likely these de facto demolitions. actually, it's five, i thought about it. as i wrote in the monday e-mail, my second e-mail, with the map of noe valley, i encourage everyone to watch sf gov tv,

march 26, 2009, item number 9, when the cid for section 317 was approved. all the comments from the commissioners and the public were very, very interesting, what they were focusing on then, which was the project on lombard. but the most important thing are the comments on demolition and the values there. so thanks a lot. take good care. be well, be safe, have a good day. bye. >> hi. commissioners, it's david osgood. i'm following up on my comments from last week about the return of sign clutter around the city. could staff please bring up my first slide? i want to make you aware that the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods which represents

neighborhood groups all over the city overwhelmingly passed a resolution last week opposing the return of sign clutter. slide two, please. for those of you who don't remember, it's important that everyone know what the problem was 50 years ago. this slide shows the sign clutter on palo street in 1972. and how the -- how effective sign regulations cleaned it up. slide 3, please. this shows how much of the sign clutter was cleaned up on 16th street. slide 4, please. this is part of market street in the 1950s. slide 5. this indicates what is coming. three additional signs have already been approved for this

half block. the return of sign clutter is not acceptable. slide 6 shows two problems, the visual blight created by oversized awnings stretching from building to building and the abuse of signs on awning. there will be legislation next week. commissioners, this is really a question about the heart and soul of san francisco. are you going to have san francisco look dignified? [bell ringing] or trashy? thank you. >> linda chapman, i wasn't planning to address signs, but since the suggest is up, mayor

feinstein had a campaign to get rid of all of the billboards that shouldn't be there. and i have been astonished to see the return of billboards in my neighborhood where they don't belong. there was no excuse for that. on the other hand, i would be sorry to see regulations passed that would interfere with neon signs. palo street was beautiful with neon. market street was beautiful with the marquises of the theaters. they were required to move them from market street. heritage does tours of what the remaining neon signs. i hope if you haven't seen it, you will watch the neon programs put on by the tenderloin museum and others. it would be a tragedy if we lost the remaining ones they're trying to restore, return them

and so on. there were also historic signs. there are the -- what are they called -- the planners were attempting to restore. there were historic signs, of course, the one from the city of paris was destroyed, so it could never be a beloved relic. of course, the hills brothers sign, 17 reasons why on mission street. we would want to be restoring those signs. while getting rid of the trash that is being put up. switching subjects, i'm going to briefly mention at least the housing element. i was privileged to participate in the event with coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and also with senior disability action, wonderful. we need to have written product where those of us who want to can read through and comment on it like we did in the past.

[bell ringing] i did that with the eir for the big hospital project on van ness. otherwise, you'll just be getting a snapshot. we can't all do it on computer. >> thank you. that's your time. >> okay. >> last call for general public comment. items not on today's agenda. you need to press star 3. -- to enter the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, general public comment is closed and we can move on to the regular calendar, commissioners. this is a draft environmental report for your review and comment.

the purpose of the hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, completeness of the draft eir pursuant to

environmental act for skwal ceqa and local procedures. no approval action of this document is requested at this time. the draft eir was published on august 18, 2021 with the public comment ending august 25, 2021. the project site is located at 1101-1123 sutter street on the southwest corner of sutter and larkin street in the tenderloin/nob hill neighborhood. the site contains two buildings and a surface parking lot adjacent to 1123 sutter street. at the corner of larkin and sutter is 1101 sutter street, a three-story building constructed in 1920 and designed by field engineering, a trading school for mechanics.

the building was operated by the college until 1935 until it was converted into an auto garage. 1101 sutter is individually eligible for registry. and its period of significance is from 1920 to 1961. the character defining features are listed here. further west is 1123 sutter street. a one-story mezzanine designed by august norden for a funeral home. it is eligible for listing in the california register under criterion 1, 2 and 3. the period of significance is from 1926 to 1930. the character defining features of 1123 are listed here. and some of 1123 sutter is also

identified as character defining features, including the reception area, the east and west chapels and three suites of bereavement rooms. i will hand it over to the project sponsor architect david baker who will provide a brief overview of the proposed project as analyzed in the draft eir. >> hi, this is david baker, architect. i'm going to show you slides here, 1101 sutter. our developer is martin building group. and i'm going to show you pictures of really nice projects done.

this is the plaza. these are the buildings around the plaza. really wonderful addition. this used to be the place where -- waited. it was pretty nasty and it's a really beautiful place now. next. this has a restaurant in it and an interesting vertical addition. and then this is the launch near pier 70, also high quality buildings. so we're talking about the park here, which is in the -- right off of polk street. and you can see -- let's go to the next slide -- that it was a

very interesting building, engineering and automobile school. which is basically been a parking garage since it was built and it's right there on the corner. we're proposing a 50% density bonus building which should include 20% affordable. there are 221 rental apartments, 40% of which are two bedrooms. it has parking, 131. and the car parking, we're figuring that out due to the nature of technical thing, but it will be definitely less than .5 per unit.

we're proposing building on the 1123 site. there is a small parking lot there. this shows -- you can see here that we are not proposing a vertical addition over 1101. i think i was traumatized, ptsd of trying to do vertical additions in the past when they were greatly frowned upon. i think they're not a great thing to do. this shows where the mortuary is and the parking lot and how we modulated the massing to the neighborhood. it's a historic neighborhood, really quite beautiful. and we modulated the height as well, which is very much in character with the neighborhood. so that shows the neighborhood. often for some reason people get the idea that respecting a

historic building is lining up the cornices. friends in paris, it makes this really snagle tooth nation na you get. all these building, it's a nice grouping of buildings that are attached. so, we grouped and we plunked, so we have two types of windows. 1101. and then there is residential windows in the area. so this house how we organized that and studied that. and then our responses on the left. you can see the higher portion

has this tower or basket weave framing, larger grouped windows. and on the right, we're using proportion for the windows, but shifting them to make a more contemporary statement. zeitgeist of the era. so this is a rendering showing how that would look. you wouldn't necessarily think, oh, that's all one building. actually it looks like five buildings. this shows the automotive warehouse. there is a sign up here that says park. i think it's a little bit of wit. and you can see where it says 1101, that would be the entry to the project.

so you enter in this building. so there is the historic building entry and you can see the street elevation at the ground level. one thing that is important is the urban street wall. we pull back a little bit, which is actually good because they don't let you swing over the property line. we don't get those little caves you get if you go right at the property line. this is the start of the new building. that would be to our left right now. 1101. this is looking back in the other direction. there is an early childhood development center in it, which is going to happen. along sutter there would be this great facility.

-- daycare facility. so this shows the plan of the ground level, so there is an alley in the back. it's very narrow. so we have street plunges on three sides and we're widening all of them. hemlock, you can see we've had lots of improvement to make it not such a dicey place. it has beautiful murals. this shows hemlock. so the early childhood development center -- hemlock is about six, seven feet lower than sutter. you come through and there is a play area which is above hemlock, which is ideal, because you don't want people looking down on playing children in the modern age. we also set the building back to let more light in and widen the street and take the street

parking way. that allows us to have full sized trees and stuff like that. this shows the loading dock and garage entry. and we are proposing a backless garage doors with murals. we're working with the c.b.d. in the area. the rest of the block is mural, illuminated mural, illuminated by the lights shining from the back. translucent. you can see there is the early childhood development center and the loading dock and the garage entry. then there is two resident lofts, so you get a nice blend there. and then there is a courtyard

with a window from the lobby looking from sutter to the alley. this shows the upper level as you go up. next. we can begin to step back and look at the 7th level. we step back from the new condo. to left there, we're laying out our courtyard and then we have the dog-walking and some storm water management up there. then the 14th floor is nice amenities for residents. no penthouses up there, just things like co-working library, lounge, gym, spa, sunbathing and barbecues, stuff like that. this is the existing

neighborhood. you can see the aerial. the next slide will show the building as it will look when it's finished construction. thank you very much. and i'm available for questions. >> thank you, david. so i'll wrap it up. with a few more slides. the draft eir concluded that the proposed renovations at 1101 sutter street meet the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation, but 1123 was resolved in unavoidable impact. all other impacts associated with the project were less than significant and some had mitigation.

pre-mitigation measures have been identified to individual historic architectural resource resulting from the proposed project. the first measure requires the project sponsor to undertake documentation of the building. the second requires the development of a program concerning the history and architecture features. and the third measure is historical architectural salvage. while these mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project impact on historic resources at 1123 sutter street, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. to address the impacts of the project on individual resources, the draft analyzed three. and this summarizes the proposed programming. stepping back in historic preservation commission provided

feedback during the february 3, 2021 hearing on alternatives. the feedback led to a number of changes to the alternatives explored in the eir. and made a suggestion for partial preservation alternatives that use the retained elements. this became partial preservation alternative 2. under the full preservation alternative, 1101 sutter street would be retained and rehabilitated similar to the proposed project. 1123 sutter would be retained and a two-level addition would be constructed on the existing building. and the interior would be redeveloped. 18-story, 200 foot tower would be constructed on the west side of the project. under parcel preservation --

partial preservation 1, they would be retained with a four-story addition of each building and 18-story, 200 foot tall residential tower would be constructed in the parking lot. under 2, it would be same exterior with no addition. 1123 sutter would have interior features retained, but would be modified with a 12 story vertical addition and 150-foot tall tower would be constructed on the parking lot. a hearing to receive the preservation commission comments on the draft eir was held on september 15, 2021. the commission secretary has provided you with a copy of the letter which i will summarize.

the t.h.c. in the draft eir to be adequate and accurate. they concur with the findings that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impact to the funeral home. they agreed that it analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives and that we evaluated the address -- february 3, 2021 comments and recommendation. in addition, members of the h.p.c. had comments. commissioner black expressed concern about the success of the hyphen and felt the other two alternatives might be more successful by incorporating a setback on the addition. commissioner did not incorporate

a setback and the setbacks were successful in the alternatives that inkrpted smaller addition. sometimes the substantial additions to historic buildings can be compatible. in this slide, it highlights the community outreach and environmental planning undertook as part of the ceqa process. the planning commission will receive a response to documents two weeks before the eir certification hearing along with approval action on a date to be determined. today, the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. for the members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record, please state slowly and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's

proceedings. staff is not here to answer questions. comments will be transcribed and in writing. which will respond to all relevant, verbal comments received during the public comment period and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. if you're interested in commenting, in writing you can make the comments by mail to david young. or e-mail cpc1101-1123 sutter at sf gov by 5:00 p.m. august 25, 2021. as i mentioned -- october 5, 2021. otherwise, i would respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. thank you.

>> jonas: thank you. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. when you hear that your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> linda chapman. i'm obviously in no position to comment on what is written in the eir until i can get a written copy, so i'll have to try to find out how to do that before october 5 when we also have appeal hearing on the other project, you know, which is going to go to court obviously. okay, in this case, let me just say, a neighborhood is being destroyed. this -- i mean, this is not nob -- this is nob hill, it is not downtown civic center, which i

saw in the announcements about this project. people are trying to -- what would you say -- finesse it? >> jonas: -- >> supposed to be 65 feet, could not be more than 80. the north of market planning coalition had the area out of sutter rezoned 80 feet to avoid anything higher. nob hill neighbors originally had 80 feet along the south slope around sutter bush and pine. and then had that change to 65 pete. now you've been building -- staff have been allowing the high rises to be built, such as the austin and so on. the wind impacts are appalling. who is to say the same thing isn't going to happen here. [bell ringing] i actually had to use california street because i couldn't walk up pine street in the front of the austin and already it was too bad from the

north side. and then i had to call a taxi to save me from the wind tunnel. this is compatible with the heights in the area, well, the carlton is tall like that. it was built post earthquake, you know. the reason we rezoned the area, we didn't want to have a whole lot of high rise on top of another. the last high rise that was ever built on nob hill until -- [bell ringing] -- five years ago was 900 bush. that was after the planning commissioners unanimously rejected it as being incompatible with the location of the neighborhood and then the board of supervisors turned it over. so, it's been pointed out with the buildings across the street what they look like. there certainly are no high rises around there, except from, you know, post earthquake. and the fact that there is an occasional high rise here and there doesn't mean we need to add more. i'm still waiting to see the actual maps.

you know, it was acknowledged there were errors made, computer errors and so forth. and justification was made -- >> thank you, ms. chapman. that's your time. >> jonas: members of the public, i would like to remind you that your comments should be limited to the adequacy and accuracy of the draft environmental impact report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. really excited to support this project here today. a couple blocks from one of the main thoroughfares in san francisco and van ness. excited to get the b.r.t. opened up. a place that could use more housing and density. we see this fitting that fabric. for the adequacy of the eir, the

staff that the city have are topnotch and so we're excited to support and watch this project continue moving forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. last call for public comment on the accuracy and adequacy of the draft environmental impact report. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on this matter is closed and it is now before you, commissioners, for your review and comment. >> commissioner moore: i have reviewed the draft document which is thoroughly analyzing the situation, significantly many alternatives, more than i've ever seen before.

i've never seen that many alternatives before and it's a little more difficult to see what the subtle differences were, but that aside, i find what is in front of me adequate and accurate and commend the department for preparing this document. >> i do as well and agree with commissioner moore. >> thank you, commissioners. if there are no additional comments from members of the commission, we should move on to item 11, as item 10 has been continued to november 18. item 11, case number 2019, 13528. 36-38 gough street. this is conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> hi.

good afternoon. planning department staff. the item before the planning commission is conditional use authorization to allow the demolition of an existing three-story two-family residence and construction of a new five-story building with eight dwelling units. >> excuse me. i apologize for the late notice of this and for interrupting you, but i need to make a request for recusal because of where my home is located. sorry to get you started. you'll have to start up again. thank you, chair, and commissioners. i own property within 500 feet of the property, so i request to be recused. >> jonas: if you have real estate within 500 feet, i don't believe a motion is required. so you're hereby recused.

thank you, commissioner tanner. okay. go ahead. >> the project proposes demolition of the existing duplex and new construction of a five-story 55-foot tall residential building of 7300 square feet that would contain eight dwelling units and parking spaces and two bicycle parking spaces. the project proposes a dwelling unit mix of one three-bet room unit, two four-bedroom unit. the existing dwelling units in the duplex are vacant and have been since 2017 when buyout agreements were signed by former tenants. the rent board has no record of

e-vices for -- evictions for the site and planning code 317 as described in the draft motion. the project sponsor one pre-application meeting in 2019 and to date, the department has received one letter of support from an adjacent neighbor for the project. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the octavia plan. although, it will result in the demolition of an existing two-family home, the project will provide substantively more housing on site, including five family-sized units in a transit rich neighborhood. and the department also finds that the project is necessary, reliable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and should not be detrimental to

adjacent property in the neighborhood. the project sponsor is in attendance and has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> jonas: thank you. mr. caplin, are you with us? >> i am. thank you. >> you have five minutes. >> great. >> i'll start your time when the slides are up. >> thank you. all right. thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners, on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you fulfills several commission policies, first by maximizing the allowable density under the octavia plan, and third, eliminating auto access and enlivening that alley. next slide. the subject property currently consists of undersized duplex that will be demolished by the project. the project would demolish nonconforming garage structure occupying the rear of the site. this will create a more generous yard for the building and importantly take car traffic off of the narrow alley, known as colton street, as the project proposes no parking spaces. the project consists of a five-story, eight unit building. the majority of the units is family sized. which is significantly above the

unit mix requirement in this district. and as you see on the ground floor at the front, there will be a unit with a raised provided front of the building as is appropriate for the design guidelines in this area. the project actually does a lot to activate the front tij on the alley. the ground floor unit in the rear has a main entrance from the alley. the bike room and the upper units have direct access from the alley and those two doors you see in the middle. and both ground floor units have small outdoor balconies as well. it's doing a lot. it's not just removing the garage and auto access from the alley. at the rear, we have a full 25% rear yard provided at the ground floor. and then the rear of the building steps back from the alley at the second floor, so

provides light and air and then 44% rear yard setback at the 3, 4 and 5th floor. greater light and air for the alley as well as the units at the rear of the building. so, in closing, this is a modest well designed project, it accomplishes a lot on a small site. by having a net increase of density of six units. it removes the nonconforming parking garage and auto access from the alley and replaces a blank wall with multiple access points and open spaces to activate and lighten this alley. with that, we respectfully request you approve the project and we're here if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no request for members of the public to speak, public comment is closed. and this item is now before you.

is there any interest in a motion? >> commissioner imperial: i have a question to the project sponsor or the planning staff. in terms of the height of this building, it looks like it's 55 feet. but the -- but the height limit for this area is 50. i'm assuming it's the ceiling height that was increased and i believe the ground floor was increased? >> yes. they are doing the -- there is potential five-foot height increase for active ground floors and four residential

units adding the stoop and increasing the height of that ground floor unit. so that is why it's 55. >> because of the height limit, that is beyond the height limit for the area, i'm just wondering at what point is that allowable to do the five-feet increase? well, it's more about the ceiling height increase, but it contributes to the building increase is all. >> the five-foot increase is permitted, yes. by code, it is allowed to go to 55 feet if the ground floor, the activities on the ground floor have ceiling height and specifically for residential units, that means a combination of both the stoop, so raising the height of the whole ground

floor unit up from street level and then also that raises the ceiling height overall. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you, that's my question. >> commissioner moore: i would like to ask why these buildings, which in the beginning of coming into this neighborhood, look a little bit out of context, always avoid creating more dwelling units, because it looks as if they're trying to avoid adding affordable units. for this particular part of town, the units are large, 1800 square feet, and i'm asking why we cannot achieve more units to gain one or two affordable units here? these are market rate units. these will bring a pretty penny, given what they are, since we do not have any requirements in our

code that units of this size need to be occupied by families, i see us teetering on a balance beam that i feel sometimes falls short of the -- these are market rate units in an area that could very well support the addition of affordable units. i'm not sure if you can answer that or if i should ask -- each time i see these buildings i'm wondering why they're not pushing for a few additional units. >> yeah, commissioner moore, i'll say a couple of things. first, obviously, there is always this balance between the unit size -- sorry the unit mix issue as well as the unit count. so that's always something that comes into play. we're going above that requirement here. this building as you see, the

top two floors are actually town home units. this is a building, two-story town home units, it's a building that doesn't have an elevator and decision to lose the elevator was because the site is small. so what it means is that the units on the upper floors, you need to walk up three sets of stairs to get there. so i think that was a consideration here as well. putting separate units on the top floor means four stories of walking upstairs. so i think that's a consideration on the site as well. >> commissioner moore: i appreciate that explanation. i think that is thoughtful. i like the fact that we don't have to argue about the proper number of stairs above the alley in order to have ground floor units that can indeed have the privacy we're looking for. i think you have answered my

question. i appreciate that. in principle, i'm in support of the project. i move to -- >> second, commissioner diamond. >> i put my name in before commissioner moore made the motion. but i particularly like the way the architectural design enlivens the alley. so i'm very much in support. >> if there are no additional comments, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- wait a minute. my apologies. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president koppel: aye. >> so moved, that passes unanimously 5-0. commissioner tanner, you can rejoin us now and i will remind

you that you need to submit the form with ethics regarding the recusal. commissioners, that places us on item 12. 2021-1622cua, 220 post street, also a cancel use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you just fine. >> fantastic. good afternoon, commissioners. department staff. the application before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for the property located at 220 post street which is a commercial building completed in 1907 and within the retail district. as proposed, the project would convert up to 6,175 square feet

of retail space on the third floor to general office use. a previous proposal similarly proposed to convert the third floor from retail to office, along with the fourth and fifth floors. we were before the commission in december, 2019, department staff approved three, four and five. this recommendation was driven by the primary function as the retail and service district. supervisor peskin's legislation and permanent controls mandating conversions only be approved if several qualifications are met and the departments believe that other lesser additional types of uses may remain viable at the third floor. in motion 20590, the commission voted to approve conversion of the floors four and five, but did not allow office use at the third level. i would like to note that the executive summary included in

the hearing packet would provide this and other additional context was provided to commissioners and uploaded to the public record yesterday evening. the state of the world in san francisco has changed since december of 2019 with the city's initial covid-19 emergency public health order occurring roughly three months after the previously mentioned hearing. in light of this and other challenges facing downtown and the retail sector, the department believes conversion of the third floor is now warranted, necessary and desirable. the additional findings find that the proposal fully conforms, as it pertains to the complementing and supporting community uses and the physical limitations and the current realities of upper level retail preclude the third floor from

being conducive to retail use. similarly, as with the previous office conversion, the current project is -- open space fee -- since publication of the packets, the department has received one letter in support of the project with the project sponsor having gathered additional letters of support. no correspondence in opposition to this project has been received. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is in attendance and wishes to provide a presentation of their own. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> ms. cat lanno, are you with us? >> yes, i'm here. slides are coming up now. >> representing the project sponsor. on the screen you see an image of the post street facade and

the back of the building along hampton place. the next slide has the ground floor plan and that changes are being proposed as those changes were done in connection with the fourth and fifth floor conversion. and the third floor office will use the same entry along hampton place. on the next slide, you see the proposed third floor plan, but again these changes are fairly limited because we're only talking about changing the use from retail to office. the next slide has the building images again. almost two years ago when we were in front of the planning commission asking for conversion for the third, fourth and fifth floor, this building along with 146 geary were the first two applications to be heard after the controls were adopted. at the time, there was differing opinions about the viability of the third floor retail and there was discussion whether a

building should contain more office than retail uses. since then, a number of other third-floor conversions have been approved and subsequent applications did not focus on how much is retail versus office. we were approved for fourth and fifth floors only. and that happened a few months before covid. today, the interior improvements and ground floor improvements are done. the only thing remaining is the sidewalk work along hampton place which has been pending a permit with d.p.w. for the last nine months. so even before covid, retail industry had changed. retailers want less square footage and street visibility and easy access are important. retail on the third floor in this building is not a viable option. we're asking for the cu for the third floor office, but that does not preclude any other

permitted use. the difference between retail and office uses is retail space challenges even before covid. and while the current office vacancies are mostly related to covid. although office usage may not be exactly what it was before covid, the demand for office is likely going to bounce back sooner than retail demand. so what we see is the upper floor office occupancy can also help with the demand for the lower floor uses. >> good afternoon. mark stephan. i'm with the 220 post owners. as said, about two years ago we were in front of you with this application. and it's no surprise, a lot has happened over the last two

years. the retail market and the district in general, not just covid. we tried to get to lease space in the building. we've been marketing the building for four and a half years. and we've had no interest in any of the upper floors. it's very challenging. we have other retail buildings in the square and it had similar lack of success trying to market these spaces. we think that conversion of the third floor to office will add benefits for the entire city in that we can put an office user in the space, which will occur sooner than a retail users, it will add foot traffic and as importantly, because the office lobby is on hampton, will provide much needed foot traffic on that alley. we think this is an opportunity

to approve and for people to use which should benefit not just us but other retailers and businesses within the district. thank you for taking the time to consider our application. >> jonas: thank you. that concludes project sponsor presentation. we should open up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address this item before the commission by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members -- i take that back. there is one. through the chair, you have two minutes. >> yes, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is karen, i'm the executive director of the union square alliance. can you hear me? great. i'm calling in on behalf of the stakeholders who are the property owners in union square. including 220 post who support this project.

our public affairs committee has met on this issue of conversions for the -- on the third floor from retail to office and we think this is a very good use for our district. i mean, retailers, there is no demand for retail on the top floor. retail is definitely shrinking, sorry to say that, to have that be happening, but it is and we need to bring in other uses on the upper floors. so office on the third floor will bring in more foot traffic to the area and will frequent our restaurants and other retail shops and add to extra vibrancy in the union square area which we need to pull us out of this pandemic. we are very much in support of this project. and in addition, the entrance of the office space on hampton is great. we've been trying to activate that alley with positive uses, so foot traffic down there will be an extra bonus. thank you for your time today. very much in support of the project.

>> thank you. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed and this matter is before you, commissioners. while i'm waiting for the commissioners, let me voice my support for the applicant and project sponsor. we have definitely seen the trending decline of retail and the lessening of on floor storage space for materials, so i'm definitely in favor of letting the property owner give them the tools to lease out the remaining floors. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i, too, agree that retail does not seem viable on the third floor, but i'd like to know from the project sponsor whether or not you explored the potential for the upper floors to be used

for residential. and if there are any barriers to use as residential? >> yeah, commissioner diamond, thank you for the question. and i think the idea of residential in union square is definitely interesting. we've had so far one project at 33 geary a couple of months ago that was approved with upper floor residential. and residential overall in union square maybe the solutions for upper floor, however, what we're asking is to not be the second only case to explore that option at this time. so approving the cu today merely gives us option to be able to lease the building quickly, but it does not preclude a future residential use, it just really allows us to be able to occupy the building sooner. if residential uses are permitted and that may well be

something that this building or other buildings may explore in the future. we're just asking not to do it today. >> have you leased the upper two floors to office space yet? >> no. we've not leased any space in the building. not for lack of trying. the other aspect, commissioners, the floor plate has windows on just two sides. we've looked at preliminary sketches for residential and the units because of the light that comes into the space, need to be very large. and not really in keeping with kind of market demand of the rent and costs are excessive to convert right now. but it's not something we would preclude. it's an office use we'd like this put in. the leases are shorter term, so it doesn't preclude the residential housing. >> thank you for that response. i'm in favor of getting more

activation in union square as fast as possible and it seems like office is a faster pathway to get there than residential at this point. but i will say, if you need to come back to us to further extend the c.u., because you haven't been successful in leasing it -- the space for office space, i'm going to be a lot more interested in trying to understand residential and obstacles and what kind of residential this would support and why or why not at that point you could not pursue residential. but at this point, i'm in favor of giving you the ability to convert the third floor to office space, so i would move in favor. >> second. >> commissioner moore: i would just like to add a comment that

i am on the fence on the subject matter. the significant amount of office vacancies in san francisco overall are not indicative for me that office in the form that we know it is returning. i also have on the other side not seen that retail will not return because it is simply the pandemic which makes it impossible for stores to properly function. that said, i believe that we need to give this more time to sort itself out and since the particular space that we authorized for conversion in 2019 has not yet been leased, i am not prepared to add additional space to it, just to let the dilemma in which we are play itself out at which time i may be more able to have a better idea of where we're going. so i will not at this moment

support the conversion. thank you. >> commissioner imperial: i am -- i share the same sentiments of commissioner moore and at the same time commissioner diamond in terms of the office space and the activation around union square. and overall in the downtown area when it comes to office space. but i do want to add in terms of commissioner diamond's comments, in terms of converting office spaces to residential, i believe that would -- and perhaps it is more a question to director hillis, but i believe that would take a legislation in order to convert office spaces to residential, will it not? or --

>> if -- [indiscernible] i wanted to answer the question. there is nothing currently that would require any new legislation for conversion of office or retail in the c-3-r. the difficulty is because of the density and the way the buildings are built out, many of them, they should have -- walls, so you're largely dealing with glazing on one or two frontages, so when we saw -- this is the also the planner at the i. magnum building. >> i see.

so in terms of those kind of, let's say, proposal for conversion to residential, i mean, personally, i would like to see a more thorough plan for that, how it's going to look like. but it looks like for this building it's viable to convert this to an office space. again, we're also facing this dilemma of the office use and the vacancy of office spaces at the same time. so, i know it's going to be a topic that is going to be discussed at later part of the year, but as of now, i am in support of the conversion. >> if there is no further deliberations, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye.

>> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: no. >> president koppel: aye. so moved, commissioners that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. that places us on item 13, 2020-8347, 811 clay street, conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? yes. good afternoon. planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to convert a foot chair massage establishment to a full massage establishment. it was filed in response to complaint by a member of the public that full body massage was occurring without approval. the change of use will be achieved by replacing four

existing foot chair with massage chairs, with full body massage beds, no tenant improvements are proposed as part of the project. for the record, i'd like to note a correction to finding 10f of the draft motion to state that no changes to the building are proposed so no structural or seismic improvements will be made as part of that project. the commission must approve a conditional use authorization to allow a massage establishment on the ground floor within the chinatown rezoning business district. to date, the department has received one letter in support from the chinatown neighborhood association. one letter expressed concerns about unlawful activity occurring at the establishment. in response to the letter of opposition, the department of public health has generated a complaint and are currently investigating the allegations.

staff finds that the project is on balance consistent with the policies of the plan that the applicant has maintain the and retains in good standing. the project will provide to continue active use at the ground floor of an existing commercial building located in the chinatown visitor retail district and will maintain the prevailing character of the neighborhood and the diversity of the goods and services provided. the department finds the project to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff presentation. i'm also available for any questions. the project sponsor should be present and is also available to answer any questions you may have. >> well, unfortunately, ms.

hoagland, i do not see any of the points of contact from the project sponsor, his e-mail, name or phone number provided to us. so why don't we open up public comment and see if the person raising his hand is the sponsor. >> designated -- >> hello, caller, are you the project sponsor? >> thomas, come here! hello? >> are there slides? >> hello. >> okay, you have five minutes, sir. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. my name is calvin louie. i'm the project sponsor. situated at 811 clay street in

chinatown san francisco is requesting that you approve a conditional use authorization for an existing foot massage establishment to panned to -- expand to full body massage. there will be no structural changes to the building. katie chan and i established the business on 1-1-2012. we believe expanded services will greatly help our patrons afflicted with increased levels of stress during this covid period of time. our added menu of services will include neck and back massage and will certainly help our clients relax and will be beneficial to their well-being both mentally and physically.

the additional treatment services will help our clients cope with tension, headache and pain and provide relief. chinatown as a whole has been decimated by the impacts of covid and this is one step in a positive direction to stimulate the chinatown economy. please approve our cua request and allow us to better serve the chinatown community at large. in regards to community outreach, i spoke to eva lee with the chinatown merchant association. i also have a letter of support from chinatown community development center. and have reached out to many of my immediate neighbors. we were scheduled for a consent calendar item earlier, however, we received a complaint from one

individual. we received an e-mail from planner and we reached out to that person and invited that person to see the premises. if i may, i would like to read the letter that i wrote and e-mailed to the individual. i am reached out to -- reaching out to you regarding our e-mail letter of opposition dated july 17, 2021, to the san francisco planning department staff planner. your comments are pretty serious accusations regarding the operation of our business. the request of expand our services to the clients will help them relax and help with the well-being. the additional treatment services will help our patients cope with headaches, pain and

provide relief. you indicate that sex may be part of the expansion business model which is purely speculative on your part and unfounded. we have only one semi-private room. this room was assisting since we moved in. we would be willing to put a condition for this curtains, this should demonstrate full transparency. hopefully, you will reconsider your opposition to the conditional authorization application and change your position to neutral or support the project with modifications. although you oppose the project as proposed, you indicate you are supportive of foot and body massage on a chair. are you familiar with other establishments that offer foot and body massage in the immediate proximity to 811 clay

street? establishment that offer full body massage in private and semi-private settings. i cordially invite you for a visit to our place of business, to meet our staff which consists of qualified massage therapists. unfortunately, your opposition to our c.u.a. application has provided yet another setback and delayed the hearing date to thursday, september 30, 2021. we will continue to suffer financial hardships due to unnecessary delays. please feel free to contact me as i am community liaison and co-owner of top therapy.

thank you and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> great. thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, public comment on this item is closed and the matter is now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner imperial: thank you so much. i do support this project in terms of converting of the foot chair to full massage. and thank you for submitting the

pictures of the business. it doesn't seem like there are sketchy going on, but as of now, it seems like this is a good project. and i would like to support the owner and the lay sfwlon. -- liaison. thank you. >> commissioner moore: i'm in full support of the project. i walk by this particular establishment literally every day. and consider its support from the community essential to give this operator full support. i move to approve. >> second. >> just a question for staff. is there a representative from

d.p.h. here today? >> no, there is not. >> okay. i personally would feel a little more comfortable just hearing from them. curious as to what the other commissioners might think, but right now i'm not comfortable supporting. >> commissioners, if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. >> i will call the question on that motion. can i ask, president koppel, if you could share your concerns so i can understand what you're thinking, your thoughts on this establishment? >> just to know if they have any history to reference -- i know

they're just typically involved with the specific approvals and would feel better if i heard from them. >> don't know that i share the concerns. it seems somewhat clear from the presentation to me, but i don't know if you have anything to add about the history of the site that you haven't shared. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. no, nothing that hasn't been revealed in the staff report and at this presentation. >> and have you had any communication with the department of health? anything that came up from them that we haven't heard about? >> i have been in contact with them about the project and forwarded them the comments and they had just said that, you know, you'll open an investigation and look into it. >> okay. do you have any sense of a timeline for that? >> unfortunately, i don't.

i could reach out -- if the commission wanted to continue this, i could reach out to the department of public health and ask them or ask them to attend a future hearing if that's the most appropriate way to approach this. >> i am sensitive to the delay this project already had and while i think being very attentive to the massage establishments, i think we need to continue to do that because of the challenges we've had in the past. it does seem to be okay with me, so it's definitely appreciate your concerns, president koppel, but i don't know if i share them this afternoon. >> through the chair, if i could add, if the investigation by d.p.h. concludes that the alleged illicit activity is

occurring, the commission would then have the authority to revoke the conditional use authorization. >> would that be something that we would have to do via it coming back, or would staff bring that back if -- how would that order of operation go about? >> i may need to defer to -- i haven't had a revocation of a c.u. normally it has to go back to the commission in my experience. >> right. if the commission were to decide to revoke this permit, it would need to be requested to be re-noticed as any other conditional use authorization and then the commission would have to proactively revoke the authorization. >> i think my question was more whether that would automatically come back to us for revocation or one of us would -- conclude, yeah, it's a violation --

>> if i could. there is a condition of approval placed on the conditional use authorization regarding violations and so if there is any -- if they're in violation of their conditional use authorization, then we could schedule it for a revocation hearing. because they would be in violation of their conditional use. >> okay. and is the project sponsor still on the line with us? are you there with us? >> yes. yes, i'm still here. >> okay and it would be your testimony again that the behavior and actions have not been taking place at your establishment? -- illicit. >> there has been no illegal activities at our establishment. >> so with that, knowing there is a condition related to it and it would come back to us if it were to be -- these violations

were to be substantiated, i'm comfortable, but i think keeping an eye on these things is really important given a history with some of the massage establishments in the city. i'm prepared to vote. >> i have a comment. and my name is still up. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to make a pitch for clay street. it is a completely normal residential street. this particular establishment in the center of chinatown, it has the support from ccdc who are the stewards and occur aters of chinatown and there is no transient activities in this part of clay street. i would like to give president koppel an assurance that i live

very close by. not close enough to not participate. within six blocks to know this is a fine block and always has been. >> jonas: commission president koppel, if -- >> commissioner diamond: can i just go back to something that was said and ask for clarification at the risk of repeating if she already said it. so if d.p.h. revokes the permit, does that automatically come back to the commission, or do we need to add a condition. >> there is a condition -- a standard condition of approval in all conditional use authorizations that says that if the sponsor, for lack of any other word, is in violation of their entitlement, that we can schedule it for a revocation.

so, we would obviously be notified by d.p.h. if this was revoked. and then with additional -- and then we could schedule it for revocation. additionally, there is new legislation that came to you i believe within the last month or two that also establishes controls related to when there is violation on a site and the inability of a massage permit to be granted at that site. i think it's about three years. i may be mistaken on the timing, but there is additional restrictions on that that are taking place in the city now. >> so just to make sure i understand, d.p.h. revocation of its permit would, by definition, constitute a violation of the c.u. permit? because you said the language you used was if there is a violation of the entitlement then it would come back to us.

and i didn't know if the violation was the c.u. or the d.p.h. permit. >> one of the signings in approving the massage establishment is that it has a valid d.p.h. permit for massage. >> okay, that's very helpful. i, too am in support of the approval. and if there is anything to the claim and d.p.h., i believe there is a process in place to take care of that, so i would be in favor of moving forward this approval today. >> commissioners, just to be clear, i think if the department of public health revoked their health permit, this operator could not run a massage establishment at this location. however, that would not preclude another operator from opening a massage establishment that would comply with the department of public health at this location unless you revoke to operate at

this location. i want to be clear. if d.p.h. revokes its health permit from this operator, it would not preclude massage from happening. >> that's correct, thanks, jonas for that clarification. >> jonas: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president koppel: aye. >> jonas: so moved, the motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item 14a -- sorry. mute that caller. okay. items 14a and b and c for case numbers 2016-15987pca, cua and

var for the property at 1750 van ness avenue. you will temperature a planning code amendment, conditional use authorization while the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. chris may of planning department staff. you have before you a proposed ordinance that would ban the van ness special use district to exempt the property at 1750 van ness avenue from the required three to one ratio of residential uses to nonresidential uses in association with the project that proposes to demolish the existing religious institution building and construct a new six-story over basement religious building. the project is seeking conditional use authorization to permit curb cut, to permit a

nonresidential use greater than 6,000 feet. to permit a height greater than 50 feet and permit institutional use within the zoning district and the height and bulk district and the van ness district. a garage door measuring approximately 12 feet in width on the clay street, which exceeds one-third of the total frontage on that street. therefore variance is required. the zoning administrator will consider the request along with the commission's planning code amendment and conditional use authorization. since the publication of the staff report, we've received five letters in support, including st. luke's church and 19 letters in opposition to the project. those opposed are all residents of the adjacent condo building at 1776 sacramento street.

adverse impacts to light and air and lack of housing. you were e-mailed an updated version of the draft ordinance. earlier today, the city attorney took another version of the ordinance. the department recommends that you approve these additional revisions. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the van ness avenue area plan. and that it would support the continued existence of a community institutional use which has occupied the site for more than 20 years and will enhance the pedestrian environment by drawing visitors to the site. the project is necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties, as it respects the scale and character of the development of the

neighborhood and has been designed to maximize light and air. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for further questions. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. mr. hartman, are you with us? mr. hartman? let's see if he's on his phone. although, i don't see his phone number on our -- i do see his name on a computer. mr. hartman? >> hello? hello? >> can you hear us? >> yes, we can hear you. oh, great, thank you. i don't know what was going on there. i'll now proceed. thank you.

so thank you, commissioners, i'm craig hartman, and i have overall responsibility fort the project and i'm delighted to bring it before you this afternoon. i would like to introduce to you a senior leader for san bao here in san francisco. >> i'm here on behalf of the temple. it is the proper name for the temple which is under the world-wide organization based in taiwan. the temple has been on van ness street for more than 30 years. it is a educational and cultural center for those interested in learning more about religion and art culture. our organization is founded by member donation in u.s., asia

and -- [indiscernible] is fully funded by member's donations and proceeds. with a beautiful new building that will help us serve the community and our members for many years to come. now i would like to pass to mr. -- to describe the project. >> thank you. this is a deep interior property, oriented east west, that services site with a curb cut on clay street. next. this is st. luke's on the left. and on the right is the condo building, 1776 sacramento. since 1989, they've occupied

this site. you can see this is very inadequate building. since the beginning, we've reached out to neighborhood associations with over 16 meetings to gather comments and perspective. our primary goal was to minimize the impact on the side lot windows along the interior property line which stretches along the full length almost of the site. and on st. luke's stained glass windows which are shown here in yellow. the condominium windows present a challenge. they stretch almost the full length of the site and are unusual close to the property line. the size of the condo windows would not be allowed by the fire

codes. >> this diagram shows local development controls would typically encourage in the area. as a residential development, even without the density bonuses, obliterate views from all the windows to the right upper side here. also casting st. luke's stained glass windows in permanent shadows. there are enormous advantages for allowing the institutional use before you today. next. because this will allow us to split our program apart essentially, opening it up to views for light and air. we pushed the majority of the

program down below the line in the church. we split the building mass apart. placing the shrine and projects dormitory on the far eastern end. we've pushed the building mass far way from the condo building as far as possible and using only 41,000 of the 61,000 allowed on the zone. we then condensed the building mass, minimizing the height. the dormitory has only the minimum ceiling heights allowed by building code. so the result is a compact building that maximizes views for the upper condos and minimizes any shadow on st. luke's stained glass. the main entry is on van ness street. and the curb cut provides access

to below grade parking and service for the site, providing for six cars and 30 bicycles as well as an ada van. this cuts in half the existing parking spaces currently on the property. almost all visitors of the temple use public transit. in addition to opening up the center of the property, we've pushed the dormitory to the east as far as possible away from the condo windows. so for additional privacy, we reduced the dorm windows to 10%. and for further privacy referring to the upper right hand drawing, we positioned the dorm window to avoid direct views into the condo areas. -- windows. the cultural center building sets back and defers the -- while continuing the pedestrian street wall at the base of st.

luke's and the condo building on van ness. so turning facing on van ness, the main facade, we placed a pavilion including classrooms. the pavilion rests on the base of the vertical ceiling base, continue to enlivens the pedestrian street wall. in addition to our neighbors, we spend enormous amount of time with pastors and buddhist scholars who provide guidance about the meaning of architecture. this is think being architecture. on the bottom row is examples of the reinterpreted that we have created in response to clad this contemporary building. this will have an inset of metal

and glass. inside will be a second art panel carved wood open to the interior. the space between the two admit daylight into the interior. lobby glass and create a respite -- [indiscernible] -- next -- >> mr. hartman. sorry to interrupt you, but that's your seven minutes. we gave you a couple extra. >> i'm sorry, i thought we had 10 minutes. i'll quickly show this is the facade with the facade referring to bamboo. this is the cross section. lateral section showing relationship -- >> that will conclude the presentation time, but commissioners may ask for additional clarifying questions. okay. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by

pressing star 3 to enter the queue. through the chair, you'll have two minutes and when you hear that the line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> go ahead, caller. go ahead, caller. >> is this my turn? >> jonas: it is. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the prompt. my name is deena, i reside at 1776 sacramento. i want to say, we are not opposed to the project and not trying to stop it, we just want and ask that the design consider the impacts to our building. this one does not. we are a 51-unit housing with

two street level retail spaces. we're the quintessential project for mixed residential zoning in the van ness district. this project on the other hand, unpermitted building, is asking for a law change, exemptions, variances, without which it wouldn't satisfy any of the zones and district requirements. we're asking that before the exemptions are granted, we ask it be granted only if it does no harm to the residents. also, in terms of the outreach, i have to say, this has been more of a p.r. campaign. none of the 25 letters of support have been from a residential neighbor. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> caller: i cannot express how happy i was to hear this was being submitted to the planning department. working on van ness avenue. the temple required to get an update in order to sell the current van ness avenue. the temple was out of tune with its surroundings. i visited the temple two times when i walked by. i happened to visit it on a rainy day. there are buckets it will have and will be able to serve many

educational areas. i'm sure you it with the van ness improvement project. the convenience of the transportation a new temple will add value to the neighborhood. and francisco as a city so it will be very important to have a buddhist tower. and allow them to provide services and opportunity for the culture and change to the san francisco residents. and i'm looking forward to have the green building in our neighborhood in the near future. thank you very much. >> caller: hi. overall, i'm supportive of the project. the new plans look much better than earlier versions.

what i'm concerned with is primarily around the height of the building, that tower seems to be largely a result as we saw today, the bulk of the building being pushed back as a concession to t. looks. the tower seems to be a bit in congruence with the structured surroundings. and seems inconsistent with other religious structures in the neighborhood, there's nothing like that at st. luke's. they don't have temporary rooms there. so i'm reading it. there's 60 units proposed. they'll be 60 visitors at any given time. just seems a bit outsized. so i'd request a reconsideration the number of units that seem to be over 8'. even when viewed in the

architectural renderings, the back tower creates a shadowy be cavern. thank you. >> caller: hi, good afternoon, president koppel and fellow commissioners. i'm a resident at 1776 sacramento street. i sent you a detailed e-mail about my concerns as well this past monday. again, and echoing that of my neighbors who have already spoken, we would love to see a modernized and renovated temple next door. i've been in it many times.

it was a polling place for decades. it would be a jewel in the neighborhood, however, to say that there are meetings of community outreach, i've only heard of one. it would be absolutely detrimental to those of us on the north side of the building. there have been no life studies, again, echoing what was said previously. there have been no poll studies. there has been very little communication about what this dormitory structure is for which is a little bit concerning as it's been pointed out. it is outsized compared to the size of the congregation and i would respectfully request that the commission not approve

these exemptions to existing zoning laws without further consideration. i thank you all for your time. >> caller: hi. i own one of the condos at 1776. i'm number 310 which is the lowest unit in the northeast corner. i'm also concerned with the light and privacy issues, but i'm also very concerned with the possible usage of the dorm and conference rooms. i believe there's a potential for them to become rentals and possibly tourists. so they can be used daily. . i found examples of this sort of use in buddhist temples and centers located in various cities and countries. to mention just a few, i found tourist locations such as new york, chicago, hawaii how one

can rent a guest home in hawaii for $750 a night. i found some of these places advertised on airbnd and trip advisor. and the san francisco zen center, a 300-page list. they have seven guest rooms for rent, plus the conference center. this includes breakfast and they offer dinner as well. the san francisco buddhist center in the mission, they rent meeting rooms for events and uses such as meetings, rehearsals, dances, body work, seminars and theaters. i bring this up that it seems it's not unusual at all for buddhist temples all over the world to do this. i'd like to see it and, again, my regards to light and privacy. i have two sliding glass doors, two balconies and a window that

will be facing the new building and they'll be severely impacted by the lack of privacy and the light. thank you very much for your time. >> caller: hi. i am a relatively new owner after 1776 sacramento and one of the severely impacted units being next door to the temple. i called to say i am definitely not opposed to it. i think the designs look beautiful. i share the same concerns as many of our other owners over here regarding privacy, light, and height for the potential for these to be used as airbnb. i'm also requesting it will be improved when the impacted unit if there's anything to be done that it can be done and that the height of the floor also seems to be a little bit out of whack according to the measurements.

the 74-foot-high building. if that could be reduced, that could greatly help and assist with some of the light blockage. if either one of those two concerns could be addressed, then i would be appreciative of that and i'd also like to say i've been here for a year and three months, and the only time i was notified about this building potentially being back on reconstruction was in late august when my homeowner's association notified me. so i do not believe there has been a huge amount of community outreach. i'm not opposed to it but i would like the height and light to be addressed. thank you. >> caller: hi. my name is sue ahn. i just wanted to call to say i

think this proposed project is going to be a benefit to the neighborhood and city. i think the current temple space. it will certainly bring value to the local area in many ways and the proposed project will help further show case that san francisco is a diverse city which embraces different cultures and religions. i heard the owner on the next apartment building's concern. i'm sure there's a way to address their concern about the lighting and, further, i want to say that temple is an international buddhist organization with more than three00 temples in more than 50

countries. and with over a million followers worldwide. i think with the strong global network, i think the new temple in san francisco will bring a lot of the attention from other parts of the world to the city. so i hope that the planning commission will approve this project. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. my name is michael. and i'm a nurse practicioner who has been through the temple many times. i'm in support of the temple and the project. the building can receive hundreds of practicioners

throughout the year in more adequate and convenient spaces that has been possible until now. [inaudible] it's a significant improvement on the current situation now. at times, especially on important days on the buddhist calendar, it's not been possible to accommodate those who've come to practice. there's been a limitation and i think as members of a community promoting peace and tolerance and compassion for all in society, they will continue to. congregation to the residents in the

[inaudible] outside meditation space in the middle of the structure will bring less light to the residents now. thank you to the commissioners for taking these comments into consideration. thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is lynn vandyke. we recognize here in the building the need for the temple to build a new building and we welcome it. however, it seems to be expensive air and light. i live in the very low unit. most of the light i get is reflected from the st. luke's building and also from a building kitty corner across van ness. the high-rise part on van ness

low pressure block the light i get from the building kitty corner across van ness and the i'm particularly concerned about the mass of the dormitory in the back. in the three and a half years since we last met with the architects in the temple, we had hoped there would be some mitigation to the needs that we have and there's been no communication at all during that time. as i say, i'm not opposed in general to the new building, i think it's very attractive, but we think the dormitory particularly in the back and the slanted roof of the high-rise in the front are of the expense of our light and air. the dormitory in the back is particularly concerning. it seems to be an overreach and an overbuild for the uses that they say they're going to put to the building and we are concerned about bests that would be there that are not

members of their congregation or their local congregation at least at our expense of light and air. please consider some mitigation to the proposed building. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i am the owner of 1745 kliess street the adjacent automotive building on the adjacent side of the proposed project. this family has been in the neighborhood for almost 85 years. i'm asking the commission to delay any vote based on the scale of the project. the dormitory which i guess is proposed for 16 units does seem like an overreach based on

quite a few of the previous callers relating to airbnb issues, the amount of transient population, the size of the temple. the problems with the design of the temple, it's the scale. i understand we raise these issues three years ago, i guess, when there was a meeting at the temple by the architects. my only comment was at that time was the size and the ability of the dormitory area in the parking structure. we were not notified of any architectural meeting with the community. our only notice was approximately six plus weeks ago when there was a proposal before you and it was delayed. that was a week or two before that was the first we heard. so as an adjacent party as is the condos, i wish we were

consulted. so therefore i ask to have a revision of the size of the project and if we're going to have residential units either make them open for the public so everybody can benefit. if not, this is a private project and is way too large for the local area. i want to thank you for your time and thank you. >> caller: good afternoon president and commissioners. i'm also one of the condo owners on 1776 sacramento street and on the northern side of the building that will be greatly impacted by the proposed project. again, i want to reiterate what all my fellow condo owners have said. i'm not opposed to the project in general and, in fact, the building is very attractive and

we understand the need of the temple that is in line with the times and look and feel and also maybe the size of the congregational needs. so we're not against it, but i do think the previous comment, the gentleman mentioned for the scale and size of the building, i am surprised that we heard about the project so late in the process and especially surprised when they mentioned that they have spoken to the neighbors. obviously, this neighbor of 51 units, residential units have not been notified or been communicated with. i echo the words of all my fellow condo workers who have spoken and i'm not going to waste your time in rehashing all the details. i would really like consideration of a design plan that do not impact so many of

our lives and i'm going address the issue of light and privacy and we can do so by looking at the variances in conditional use by rethinking about reducing the height and the number of rooms. and i thank you for your time and to consider and really not make any decisions right away. thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is dennis goldman and i've participated in many activities at the temple and i'd just like to say [inaudible] and it will be a huge benefit to everybody in the community because there would be so many activities and there will be so many different uses to the building. that area of van ness is pretty

dead right now. i live about ten blocks away. i walk up to the temple. it's some of the nicest people i've met and would just be a huge addition to an otherwise [inaudible] part of san francisco. thank you very much. >> caller: hello. i live across the road from the east side and i consider myself a neighbor of the temple. my support reasons currently is old and outdated. of the neighborhood. it's not enough space to accommodate these services. these are providing updated structure to the communities

and businesses. we need a place to take a break from this fast progressing world and this facility can provide a serene and calming environment for the community. this has been serving purposes to promote learnings, diverse culture, arts. >> to complement church services from next door, this also provides learnings for our rental values. the new facility will facilitate the elevation of these surfaces to the community. this will bring more foot traffic to the neighborhood and area. even in a community, the city needs such a location. this facility has been serving these visitors for the past 30 years. these services have outgrown the building. it's best for this organization to upgrade the beauty and

provide a more synchronized view of the building. i hope our commissioners will approve this project. thank you. >> caller: hi. my name's allen wong. i am a member of the temple. i work in the civic center area and it's a place where i can walk to after work or during work on a break. i support this project because i feel that, one, it will bring businesses and jobs into the san francisco economy which is needed right now. i feel that we, i do hear some concerns from neighbors and i feel what architects have done,

hopefully they've addressed the issues with moving things back. i feel that, you know, this project helps support and, you know, puts a spotlight on what international city of san francisco is and we're able to have such a wonderful place not just for the devotes, but also for visitors. and, you know, it's something that will make the corridor china. i feel that there are parts of the van ness corridor that need to be revitalized and we want to be part of that. the van ness bus rail. so we want to be part of that and we want to make sure we can provide these jobs, construction jobs to the city and that's what my comment is. so i support this project and i hope that it goes through.

>> caller: hi. i live three and a half blocks from the temple on the northeast side. i have two girls, one is 11, the other is 12. before the pandemic, i used to take them to the temple to attend sundae school and the classes. sunday school and the classes. my kids enjoy the classes there. they not only learn about the cultures and arts, but most importantly, they learn about empathy and how to be their personal best. they especially enjoy the same dance class, but however, due to the size of the building and

o.h. at the building when there's an event going on another part of the building, their classes have to be canceled. so it's always a disappointment when that happens. so i as well as the parents of other students in the sunday school, we really hope that the temple can be rebuilt so that kids and other temple goers can have a better facility to continue their learning in life and build their characters so that they can benefit the society. thank you. >> my name is irene gong. i live three blocks away from van ness avenue.

the reason of support is the temple is too old and deteriorating which cannot be benefitting. it's my place to learn psychology and philosophy during this unstable society. it will bring out the function of buildings. and clarification for this community. our community really needs the public service to help the general public to learn and recognize the optimism which is loving, kindness, and compassion. the new look of the temple is amazing which would be a great

benefit to the neighborhood and i remember to put in my mind is our teacher teaching us say give others and give others faith. thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is rachel and i live in unit 509 at the 1776 sacramento street. i definitely echo my other neighbors from the building, but i, yeah, i just want to add, i think it was a disingenuous statement to suggest there was an outreach to the neighborhood since our building had not been contacted since 2018 and i think we all would agree that a

modernization of any building is great and we're definitely not speaking to the services the temple offers. it is simply the structure itself and the different exemptions that are being asked from the codes and the planning codes. and so i'm asking for a delay in approving this project based on that a no formal impact assessment has been done especially a light assessment and, yeah, just given the amount of exemptions with the different planning codes, i think this is very important. number two that the sponsor has not formally engaged with the only residential neighbors of the project and just potentially having the planning commission have an opportunity to visit the location. and so we want to work with the temple and just if we could look into some of the con sections as we said these

dormitory buildings, how many just potentially lowering the ceiling or the number of floors or adding floors below ground. that would be -- these concessions would make a huge difference and we would still both be able to live in the neighborhood and enjoy a new modern temple. thank you. clap. >> caller: i support all items. the project upon completion to me and the community.

to be a facility that will' further services and education to assist the community and the city. san francisco is a city of diversity and also includes different religions. in helping people including but not limited to religious service to the public of all ages and genders. the community needs a venue to learn about what is correct through religion and resume with minds through medicination and other methods. i have witnessed some teenagers and standards also in a followup session. i hope the commissioners will

approve this project. thank you very much. >> caller: hello. my name is donna branski and i live at 1960 coy street and have for the last 30 years around the same the temple came into existence. i'm calling to support having this horrible rundown leaky long overdue deteriorated temple that's there now replaced. i mean, it's really such a crime that the conditions there are what they are because once you get through the front door and talk to the staff and the people in there, you know, they're always gracious and kind and welcoming and it's

just a lovely experience to go in there. i find that whenever i go whether it's for celebratory occasions or to buy something in the gift shop, maybe just to stop and talk to the staff that works in there because they're so unique and comforting. i support the current temple to be replaced and i have seen the blueprints and i'm not in a position to be as knowledgeable as many of your callers have called in about what is -- what they're against. is all i can say is this is more than just a temple. i mean, it's a cultural society. it's a society that's known all over the world and there have been times that i have been in the book shop that people have come in from australia or remember one from denmark.

the people that come in from all over the world and they seem to find great solace in going in there. so what i'm saying is i hope that something can be worked out because the current conditions are awful. i saw the blueprints, i think it's beautiful of. i think it would really add some prestige to the neighborhood and frankly to van ness avenue. so i'm positive about it all and i hope that they can do it. >> caller: hi. i reside a few blocks away from the temple. the existing building is extremely archaic, has sub

standard conditions and a total eye sore and does not fit in. the limited space does not allow for any future growth. i do see a lot of tourists who walk on van ness and pass by the temple and this building does not give strength. in the news this morning i heard there's a survey conducted which resulted in more than 17% people now prefer a calmer life than life in the fast lane. the newly constructed temple will allow a place of solace, a place where people can meditate and find inner peace. this temple would definitely accommodate that. in addition, it will facile state the practice of buddhism. it will offer classes for the young and the old.

have youth group activities, have activities that involve both the neighborhood and community. furthermore it is centrally located and is accessible by public transportation or even by mere walking this will allow people from north beach access to the temple. the design of the temple is a combination of asian and buddhist culture and contemporary architecture of the neighborhood. it will revitalize the surrounding area. the city of san francisco both its cultural diversity and the reconstructed temple is definitely a part of this diversity and i hear a lot of the condo owners' concerns. i'm pretty sure those issues are in line of those with the architects, the builders, the sponsors. i urge you to approve this project.

thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is rosalynn. i live on broadway street four blocks from the site. i'm calling to support the current project it would become an eye catching spot.

to come and cultivate online some training. it also will be great to have i do believe the project will be inspirational. it will update all the design structure of van ness avenue and it will also add value and improve our neighbors' quality of life. the people there are very friendly so i sincerely hope that the commissioners will approve this project. thank you. >> caller: hi. good afternoon.

i live about three blocks from the temperature sxl i'm calling in support of this construction project. ever since the temple has been established, it's continued to give weekly services, vegetarian lunches, educational classes to our whole community regardless of their faith, up bringing, background, or their age. and like many people have mentioned, the building is starting to show its age and there have been leaks in the interior of the building and the outer part which is facing van ness which is the glass panels and it's also prone to vandalism. and as we leave the building in its current state, it's not only going to cause a problem to the site, but it's also going to cause a lot of issues to the wonderful community around us. so i hope that you can consider support for the free construction initiative and better position in temple to add to the cultural and religious diversity of the area

and hopefully we can continue serving our wonderful community. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak for members of the public. public comment is closed and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> president: i'm generally in support in the project and i call on commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i'm in full support of the project. i consider the project thoughtful and as one of the speakers just said

inspirational. i think it will be a wonderful addition in the location that for many years has raised questions about the viability of an older building. i really did not at all contribute to the street while its content as we heard from many people who spoke always have been strong in community and physical appearance helped make that block look actually quite neglected. with this new building including its mapping and responsiveness to the edges, i think it will be a great shot in the arm not only for this block, but also for van ness as a whole which has over the years lost a bit of its glamour. i'd like to ask staff and mr. hartman to briefly let us know what would happen to this

site if the residential site stayed dense. i think that would be perhaps a very good discussion to really help people understand the extremes. i personally do not believe this project is asking for significant exception. and this particular project has actually relatively particular because it's so well response to the challenge simply being sensitive to its neighbors. the windows will be that the issue of privacy two buildings to the south. if you could perhaps kick us off, i think it would be enlightening for the audience to hear what extreme would be possible on the site. >> sure.

well the underlying height and bulk district allows for the building height of up to 80' which would be about eight stories. with the state density bonus, it would depend on the level of affordability proposed, but you could envision an extra couple of floors above that up to probably 100 feet. residential uses were proposed, there would be a 25% rear yard setback required and so the mapping of that additional tower would be kind of pulled forward from where it's being proposed today. >> as far as filling up a lot in the street frontage, it could basically go from property lejeune to property line. i remember you were on staff already when we discussed the building in question from which we were hearing comments.

the 755 sacramento building underwent significant challenges and modifications. it asked for many exceptions at the time it was filled and the commission at that time spent an incredible amount of time shaping that building in all directions partially because of the sensitivity to the buildings going east as well as to its funded on the corner and how it transitions to lower buildings going north. that itself i think is a good explanation that there's lardly any building that doesn't have exceptions and exemptions and i believe in this particular case with all exceptions granted, that created a consensus to building and i'm glad that you are indeed explaining what would be possible under state density bonus and potential heights up to 100 feet. this would completely wipe out any aspiration for the condo building and its use. i just have to say that because

of the reality of the build up city, this particular project offers more sensitivities than i have seen in a long time. that's partially due to the institution nature, but also due to a skillful execution of the building. i'm in full support of it and i would like to see what other commissioners have to say. thank you. >> president: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: thank you. i really want to thank commissioner moore for her line of questioning because i do think it's helpful to understand what else could be built there if this project is not. i want to pursue something a little different. i want to point out that i think it's incredibly challenging, but absolutely critical for nonprofits to be able to align their real estate with their mission and it's a really complicated task for

nonprofits because of the enormous expense that's involved which often involves fundraising. years and years of planning especially when combined with the complex requirements of nonprofit governance. we should be working with the nonprofits to help accomplish their real estate goals. in this particular case, i'd like to point out that in addition to proposing what i think is a very beautiful building, this is a project that has many public benefits, that assists people with their spiritual practice and they're adding vibrancy to the neighborhood. so i am very supportive of the project. the neighbors did raise one issue that i wanted to discuss a little with staff and that was the concern about the possibility that the dorm units

might be using for short-term rentals. if i'm understanding correctly that that wouldn't be permitted even in the absence of a condition. i'm prohibiting it because of how we described the project in its institutional use. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. so religious institutional uses as defined in the planning code allow for the housing of persons who are associated with that religious institution. but that's the only type of i don't know what to call it. residential use because we're not considering it a residential use, but that's the only type of accomodation that would be permitted in association with this project. any other type of short-term rental or any other kind of residential use would not be permitted. >> commissioner: so while it might be redundant in light of what you just said, i actually

think it might be helpful to include a condition that makes it crystal clear to everybody, both the project sponsor and the neighbors that that kind of rental is not permitted especially in light of some of the concerns that were raised by the neighbors. and i wonder if you have language that you might propose that we could use for such a condition. >> i do. let me just bring it up really quickly. i anticipated this question, so we have drafted a condition of approval which was circulated to the commissioners yesterday that reads 'the dormitory shall be used for the housing of temple patrons and persons who engage in supportive activity for the institution at no cost to those persons. the dormitory shall not be rented. no uses are included but are not limited to a short term

hotel, residential, and intermediate occupancy. and that draft was vetted by the city attorney who is comfortable with that language. >> commissioner: thank you very much. i would be very supportive of this project and also be supportive of adding that condition assuming that the other commissioners agree with that. thank you. >> president: commissioner fung. >> commissioner: it's interesting how things come around in the following sense. i sat in on the original entitlement hearings for the residential property south of the particular site and i recall making or asking a

question to the developer what happens then if the adjacent property owner built out to the property line given the fact that their design and their increased density for that property had a lot of units with windows that were dependent upon light and air that they received from the property line. so, unfortunately, at that point in time, there was a very large recession undergoing in our city and the project got approved. but as commissioner moore

indicated, there were a lot of exceptions that were granted to it including probably rear yard and light and air exposure requirements which dated back to the planning code even in those days. the fact that this is not a developer proposing a residential project probably allowed some flexibility in the size of their program which then allowed the creation of not only the setback on the south property line, but also the adjustment of the massing with respect to the north property line of the church.

i find that the design attempts to mitigate some of the issues that have been brought forward by the neighbors and is probably the best that they can expect from a property owner adjacent to them who if it was a regular developer would have tried to maximize the square footage that they built on their site. additionally, i think given the issue of this amendment to the s.u.d.n.s. plan, i do find that this is a significant public interest that is being proposed and would be supportive of this project. >> president: >> commissioner: tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i want to thank all the commissioners for their

thoughtful comments. i did have a question for staff about the legislative change that's proposed. if you can just share a little bit about the way that it was designed in terms of coming up with specifying this block specifically this parcel rather for the legislative change in the s.u.d. >> sure. the proposed legislation was drafted by the project sponsor and the intent was just to capture this one site and this one use rather than capturing the whole district which the 3:1 residential to nonresidential requirement applies to. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. i do have some concern, commissioners, about just having a legislation that applies just to one parcel identified and i wonder if it would be more appropriate to have the legislation apply either to religious institutions within the s.u.d.

and it would seem to me that religious institutions while certainly they may add housing and certainly i would love to see more places add housing in line with their goals and with their worship facilities, that may not be appropriate for every religion institution. and so maybe perhaps that those that are within this s.u.d., it would be appropriate to exempt them from the 3:1 ratio should they like the temple want to expand or upgrade, housing may not be part of that programming that they can accommodate or part of their mission. and so, either religious institution or possibly larger category of institutional communities i might propose we amend the legislation to capture those types of uses within the s.u.d. so not just to have it play to the one. that's one concern that i would raise and i hope that would be included in the motion if one's made soon. and i wondered if the project

sponsor -- we did hear some concerns from the callers regarding the function of the dormitory. so i wonder if the sponsor can talk about who they anticipate might be using the dorms and how that it is in line with the temple. >> hi. can you hear me? >> commissioner: yes. >> hi. i'm here on behalf of the temple. yeah. these are small efficiency dorm rooms that are intended to be used, they're free of cost. we have no concerns with the condition that was proposed at all. free of cost use for individuals who are working in support of the institution. short, physical stays in the temple with members occasionally are part of the buddhist practice. so it would be used from time to time for that purpose. it's also going to be used to accommodate visiting scholars

and monastics and people contributing to the site and offering to the temple. >> commissioner: great. thank you so much for that explanation. and, i wonder if you can talk a little bit about how i think like my fellow commissioners have stated it seems the building was sculpted very carefully and perhaps the architect who was on earlier could talk about how the impacts to the neighboring buildings were assessed in term officer the impacts to light? it seems that's the primary concern of the building next door on the units that face that building. can you talk a little bit about that. >> yes. certainly. if you can hear me. so, yes, this was our fundamental concern at the very beginning reinforced by our very early meetings with the members of the parish and the director of st. luke's as well

as the owners of the buildings on 1776. those meetings go back a long time. this project's been going on for quite some time. so we've worked very hard to find ways to open the project up in the center and that was achieved by splitting the program apart and placing a small pavilion on van ness street which helps us to complete and satisfy the educational proponent of the project and moving as far away east in order to provide views and light for as many of the condominium dwellings as we possibly could as well as the light on the stain glass windows. over the course of the design, we looked at various configurations. we looked the at a longer,

skinnier idea that although it essentially would pull the dorm away, it would block all of the views for those units. and, it would cast a shadow on st. luke's. this is the idea for this program. i would point out among what we've done, we did slope the roof down on the pavilion in order to provide more light and views for the windows that are literally right on the property line. so in order to maximize their views and we also have made that connection, that one is that is through the open air. as opposed to having that closed building, to have it open with the terrace garden that you saw. not many property onners would agree we'll get to part of our program to get there.

but this owner is very empathetic with needs of their neighbors and wish to do no harm or minimize. so those are some of the things we did to help improve this. >> commissioner: okay. thank you very much. i want to echo just the thoughtfulness and it's exemplary thinking about how to do your best on and not withstanding it's not possible to have no impacts on those again provides a congregation. if the city attorney could offer any comments regarding having the s.u.d., the amendments applied to religious institutions or institutional community use versus only

applying to this particular parcel. >> commissioners, kate stacy from the city attorney's office. i think that it's really up to the commission as to how broadly you want this exception to apply. the commission's resolution has stated the reasoning behind limiting it to this one site for this particular kind of use, but there are other both categories and ways of applying this exception or exemption in the area. but i think it's really up to the planning curb and there needs to be a rational basis for the exception and also as you've already stated in the resolution, the public, sort of

a public reasoning for allowing the exception and i think that the planning commission resolution that chris may and our office has worked on has attempted to articulate that, but there's also the option of changing the category as well as the applicable in the commission discretion. >> secretary: commissioners, i apologize for the interjection, but there is a member of the public that is requesting to speak. should we allow that person to submit their testimony? >> president: yes. go ahead. >> secretary: okay. you have two minutes. caller, you have two minutes. okay. last chance, caller. okay. we'll i sincerely apologize for

that interruption, commissioners. >> president: i think commissioner imperial will be here for her comments. please go ahead. >> commissioner: thank you, president koppel. yes, i too am in support of this project and i think regarding commissioner tanner's comment about the exemption, i believe that to the staff and city attorney's resolution is adequate enough in order for this specific project. the reason is that for me in order to do an exemption for the whole s.u.d., i think we have to, for me, i would have to look at it in terms of what other projects or religious institutions that are coming up as well. but i think what the staff has drafted is adequate. and i also support commissioner diamond in addition of the conditional approval although it's already given, but to get more clarification in terms on the intent use of the

dormitories. again, personally, i've been in to the meditation rooms and the usage of the dormitories are the purpose of those retreats and i understand many of the meditation centers are 501c 3 as well. and i am in full support of this project and would support commissioner diamond's addition of conditional approval. >> president: is that a second? >> commissioner: second. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i just wanted to pick up on commissioner tanner's comment. a thoughtful challenge for us to always think ahead and why i'm not prepared to really broaden the modifications which are proposed by staff and extend them into the entire s.u.d.. i believe it would be very appropriate for staff, particularly of future planning

to look at the van ness corridor and see if there are other sites and other uses which would benefit from that and i'm making this as a cautious comment for us to be open to considerations like this, but i do not want to do that as commissioner imperial said without further study and consultation from staff and future planning. >> president: mr. tig, did you want to chime? >> sure. it's primarily due to the nature of the unique lot configuration with the kind of flag pole portion of the lot that connects to clay and that's been the nature of the lot for many decades and because it has that limited access along clay, it's basically impossible to add or maintain vehicular access off

of that without the variants and so i'm supportive of the variants for the project. >> secretary: okay. thank you. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe commissioner diamond made a motion. commissioner imperial supported the motion and commissioner koppel seconded the motion. so if there is no further deliberation from members of the commission, what i have is a motion to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include the condition read into the record by staff. and that's it. very good then, commissioners, on that motion, [roll call]

so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> and, jonas, i will close public hearing. >> secretary: thank you. commissioners, that will place us on our final item in today's agenda. number 15, case number 2021-000433cua. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation. >> yes, jonas. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 717, 202.2a 5 and 303.

doing business as clement street. the site is located within the outer clement street district. the outer clement ncd requires establishment for. applies to the established under planning code section 202.2. but the entitlement for the site has since been abandoned by that project sponsor. the closest is approximately 1,430'. the nearest schools are santa monica school which is a 1,000' away from the site. an elementary school.

st. john of san francisco orthodox academy 5,000 feet from the site and presidio medicine school. within the vicinity are my little learning tree preschool, mother goose, and a montessori school. these are not identified as schoolses under the planning code, however, in response to the context, the proposed cannabis retail store is designed to along with a strong security presence and staff monitoring the store front. the project is not authorized for on site smoking or vaporizing of cannabis products. the proposed hours are 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. they're proposing miner improvements. to date, the department has

received 30 letters in support and ten letters in opposition. the letters of support encouraged balance that this business would bring a geographic presence in the city along with providing through community support initiatives. the letters of opposition expressed concerns about access to the cannabis. staff would like to clarify that the department received 10 additional letters of support that contains typographical errors. under code 1613, an equity. the equity application has applications for the equity applicant has applications for one of the locations which is at 2000 mobile street.

activating the current evacuee cannot space and it furthers the city's equity program as well. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. the applicant has a presentation and i will hand it over to them. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. project sponsor, are you with us? >> hi. i'm with you. >> secretary: okay. you have five minutes. >> okay. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. so i would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to my team's presentation today. my name is tiara mitchell ceo and equity applicant of the proposed cannabis retail location at 2428 clement street in the richmond district. i also have my team here with me and architect gary g. on the

line. i have worked in san francisco's cannabis industry for over ten years dating back to prop 215. i'm a second generation resident of san francisco, born and raised in the bayview hunter's point district. a community where the potion of cannabis has called many of its residents devastating hardships. i want to be able to demonstrate to my community that we have the ability to be entrepreneurs within the legal system, not in opposition to it. i started as a patient consultant and worked my way up the ranks. currently, i'm the current manager of the downtown san francisco cannabis dispensary and i couldn't be more excited to be here with you today sharing my hopes, dreams, and skills for this stage in my career. i'm proud to say our team is led by strong, experienced women of color with over 25

combined years in the cannabis industry. next slide, please. my partners have built in a manage major initiative in oakland cannabis equity program. such as the first work force development program and shared kitchen in the united states. in these programs, they have given equity applicants professional knowledge to get jobs in the cannabis industry as well as provide stools and resources to get their cannabis products. we plan to bring the same success and best practices and implement them in san francisco. we also plan to use these resources to be able to carry diverse inventory of equity, trade, certified black brown and lgbtq owned products on our shelves. we also look forward to implementing a compassion program with the san francisco chapter of the browning mary

democratic club. currently, the only operated dispensary in the richmond is about one mile from the proposed location of clement greenery which is not conducive to the elderly and disabled population of the neighborhood. they need a closer location to purchase their medicine. the opening of this project will provide much needed equitable access to cannabis as medicine to the richmond residents. this is especially important to me coming from prop 215 era when much of our focus was helping medical cannabis patients before this newfounded recreational era began. and i hope to give back to the communities which need these resources the most. and next slide, please. and, finally, we are excited to create economic and entrepreneurial growth in the

richmond neighborhood by providing jobs to the residents, increase security measures in becoming positive, active members of the community. there will also be additional service opportunities which can be outsourced to the community such as janitorial insecurity. lastly, ensuring we are working with the community and being a good neighbor is our number one priority, we have spent countless hours in the community performing various outreach tasks and talking with the different members of our community without our proposal. we have posted two community meetings and have met with one supervisor connie chan. we have spoken to business owners and community groups, reached out to over 700 neighbors and collected numerous letters of support from neighbors and other business owners in the richmond. in closing, i'm so happy to be here in front of you today, commission. primarily because the war on

drugs not only has a major impact on my community, but on me personally, my family, my childhood and my adult life. the war on drugs directly took my father out of my life for many of my years as youth and left my mom to raise four kids on her own. operating a dispensary, my dispensary brings a sense of justice to my family. to be honest, i never thought the one thing that took my dad from me for so long would potentially be the same to give my family a chance at a brighter future. this cannabis equity opportunity in san francisco has the potential to give me the opportunity to bring my dreams of the business that helps me and my community to a reality. as well as be able to create wealth and accumulation for my daughters, an opportunity my mom was unable to give me.

thank you so much for your time and we look forward to your questions. >> secretary: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the commission on this matter by pressing star three. through the chair, you'll have two minutes. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: good morning, commissioners. i am a 20-year san francisco resident as well as a resident of the richmond district. we joined the cannabis industry four years ago and i'm here in full support of this motion and tiara. i was fortunate enough to be part of her journey. i managed her at a current dispensary downtown and to hear her story, to hear her ethics, to hear what drives her, i think there's no better representation of equity and representation than her especially in our industry.

i've been in several dispensaries and to say representation is lacking is putting it lightly. i think a lot of times, what the laws are put in for and what the execution were didn't always match up and to see someone with tiara's background who's done the work and due diligence, started as a consultant worked her way toup supervisor to be in a better position to run this business in a successful way and compassionate way and a way that respects the community's values as well as her values. being a mother, being a person of color, these are all things that are underrepresented in our industry and to have somebody of this caliber in this position right now i think is more important than ever. we're in a developing industry and right now these sorts of staples that we're putting in place are going to be the trend setters later on and i would be nothing but confident and happy and proud to say that i helped in this journey for tiara.

>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a 33-san francisco resident. i'm about four blocks from the proposed project. i'm very happy that we in the richmond can finally have our own dispensary that's close to us. there's one dispensary on 24th will serve the richmond all the way down to lincoln avenue. i just want to express my support and wish them the best of luck. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. my name is ron richards. i'm the cofounder of hemp

strips. i've been in this industry for ten years. and as part of my work, igotten to know many people in this industry from all different walks of life and backgrounds. i've got ton know this team i'm fortunate to have gotten to know them because i think that tiara and the team she's put together is what it's all about. they are true the true equity dream team. they've got 25 committed years of experience and expertise. they're hard-working individuals. they've got way out of their way above and beyond to make sure every group is represented and heard, countless hours of community outreach to try to bring something truly special to the neighborhood. i think it's something that's sorely needed. i think there's a lot of talk about the equity program, but

it often falls short because it's just an equity candidate that's put up by a corporate interest that's come in and get a dispensary into a particular neighborhood. this is what the equity program was all about. what tiara's doing, she has a great team that represents many communities of color. she represents women, what they need in this industry and their chance to get ahead, the lgbtq community. everybody is represented in this group and everybody is committed to making everybody feel welcomed. i want to say this is not your typical equity candidate and because of that, this is your chance to approve somebody that is fixing the things that were wrong with this industry and giving people a chance to as tiara said do things right in this industry. people who wanted to do things right, she's worked hard to make things happen. of this is a team that down to the core has what you guys want to see. this is the last step for them

to get final approval and move forward with the clement street location. i took time out of my schedule because i realize their dream is going to be great for you as well. >> caller: hi. i am lucky enough to live and work in the richmond. father of two, i do not smoke cannabis, but i respect others' rights to do so. for what it's worth, i hope my children don't smoke cannabis, but i respect people who do so. i do support this project. i support it for two reasons. number one, because of the jobs it will create. it will help the surrounding community. the restaurants been empty for

awhile. as a father, i love that somebody responsible is coming in that will follow the rules, that will respect the law and because of that just will be controlled rather than having somebody on a corner selling cannabis and as a result, i am completely in support of this project. please vote 'yes'. thank you. hi. >> caller: hi. i own the insurance agency on 26th and clement. i think this will bring more foot traffic to this area and although it's not rundown like the previous person said, it will help to revitalize the area and bring more people

around. so hopefully the commission will vote 'yes'. that's all. >> caller: hi. i'm the owner of another equity business on the other side of the pond called mom and poppa carry. i'm in full support of this project with tiara and her team. i've also been able to benefit from as she mentioned an innovative and one of the first equity manufacturing shared space kitchens in oakland that was also spearheaded by a lot of members of tiara's team and those opportunities could also be apart of the development of the equity work force in addition to the dispensary space. so i'm in support because i feel like this team could bring

a lot of additional opportunities, a lot of inclusive opportunities into the neighborhood and also just be an example of what equity could be in cannabis and kind of use this location as a training ground for all kinds of different innovative ideas. so yeah. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is jeffery lee and i'm a current resident of the richmond district for the last 34 years. i support this project because of the team's commitment to bring innovative training that prioritized people impacted by the war on drugs such as the workforce development program and also i really do feel like others mentioned it would revitalize the block. so thank you so much.

>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a current richmond small business employee. i'm calling in to voice my support for the swift approval of clement greenery at 2428 clement street. i support this project because the only operating dispensary is about one mile from the clement greenery which is not conducive to the disabled and elderly population. the opening of this project would provide much-needed equitable access to cannabis as well as the residents of the richmond. i hope you vote 'yes'. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. >> caller: oh, shoot.

>> secretary: hello? hello? >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> secretary: we can. >> caller: yes. hello. i'm a neighbor who lives right around the block and i would like to contest everything that the people have presented including your staff. for one, the woman who just spoke parroted the other statements about the other dispensary and other words she used it's .85 miles and it's suspect that the st. john's school is outside the 600' which, of course, the commission changed when it used to be a 1,000'. the 2018 report said that that school had to be named, it was formerly known as the virgin church, i forget the exact name. that school had to be noted because it was possible that it was within 600'. google puts it at 582'.

it's definitely not 1,500'. it's an orthodox school which is not a big proponent of marijuana. based on the errors, they do not know the neighborhood and did not even take the time to walk the neighborhood and they didn't even take the time to proofread their application to make sure that it is all correct. they think there's no bus stops in the area. there's a bus stop right around the corner. tiara mitchell, it's right around the corner on the block. the middle school kids congregate at that location often. there used to be more buses because of the pandemic. [inaudible] is listed on a letter of support as a team member, but he's not listed on the

application. there's a tenant like piggy back fix the tenant's apartment that i don't think you can do and the landlord has not applied for any permits on that. the people who signed those letters were all -- not all, but one of them is listed as an owner of real estate. he also signed a letter of support. his friends who also work in these industries all sign letters of support. >> secretary: thank you, ma'am, that is your time. >> caller: so the application is filled we reports and the person has not proved. >> secretary: that is your time. >> caller: well you need to look at this application and verify the facts of this. he signed it that it was true and accurate.

>> caller: hello? hello commissioners. good afternoon. my name is rachel. and i'm a 15-year bay area resident and i've had the pleasure and privilege of working with tiara for over five years and i am in full support of this project. she has my resounding support. tiara always approaches the way she operates with the utmost professionalism and i can't think of anyone else who deserves this more than tiara. she represents mothers and people of color and women in the industry and no one else will take the opportunity to the level like tiara will. and i appreciate your time and i hope you all vote 'yes'.

>> caller: hi. i'm benjamin lou. i'm an owner on clement street. i'm also in support the cannabis club. i personally, do i use it myself. i do have a back problem and i think it's a great idea having one closer to where i work. i think the only other one i go to is probably the one on gary street which is a lot farther for me to walk to. i definitely support this project. >> caller: hello, my name is claire. i met tiara professionally in the cannabis industry about five years ago and have remained friends with tiara since.

i think the two things that really made me want to call in today is that first and i can only echo what other people have said. tiara is a joy to work with. i have seen her execute some of the most difficult transitions for some of the most influential cannabis dispensaries and the best cannabis dispensaries in the san francisco bay area. [please stand by]

. >> i hope you guys really do support this project. thank you very much for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jessica mataka, and i'm calling in in support of clement greenery. i'd like to take this time to speak about [indiscernible]in

our city. it is also critical in maintaining a city where all residents have opportunities to thrive economically.

>> they're also critical generators of sales tax revenue for our city services, and they are highly beneficial for the city. thank you very much. >> i would like to point out that everybody's speaking about the business owners and no one is speaking about the youth -- >> have you spoke already -- >> yes, i've spoken already, but you cut me off. >> clerk: okay. seeing that there's -- oh, there's one more caller. go ahead, caller. >> hi. i'm a resident of san francisco

for 28 years, and i'm calling to -- in support of the clement greenery. i think this business will, you know, help drive the surrounding business and hopefully will bring more foot traffic, and i just want to support voice that i support this -- the clement greenery. thank you. >> commissioners, good afternoon. my name is ray wong. i'm a resident and homeowner here in the city, in the sunset district. i also own a business here in the city. i'm in full support of this dispensary on clement street, proposed dispensary.

the reasons are, one, there's only two cannabis dispensaries between the richmond and sunset district. this will help those that want these types of businesses. and it will help the veterans easier access to get it. also, miss mitchell is a woman, a minority, and i support any business owned by a woman and a person of color. if you look at the two dispensaries in the richmond sunset, there haven't been any crazy incidents like that going on, so i imagine that it will be another thriving business to help out the richmond district. so commissioners, please, please vote for this dispensary. thank you for your time.

>> clerk: very good, commissioners, and members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak for members of the public, public comment is closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: thank you to call the people who called in for public comment today. it seems like the project sponsor did extensive public outreach for this project, and i'm in support of the project today. and commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i am very encouraged by the significant amount of public support. i was on the fence on this

because the clement has a more fractured voice, but today, i see the community is more united, and in particular, this is a woman of color who owns this particular business. we do not have any minority women owned businesses as of yet, and since the community is in support of this project, i am in support of it, as well. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have a question for staff. throughout the staff report, there's reference to the various kinds of security that will be used at the project, but there are no actual conditions of approval that deal with security, so could you just talk us through how security is actually handled

and how does the security that's proposed and packaged is actually implemented and enforced. >> sure, commissioner diamond. so a security plan is submitted by the applicant to sfpd, and the office of cannabis proactively ensures that the applicant is in line with the security plan, and the good neighbor agreement. the office of cannabis conducts yearly, you know, inspections, even when there is no cause, such as a complaint to go to the location? they make sure that all of the establishments that have been approved are strictly regulated, and that they're all compliant with the agreed-upon plans and conditions of the city. >> commissioner diamond: so

it's not the security that does the enforcement, it's the city? >> that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: and then, i heard one of the commenters make reference to a tenant on the property? >> yes. there is a building on the property, a one-unit resident. the owner has not spoken to the staff, and the building in the front was previously used as a restaurant, and i think the owner is in agreement with the proposed use and has agreed for this cannabis business to be established. >> commissioner diamond: thank you very much. so i, too, am in support of this project. it seems like there was an outpouring of support, and i definitely appreciate seeing a woman of color being the

applicant, and i would move to approve. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: seeing no additional deliberations, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and concludes today's agenda. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> commissioner fung: good night. >> vice president moore: good night, everybody. thank you. >> clerk: enjoy the rest of your evening.