wound allow for both to be simultaneously pursued. >> commissioner. >> i'm also not supporting this project while the version we've seen today is certainly an improvement over what we saw last time, it doesn't come close to being a code compliant project as it completely fills the backyard of the lot being created. while i do support an increase in density on the corner lots, i don't think we should get there

on a property by property basis using variances to try to get around the planning code. i believe as i said last time, this kind of policy change requires legislation that then provides predictability and consistency. i was curious to see if the legislation currently under consideration would allow for this project and as we heard earlier today it doesn't. not currently code compliant and the legislation as currently drafted doesn't support it and i don't see how i can approve a project that's not code compliant and use the variance project so i will not be supporting the project. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner diamond, you couldn't have said it better. thank you and i support and echo every comment you made.

i do think unfortunately running counterto -- counter would look at the corner loss under the current legislation we would not have something which looks like sub standard lots and 100% lot coverage for the second lot just doesn't work for me and i would not support this project. >> commissioner imperial. >> i too will not support this project for the reasons commissioner diamond and moore have stated already. and i do find the a.d.u. as voluntarily to be an

inclusionary part and there's no way for the planning department for the a.d.u. to be affordable or put inclusionary. in that matter, i do not support this project and i'm sure you heard commissioner moore's deliberation and would like to make a motion to disapprove the project. >> second. >> i will take your advice on whether or not we've heard sufficient findings from members of the commission in order to creator draft a disapproval motion. the only motion today is an approval motion, however, we have heard this several times. i think commissioners have articulated the reason for findings for which they

adisapproving this project but will defer to your advice whether the commission make a motion to disapprove and allow staff to confer with you. having said that, obviously, it will have to come back as another hearing. >> thank you, secretary. i do think it would be cleaner to make a motion of intent to disapprove. i think i just saw the administrator's flash so we may have something to add on the variance piece of this. it is possible certain, if other commissioners wanted to weigh in and if it was unanimous what the grounds were that the disapproval could happen tonight but i think probably the cleaner and more cautious approach would be a motion and disapprove to have staff draft something up. >> if you want to add

anything -- >> thank you, commissioners, cory teague's zoning administrator. i won't belabour the point but to commissioner diamond's statements earlier, my position on the project hasn't really changed since the original hearing as i mentioned in the planning code prohibits variances to be affected if they will reclassify the plymouth and in this case it's essentially a request to upzone the property to an rh4 type of zoning. additionally, the challenge too is there's no real specific exception or extraordinary circumstance other than the fact it's a corner lot with rear yard space that's been developed. for those reasons i'm still not supportive of the variance. >> commissioners, i have just

been advised by staff in fact you have had a disapproval motion in front you have at the very first hearing. there is the potential of adopting those findings to disapprove as there is a motion that has been seconded today for this proposal. commissioner moore. >> i would like to redirect my question to city attorney and the professional language and where administrator teague verbalized his concerns and professional opposition to the variances has been expressed in layman language by the majority of commissioners' thinking and the code compliance also deals with lot size and subdivision of a corner lot on its own could be

built to a more supportable density but the subdividing to substandards lots goes beyond our own capability of understanding the non-compliance except it is a non-compliance. i'd like to ask based on the professional advice from our zoning administrator we have sufficient evidence to basically deny the project tonight. >> you have a motion in front of you and they could let us know if that's correct. >> clarification the commission has seen a disapproval motion before. that was what staff prepared and

motion staff prepared for the project's first hearing back in november of 2020. it's technically not within the case report before the commission that provides the commission today. they have been provided and denial motion has been previously drafted for this project. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, i guess my question was was the basis stated in that motion the lack of code compliance as commissioner moore just commented a moment ago? >> it was a component of an unpermitable a.d.u. but yes, a major portion of the motion and findings for disapproval were based on the non-compliance of planning code and with

residential design guidelines. >> if the council so chose they could adopt that motion with the motion they finalize those findingss statements made today and -- >> that's what i was going to suggest. >> i would add those findings. >> commissioner moore, anything else? >> if there's nothing further, commissioners. >> i was going to add to the comment about residential guidelines, the severity of the project today and focussed more on the non-code compliance. i left the question approaching of the fully interpreted design guidelines and i could easily add that.

>> to commissioner moore to clarify, those comments in regards to non-compliance or non conformance with the residential design guidelines were height and there was a different contempt for our findings for that project that may not be applicable to the current project for you. >> and i think because we already have a very heavy load here we don't have -- >> commissioners, if i understand correctly there's a motion that's been seconded to disapprove the project adopting the original motion that was before you one year ago november 19, 2020 and direction with two staff to work with the city attorney's office to clean up the findings to reflect the comments today. on that motion --

>> i'm sorry, if i may make one offer we'll have to revise the project description so it reflects what was before the commission tonight. >> on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commission president koppel. >> no. >> clerk: the motion passes 4-2 with commissioners tan and koppel voting against -- that places on -- >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to deny. >> thank you. commissioner will place us on item 19 a conditional use

authorization. are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm department staff. the item before you is a request for condition an authorization pursuant to planning code section 22.2 and to establish the ground floor at an associated storage space at the basement level of the building at 900 irving street. site is located within the sun set neighbourhood commercial district and 40x bulk and height district and it requires a conditional use authorization for establishment of cannabis. the location complies under the planning code section and other cannabis retailers are located at 2161 irving street approximately 3900 feet away from this site.

on haight at 1685 haight street approximately 300 feet away and sgw haight approximately 4,400 feet from the site. the nearest schools are independence high school which is 1,000 feet away, little angels pre-school another 1,000 feet away. the alternative school 800 feet away and wood side international and jefferson elementary school both are 2,000 feet away from the site. in response to this context, the proposed cannabis store is designed to keep products from street view with strong security presence and staff monitoring the storefront. the project is not authorized for on-site smoking or

vapourizing of cannabis products. the project is proposing tenant improvements such as storage and bathrooms. it has the proposed signage. as of today the department has received a total of 12 letters in support and two letters in opposition. the letters of support own courage the balance to the geographic distribution of cannabis stores this project will bring to the inner sunset neighbourhood. letters also support appreciation for the equity applicant. the letters of opposition express concerns about smoking of cannabis product in the vicinity of the site and loitering and additional security issues. under the code they are allowed to have up to four location. the applicant is listed on one other approved cannabis location

at 5801 mission street. the applicant was previously listed on another cannabis location on cesar chavez street they have withdrawn since then. this would bring the total locations under the applicant to two and the applicant has previously operated a medical cannabis dispensary closed due to the business lease agreement by the owner of 1284 mission street. it complies with the general plan and provide as a new business by activating a current vacancy and complies with the equity programme goals. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation around i'm available for questions. the applicant has a presentation. thank you. >> thank you.

>> can you all hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. >> thank you so much. thank you for the thorough presentation and how professional this process has been from our perspective and good evening commissioners. we appreciate the time and have to comment on your remarkable endurance today. i am peter i'm a 22 year resident near the sunset and raised my family three blocks away from 900 irving street. on the phone with me is my co-founder a san francisco native and our equity applicant partner that was introduced. the photograph you're looking at to orient you, you are is our

store where we opened in 2017. just a little bit. eli and i have known each other 15 years and his father and i have good friends and we witnessed his dad deal with a diagnosis 14 years ago of pancreatic cancer and is a survivor and used cannabis for treatment of systems and side effects like appetite, nausea, pain, anxiety, sleep. that was a huge inspiration especially for eli to want to get into this industry. with a focus on health and wellness which is really part of our mission statement. we're completely focussed on helping our customers understand cannabis better and how it can work positively for whatever

ailments and the recreational part part of the landscape today but our mantra is to solve problems and not products and cultivating health and we're focussed on local environments wherever we operate and work with southern california small farmers and do organic and so forth and now heidi for the next slide. >> >> i'm thrilled to be the equity partner on this project. i'm a native san franciscan, proud mother and wife and the first la tina dispensary operator and the third to be fully licensed as a medical

cannabis dispensary in 2008 and one of the first seven to be granted an adult use permit in 2018. the commitment in working with small local farmers and promoting sustainability in cannabis makes me proud to partner with them on the irving street location as we share the same values for community involvement. i'll hand it back to peter. >> thanks, heidi. i know a lot of my neighbors really well and the merchants. we think this say fantastic neighbourhood for the kind of business that we're going to bring and the customer experience we're going deliver and we're committed to improving the neighbourhood in all kinds of ways, security, cleanliness, walkability of the street and to support our neighbour merchants especially in times of

operational issues around brick and mortar. i'm the one here 37 years more than half my life. i'll turn it back to heidi. >> through the process we had door to door outreach in the inner sunset and happy to have support from many residents and merchants during the process. we're grateful to be part of the merchants association and the inner sunset neighbors. at 900 irving we're committed to being active community members and building lasting relationships with merchant and neighbors and feel it will activate the corner and create good jobs and support neighborhood businesses. i'll hand it back to peter.

>> so we're going to show our presentation. i hope we made the five minute mark and we'll open it up to questions if there are any. thank you very much. >> thank you. that concludes the presentation public, this is your opportunity it speak pressing star 3 and when you hear your line has been unmuted that's your indication to speak. >> good evening, my name is martin and i live at 1371 tenth avenue. i'm definitely supporting this application. there was early discussion about the cannabis store at 21st avenue. i have a disability and walking past 19th avenue is very difficult as well as dangerous. this will be much more

convenient for me and the haight street store i know it exists but it's not the same neighborhood. i have to walk far to get to haight. thank you very much. bye-bye. >> is this the line for support or on this? she has done a great job particularly in the soma district where there's tremendous need in restoring the veteran community and i'm ryan miller and i'm born in san francisco and marine corps veteran and in strong support of

this project. thank you for listening. >> this is from the san francisco social club and resident of the haight ashbury neighborhood ten blocks from the sunset and i'm a senior and i shop a lot in that area and would like to be able to pick up my cannabis medicine as i do the same time as i do my other shopping. we support location ins all the neighborhood so all the shopping people want to do including cannabis can be done at the same time. please support this project. heidi opened one of the first medical cannabis stores, which i was a customer at and an appreciate her and peter and

eli. please support this project say yes to them to have their own store. thank you. >> i was born in san francisco like my mother and i've had problems with customers and they sit on my front stairs. my building is well kept and in addition the people drinking and use my garage door for public toilet and urinate and defecate on the corner of my garage where it meets the garage door. and there's been no proven if

marijuana was proven a thing fad would approve this. they have not approved this and bringing another cannabis store to the inner sunset only brings down the neighborhood and there's a cannabis store on 23rd and irving street. [please stand by] .

my name is josh. i'm a 24 year state resident and a medical canada cardholder. i'm also a medical cannabis advocate and photographer. i'm calling about the project in the inner sunset because i believe that variety is the spice of life, and i like soulful because they literally saved my life. last year, my partner and i were diagnosed with covid, and i was left with hearing problems. soulful is the only dispensary that carries the type of cannabis that can give me some

relief. you can't currently walk into a dispensary of san francisco and have such a selection of medicine with information. i hope this project is approved so i don't have to drive 110 miles roundtrip to get my medication. >> clerk: that is your time. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is shawnna, and i am the executive director of love s.f., one of the longest running patient advocacy groups. i will keep this short. i also appreciate your endurance this evening. first of all, i was the

neighbor of miss hanley, and this once again embodies our goals of legacy, equity, and compassion, but this also embodies supporting our small legacy farmers, environmentally sound production, which in the future i hope the planning commission will always look at this point because obviously we are at climate crisis and we are losing a lot of our small legacy farmers. i urge your support on this, and thank you for your time. >> hi. my name is adriana, and i am a

supervisor at the sebastopol soulful. i have known peter lai for four years, and i can't say enough good things about this place. we work with amazing farmers, we utilize amazing medicine, and we get to help people that have gone through some things like what i have gone through. so i hope you can approve this store to help the community and we can continue to help people every day. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners.

>> president koppel: so i will be supporting this project today. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: want to thank the applicant, the staff, and all those who called in with comments supporting or opposing, and i would like to move the staff recommendation and approve the project. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further before the board, there's a motion and a second to approve conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously

6-0, and i should make a note that at the time of issuance, the case number on this matter was incorrectly posted, but in conferring with the zoning administrator, reading the correct case number now will not prevent you from considering this case today. the case number is 2021000709-cua for 1881-1885 lombard street. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. thank you for reading the correct case number, and i am ready to make my presentation. laura ajello, planning department staff. as you know, m.c. 3 districts

are located along heavily travelled thorough fares that run through commercial corridors. this developing zoning is primarily rh-2 and/or m-2. the subject property is a small two story commercial building with one tenant space on each floor. the building is currently developed with parking space in front of the building. the tenant would remove all on-site parking on the site and a one-car parking garage. the project also includes a request for on-site cannabis

consumption. the planning code allows for on-site consumption for cannabis as an accessory use is approved by the department of public health. the proposed hours of operation are daily from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. no tenants will be displaced as a result of this project. the subject site is currently vacant. the ground floor ebbant space was most recently occupied by a retail store. last known use of the second floor double unit was an office use. as noted in the executive summary, the sponsor conducted outreach for the office of cannabis good neighbor policy, which includes providing a mailed notice to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site and conducting an on-line outreach meeting. a meeting was held on october 31, 2021. there were 19 attendees, and the sole item of concern was

access by minors to cannabis. prior to the commission packet, no opposition to the project was received. after the distribution, there were three letters or statements that were distributed to staff. additionally, the project sponsor has submitted a full letter signed by people in support of the project.

staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. it contributes to the economic vitality of the neighborhood by occupying two storefronts that would otherwise remain vacant. this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer questions. the project sponsor would like to address the commission and has prepared a presentation. thank you. >> clerk: project sponsor, are you with us? >> hello. yes. are you -- can you hear us? >> clerk: we certainly can. you have five minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. we expected to say good afternoon, but we've been listening to all the presentations since 1:00 today, and we got a real education on

all the work that you do. my name is mitchell salazar, and i'm the sponsor for the 1881 lombard street project that you heard about today. i would like to thank laura for facilitating the presentation. we have provided one to you, and we will -- i will go by bullets on the slides moving forward. can we please go to slide 2? >> clerk: i'll pause your time. >> oh, you don't have access to my presentation? >> clerk: i'll just pause my time until laura gets her slides up. >> all right. thank you.

the investment that we are proposing to make on lombard street couldn't come at more of a timely manner. i'm sure that the commissioners and staff are aware of how long it took for van ness and lombard to be redone, repaved, and the impact, particularly covid, and the lengthy time of construction that it took, but it's now paved. merchants are able to receive customers in front of their stores like they used to. there's no working cranes around, and hopefully the jobs in that community are going to increase. we'll bring jobs to the community, we'll bring some economic recovery to the community. we'll bring some economic recovery to the corridor, and this project seems to fit what we're proposing to do.

slide four, please. we've done this before. marine equity partners has over 40 years of experience in plans of how to do this right. we are strongly concerned about strong security and infrastructure, and more importantly, the quality of community benefits program is why i'm involved in this. the equity applicant process has been a process for us as equity applicants. when this legislation was enacted, all of the medical marijuana dispensaries were grandfathered in, and everyone had to compete, go out and find spaces, and we've done three or four years of sweat equity, and we believe we're ready to move into the next steps. slide 5, please. why consumption at this space?

we have no tenants, we are not displacing any tenants, and we really believe a consumption lounge in that particular area of the city, there's not one currently, it would allow people to not smoke marijuana on the street. obviously, as i mentioned earlier with security, we're not going to allow that to occur, any way, but we believe that by having the space, making the request to have a consumption lounge was a wise business strategy that we wanted to request in this presentation. slide 6, please. our project, as laura had mentioned, has a number of community supporters citywide. in addition to that, i have walked lombard street a couple of different times over the

last month on saturdays, and i was amazed at the number of properties that were there, but we did receive support from some merchants and some individuals that resided in the neighborhood. next slide, please. i belong to a group called the san francisco equity group, which is a coalition of equity individuals that have been providing social services, as i mentioned in this city, through a multicultural lens and a framework. we came together and believe that the formation of the san francisco equity group would benefit us as we had to deal with in this very competitive and expensive voyage in setting up in the city and county of san francisco and very quickly we have been able to move

forward on that. two last comments on that -- >> clerk: that is your time, thank you. commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on this item, you should press star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to speak. >> hi. my name is patricia, and i'm with the cow hollow neighborhood merchants. first of all, we are a group that has had an at-risk program for minorities in the neighborhood for many years, so i don't want to hear anything about us being against this. my issue with this is our association, golden gate association, cow hollow association, and the marina association were never briefed

on this issue. [indiscernible] is almost 600 feet. my question is -- my big objection to this whole hearing right now is the fact that we found out two days ago. nobody was notified. i did contact people who lived on that block who actually work every day in the homeless and the drug issue, and none of them has heard of it. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. am i on? >> clerk: yes, go ahead. >> hi. my name is [indiscernible] and i'm calling in support of this dispensary. mr. salazar is an amazing

pillar to our community and to our whole entire city. we've served together, and he's been a great amazing mentor, and so i'm asking you guys to approve the project so he can continue to do the work. thank you. >> hi. my name is sean richard. i came before you back in 2019, in february, and you approved me opening up a dispensary on haight street. i want to say a few words about mr. salazar. he's been a mentor, he's been a lifeline for many young men in the city of san francisco and has stepped up to the plate. this would be a great way to continue his legacy by having

many young man continue the work that he's doing. i support the business, i support mr. salazar, and i support the project that you're going to approve. i know it's been a long night, but please approve this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, this this -- public comment is now closed and this item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: mr. salazar, i have a question for you. if i understand correctly, to the east, to the west, and to the south of this particular project, i see residential buildings. i see residential buildings with light wells flanking this particular project site.

my concern is you have rooftop equipment which will definitely be required of a type if on-site construction is installed. what impact will this have on surrounding buildings? >> thank you, commissioner moore. i know that the department of health have very stringent regulations regarding the use of vaping and smoking and there are very stringent hvac requirements, but i'd have to defer to the project sponsor to comment on these requirements. >> vice president moore: we know that certain rooftop equipment has a kind of noise

vibration, although you may not be able to talk about that at the moment. the second is what is the name of this particular business? >> the name of this business is marina greens. >> vice president moore: okay. this is just my reaction. the name marina green is a proprietary name of a major destination in san francisco. i was a bit taken aback by the close resemblance of what is a major open space in san francisco, and i don't feel the name of the business is really exciting to me. i don't have any real opposition, but i would like some clarification on the rooftop equipment and its ad joining residential uses, but i'm curious to hear what the other commissioners have to

say. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you. i'm in support of the project, and i wonder if the project sponsor could explain his thoughts for the on side consumption lounge, just maybe some of your rationale and thinking why you're applying for one and why you think it would enhance the business. could the project sponsor speak to that? >> yes, we're ready to speak. >> commissioner chan: great. >> my name is alec van der fabian, and i'm a business partner with mr. salazar. while there is rationale behind it, it is also a social justice. we feel that cannabis being

legalized but not allowed to be consumed in public is a matter of racial equity. if you own a home, you are free to use things, and if you don't, you are in the street, so it is to our understanding that having a place where people could use cannabis on-site would be a significant help to the community and those who cannot do so legally. >> and in addition to that -- this is mitchell salazar -- i would concur with laura and say that the prerequisites with the planning commission and all the requirements to do a consumption lounge would be followed by us if we were granted the opportunity to do so, and there is no

sidestepping the concerns that the previous commissioner had brought up, as well, and i'm sure that we would tease out these concerns administrative treyly so that if this is faez -- administratively so that if this is feasible, it would not impose on any of the neighbors. >> commissioner chan: great, thank you. if the other commissioners don't have any comments like to move to approve this project with conditions. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: if there's no further deliberation, commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

6-0, and will place us under your discretionary review calendar, commissioners, for item 21 at 2605 post street. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow? >> thank you, mr. ionin. good afternoon, president >> public request for review of building permit application 2020.0924 for construction of a third floor set back five feet from the front of the building with a new third floor balcony. the project proposes partial repair and expansion of the existing rear deck. it would increase the size of the dwelling from 2900 to 4900 square feet. a separate building permit

application to construct a second dwelling unit was applied for in june of 2020. and i apologize, that is referred to in the case report as an accessory dwelling unit. it is in fact, a second dwelling unit. the existing building is a category c. no historic resource, built in 1900. the requester of 2607 post street apartment b, resident of adjacent property to the west is concerned the third floor addition will impact light and air to the two adjacent dwellings. his proposed alternative is a nine set set on the rear or all three floors.

today, department has received no letters in support and no letters in opposition of the project. the planning department's review of the proposal confirms support because it conforms to the guidelines. in the application of the residential design guidelines to provide light and air, the department typically requests that they be matched by a three foot depth on the new portion of construction. the impacts to light and air was deemed by staff to be modest because of the difference in height and mass between existing and proposed which when combined with the four foot slide allows ample space for light and air. the dr requester is a two story

up hill of the subject property that gives it the advantage of elevation for access to light and air to those windows. there would be some impact to light to adjacent windows but not rising to the level of condition so staff deems there's no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow. requester, you have three minutes. >> hello? >> yes, you have three minutes. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> good evening. thank you for your time. my husband gregory and i are the

owners of 2607 post street. first, i would like to point out we're not objecting to the majority part of the project, we ask them to kindly consider the access of natural light and air in the back half of the building. my husband and i have lived here over 30 years, this is our home where we raised two children and we intend to continue living here another 20-30 years hopefully. the access to light and air is important to us, especially growing older. i would like to point out, as far as communication regarding the project goes, the owner and architect was a no-show for the first meeting we had while we waited in front of a computer for one hour. in the second meeting, finally able to communicate, i addressed our main concern of light and air in the back half of the addition but it was completely

ignored and disregarded. next one please. during the meeting, the architect mentioned they only need a three foot set back as it is customary to mirror the building. it should be from the ground up to allow proper air flow and light source. we're not going to ask them to tear down the two bottom floors of the building, we ask them to replace in the addition they haven't yet built for the air flow and light. next slide please. next slide please. here's a shadow study. from the far left, the occurring condition and then the midpoint and the far right shows the detrimental negative effect to the building off their proposal. for lower unit, each only have one window in the living room to

side path for access of natural air and light. i'll skip to the photo slide please. the photos taken in september showing how narrow the path is and how it is shadowed even without additional. both the bedroom and living room only have one window for air and light. this is about access to air and light and about quality of life for the next 20-30 years. i thank you for your time and your assistance helping us maintain quality of life for the next 20-30 years. thank you. >> thank you project sponsor. mr. rogers. are you -- you have three minutes. >> good evening commissioners

and thank you for hearing our perspective and working so hard and staying up so late tonight. on the heels of what david had to say, i wanted to reiterate that this project, property did start with an adu application that became a second unit. it is a 600 square foot space on the ground level independent of the vertical addition but i wanted to mention our intent is to merge those two projects after we hopefully receive approval for the vertical addition. i do want to apologize to ms. chin about the first pre-application meeting, we had technical difficulties and it didn't happen. that was not our intent. this photo here from across the street shows my client's project in the foreground and ms. chin's

project in the background. we intend to add one story above a house that currently has one living level above the garage. their property as you can see has three living levels above their garage. next slide please. we early on proposed that we mirror the three foot set back that their property has in order to help preserve the light and views and access to air that they currently have. after ms. chin voiced some complaints about that following our pre-application meeting, we did increase the site set back to four feet. here's a site plan just to show how the building exists on their properties and you can see the

rear yard set back drawn in there. a small portion of my client's property is within the rear yard set back. the neighboring property has a shorter lot and deeper building and that could possibly make the situation worse. but still, in an effort -- next slide please -- in an effort to try to make a compromise, we did offer to increase the side set back from four to five feet if ms. chin was willing to withdraw her review but we never heard back from her. this slide illustrates what david was pointing out. they are asking for a nine foot set back on the upper level, which we feel is a little extreme and wouldn't allow the floor plan to be feasible. or the three foot set back on all three levels which would be ownerous. we ask that you approve the

project as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no members, public comment is closed. you have one minute rebuttal. >> i want to point out, i'm in my 60s, in a few years with a bad hip and bad knee, i would be moving down stairs. i would no longer be able to climb the stairs, it is detrimental to our quality of life growing into our old age. i kindly seriously ask you to consider, this is very difficult

for us. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have a one minute rebuttal. >> i just want to say, we do completely understand that with projects that we take on in the city that include either a horizontal or vertical addition, it is difficult to work with neighboring buildings with side facing windows. the best we can do is mirror the setback they have, in this case we have gone beyond the three feet that is required. we feel the four feet we provided is more than adequate and we don't feel -- my client's project should have less property rights within current zoning than the neighbors just because their house was there first. thank you. >> commissioners that concludes

that portion of the hearing. >> i will support staff's recommendation tonight. >> commissioner moore. >> i will be supporting staff's recommendation which i think sensitively responds the the extra challenge. the extra foot indeed is i think a gesture of acknowledgement and i am supportive as proposed. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> i too do not see any extraordinary circumstances, so i would make a motion to --

>> second. >> if there's no further deliberation, a motion to not take the review and approve the project as proposed. (roll call vote) that motion passes 7-0. i appreciate your patience tonight. i didn't expect it to go quite this late, but thank you all. >> get well soon. >> happy thanksgiving. >> good night everybody. >> bye.

>> we broke ground in december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment

of silence here. it's really great to see the silence that we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay. [ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we

worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the fruition of all that work in this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken

swing set and half of -- for me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park. i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here.

>> this is the last noting of the month of november. if you would all stand for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. also present with us tonight. actually, call the roll, please. commissioner hamasaki. >> here. >> commissioner yee. >> here. >> commissioner burns. >> here. >> vice president you have a quorum. we have the staff from the san francisco police