Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20200209

>> conditional use authorization is proposed for continues to march 19, 2020 and item four, 6446c at 428 27th street conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. further, commissioners, under your dis-agenciary review calendar, item 15, 2018-219-223 missouri street, dis-creationary review. no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards. >> would any members of the public wish to comment on the items proposed for a continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> moved to continue all items. >> second. >> as moved to continue -- (role call). >> so moved, passes unanimously 5-0, placing on the consent calendar for item 5, 2019-10911cu8 58branon street, i have no speaker cards. >> anyone wishing to propose on items for consent? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> moved to approve. >> second. >> on that motion, then, to approve item 5 under your consent calendar -- (role call). >> so moved and that motion passes unanimously 5-0. placing us under 6, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for january 23, 2020. >> would anyone for the public wish to comment on draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson? >> move to approve draft minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for january 23rd, excisionecommissioner diamond? (role call). >> that motion passeses unanimously 5-0. item 7, comments and questions. seeing no comments or questions, we can move to department matters, item 8, director's announcements. >> no new announcements for me today, either. >> very good, item 9, review of past events of the board of supervisors, no report from the board of appeals in the historic preservation commission. >> commissioner, i'm the manager of legislative affairs. at this week's line use committee, one item which was continued from last week and that was the authorizing on interum activities. the committee passed out -- approved the appointment for the planning commission and that will be voted on next week. the full board this week, the jackson square special use district grandfathering provision sponsored by supervisor peskin passed at second read and the housing fund sponsored by the mayor passed at first read. the board considered the bike improvement pilot project. the project would involve a 12-month pilot to study effects of several traffic circulation changes to the traffic area and construction associated with the project would include restriping travel lanes and the addition of signage with the intention of restricting private vehicle traffic and prioritizing bicycle traffic within the study area. the appellant, coalition for adequate review was represented by mary miles who provided an overview of the appeal and they contended it did not qualify for class 6 exemption which relates to information collection. the pilot projects are information collection or as part of a study lead toeing an a public action. the appellant said it could not be a pilot project because sfmt funded the project. one speaker introduced the novel argument against cycling, stating cyclists eat more food than non-cyclists and it's more harmful than driving. they pointed out the only way to study the effect by funding it. there was no discussion to approve or fun the pilot by sfta, then it wouldn't be subject to sequa. several people came out and spoke out against the appeal, including representatives from the san francisco bicycle advisory committee, walk san francisco and the hayes valley neighborhood association and the board voted unanimously to deny that appeal and that concludes pconcludesmy report. >> yesterday was considered the work budget which recommended approval and you'll be considering next thursday. they heard a very interesting informational presentation by an intern tg gunther on the mural projects, as well as landmark status for the bakery on mission street. if there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of public may address the commission, accept agenda item. with respect to agenda items, that will be afforded when item is reached in the meeting and each may address for up to three minutes and just one speaker card from georgia shudish. >> anyone else, please line up on the screen side of the room. >> three minutes, please, thank you. >> good afternoon. i feel a little weird talking about something environmental after the last little tid bit but i'll go ahead. i'm concerned about the full lot excavations having with demolitions. i sent you an article in the email this morning, entitled a secret super power right in your backyard and some of the texts from that article, from the "new york times" in march of 2018, and here is a quote, backyard soils can lock in more planet-warming carbon emissions than soils down in native grasslands or urban forum. this was a study done a few years ago saying soil, on open and developed land is very good at absorbing carbon. the studies suggest that fragmented ecosystems, like those in backyards do benefit cities and should be factored into urban planning, for example. green spaces place might act asa buffer that impervious surfaces have at the environment. and they're looking into the soil capturing, too. i would like to show a couple of pictures to illustrate my concern. may i have the overhead, sfgov, please. there is a full lot and there is the work and excavation and you can see and here is the yard, the outcome and this is not grass. that's turf and it's natural and surrounded by natural yards, typical san francisco rear yard block open space. here is another one underway now and this was also a demolition, full lot and the adu and the rhu, the adu is down in here and this is during the construction and you can see it. this was a nice yard before, just like the house is pretty nice. and here is midway and you can see there's a lot of cement, the bunker and down there is the adu below the garage and just one more little picture. this is a property, also in the valley, and those trees are gone and they've been gone and nothing has been built on the site. that's someone's private property. they're allowed to take out their trees but nothing has been built and nothing may get built because this is an a-rated property and i don't know how they'll hide that, if you follow the guidelines. you have to see a-rated properties from the public right-of-way. but the trees are gone and it's very unfortunate. so that's my point. i think you want to balance everything, it's hard to do, but we have this gift, this mid-block open space in most of the residential neighborhoods and they have more than the value against the individual property. thank you very much. have a great. >> thank you. >> anyone else for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, that will place us on the regular calendar for 10, 2014-00001-127 for the mixed use project for the design for development agreement. >> good afternoon, president kop particulakopppel. i'm michael christian. this is for design-for-development project of the pier 76 development site. it would to allow residential building for nine stories. no change is requested to any of the overall building heights in feet or the overall amount of development capacity authorized as part of the project. after the planning commission apooapproves the project, it wan diligent pursuit. the project sponsor obtained approval for phase one, horizonal approval and administrative approval for three vertical signs including two residential buildings containing 520 dwelling units. phase one of the project also includes parcel d, which is entitled for a residential building up to 90 feet in height and the project sponsor is developing plans for the site and the construction cost is impacting the feasibility of the project. additionally, changes in state's interpretation of the fire code mandate as occupiable in determining the height of the highest floor to determine the construction type. the site could have been developed by keeping the floor level of the highest occupied floor below 75 feet, the need for rooftop open space to meet the design for development, necessitate the surface below the level severely reducing the floor area that could potentially be developed. the project sponsor is to alter the standard to allow a ninth floor within the 90-foot height limit, and allowing the project to maximize the residential development capacity of the site within what was authorized for the project and reviewed under the eir. increasing the permitted number of floors would not alter the maximum total feet and may result in a building with slightly reduce floor-to-floor height and overall floor area. the department finds this change is consistent with the approved development agreement and consistent with the fdir for the environmental record. by providing flexibility in the design of this didn't future ane buildings, this will increase the project proceeding which is a major development for the large scale projects in the city. they recommend approval of the amendments so it can be forwarded to the port commission for review. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor or no? project sponsor, come on up. >> good afternoon. so excited to be back here. our phase one infrastructure is under construction and we look forward to being under construction in office buildings in 2020. as mike gave in the overview, the important thing that this does not change the height limit for the site, nor any of the other standards that a building would be obligated to meet. it allows for another level of residential to be added within that overall envelope. i just talked to my colleague who is managing the development, as well. >> i'm swathy vonda, i'm a developer on the pier 70 team and i'm just seconding everything that was said before. there's no intent to in any way increase the overall height of the limit or not comply with anything else that's in the d for d. this is simply a mechanism to allow for the maximum amount of residential square footage on the building's envelope to be constructed. that's all. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment. would anyone from the public wish to comment on this item? if so, come on up and anyone please line up on the screen side of the room. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask mr. christian to clarify a few items. allowing the ninth floor, we still will have to follow the expanded fire code for roof access, et cetera, and retaining the roof deck, correct. >> correct. >> what does it do to the ground floor? i understand it will be lowering for the upper floors and what does it do at the ground floor? are we losing any height there? >> there's a separate standard. that car is a 15-foot ground floor height and that's not altered. >> so we have enough flex there to lower the residential floor to a reasonable height and gain an extra floor? >> yeah, it's very tight with that 15-foot but they have provided sections showing they can make that work. >> because logistically, it doesn't quite add up when i run the numbers but i assume someone will figure it out. ok. >> commissioner fung? >> question for either staff or the project sponsor. at eight stores, it would have had to have been designed to high-rise standards anyway. >> i'll have brook respond to that, but our understanding is the code governing when they would go up to highrises based on the highest occupied floor. >> it's based on 75 feet. >> for the level of the floor plate. to. >> it used to be to the topflooe changed and this is why this created a problem. but the problem existed before the addition of additional level for greater feasibility financially. the eight stories with a 15-foot ground floor height would have exceeded 75 feet anyway. >> so at each story, without a roof deck, it would have been possible to keep that eight story floor at 74-foot and nine inches to stay underneath that limit. there was a need for an occupiable roof deck for private open space, which, you're correct, would have been higher than 75 feet because of the fire marshall decision which would have put the building under highrise code. we need to provide the private open space for the building, what this would do is allow to have residential on that top level in addition to that occupiable roof deck. so we would be under the highrise code in that scenario, but we would have more residential density. >> you're saying the financial increase from that additional level of residential will overcome the highrise code costs. >> there were a few tools to work through the feasibility of the building, certainly having more residential density is a helpful measure. >> i'm not sure that's correct. highrise usually increases the cost by about 20%. >> commissioner diamond. >> question for staff. without knowing any of the details of the original entitlements, can you let us know if any of the fees that needed to be paid are tied to the number of dwelling unit and does this increase change any fees that need to be paid? >> most of our fees are based off of square footage. as a condo project, the development agreement, i believe, requires they pay the affordable housing fee, which is based on the square footage. so as they increase the square footage in the number of units, those fees increase at the same rate. >> thank you. >> i would entertain a motion. i'm if support of this. without extending the envelope or gaining height in density in a hum of units, i'm for that. i would entertain a motion. commissioner johnson? >> i have an agreement with you, president koppel. i know that there are some questions about preexisting issues and square footage. however, i do believe that this will provide needed flexibility and so, i would make a motion to approve. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter. on that motion, commissioner diamond? (role call). >> so moved and that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> item 11, case number 2018 2018-013139cua at grenada avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the planning department staff. the proposal is a conditional use authorization requesting pursuant to 209.1, 303 and 317 to allow demolition of an existing unit and three-story, 30-foot tall building within the r2 zoning district, ocean view, large resident's special use district and 40-foot height district. for the record, i have a copy of the updated commission packet emailed to the commissioners. the proposal is for the demolition of a 577 square foot, one-story single-family home, garage and shed to construct a three-story, three-family dwelling. the proposed structure consists of a 1,318 square foot building on the first floor, 748 square foot bedroom on the second floor and a bedroom an bedroom on thed floor. it will provide a three-vehicle garage and bicycle parking on the ground floor. ththe applicant performed the pre-application meeting prior to this middle. the applicant has since reached out to the interested parts from the pre-application meeting, as well as providing 21 comment letters in support of the project. the department finds the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. party sponsor. >> good afternoon. i'm the project sponsor in disput.we won't add too much to kathleen's detailed report. but we want to emphasize that 21 letters from the neighbors and we have our engineer and our cost analysis person here and owner representative and any questions about design, you can refer to us, so thanks. >> great, thank you. >> we'll now open this up for public comment. would anyone from the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> commissioner moore? >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion to approve this matter with conditions? commissioner diamond? commissioner fung. commission moore and community commissioner koppel. it passes 5-0. >> this is at poke street, conditional use authorization. >> this is for the change of use from a restaurant to a cannabis retail and personal service use. the project site is located within the boundaries of the poke street neighborhood commercial zoning district which requires a conditional use authorization for my project which proposes a change of use to a cannabis retail use. the project is located in the existing three-story commercial and residential building on poke street when washington and clay. the tenants base at the ground floor measures approximately 4,200 square feet and currently occupied by a restaurant with a temporary lease. you were just handed out a corrected front elevation in the packet, only the existing elevation. the proposed elevation just shows the attachment of the security cameras that are required by the office of cannabis, so that's the only change. and there are no schools, use, establishment or cannabis establishments within 600 feet of the subject property and there are no establishments in the poke street nake neighborhos north of market street. it was noted the nearest location is about a half mile away and recently approved outlet on california street which is .3 miles away and just showed up in our map later. the project sponsor is equity applicant and the sponsors have designed the space to the lobby and security check point to limit visibility of product. additionally, over the persons over the age of 21 will be able to access services. the project sponsor is to the proposing consumption at this time but may seek to do so in the future. so allow residents of the project site and the general vicinity to receive notice of any proposed addition of on-site smoking or vape rising. this approval is conditioned to require neighborhood notification in accordance with planning code section 311 for any building permit to establish an on-site smoking and/or vape room. it must comply with article 8a. to date, the department has received nine letters of support for the project from neighboring residents and business owners, referencing that the proposed business will increase commercial foot tragedy, improve lighting, advance the city's social equity goals and provide opportunities for san francisco. the department has received four letters of opposition noting a need for diverse business types and there are already enough personal cannabis uses in the neighborhood and the proposed location is too close to a proposed indoor playground application that was submitted to planning on wednesday. the sponsors have held four community meetings with the poke merchant association, and occupied within 300 feet of the site. staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization request as noted in the executive summary. the project proposes to maintain an active retail use. the district is well-served by transit and customers and it meets all requirements of the planning code and consistent with the poke street neighborhood commercial staffct. presentation. the sponsor have a presentation and we're both available for questions. >> project sponsor, come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for taking time to review our application today. my name is julie vance. my family has been a resident of san francisco for three generations now and any grandfather was a sanfrancisco architect and both parents were born and raised here. so i feel incredibly blessed to have an opportunity to carry forward in a city that truly holds my heart.we're so proud to step in in to support those negatively affected by the war on drugs. we found ai began training to ba instructor in the city and opened up my first studio and meanwhile, chris and his partner opened up a district in soma and he's been a local business owner for the past 13 years. we're currently raising our family and pleasante. as we began raising our family, we became interested in plant nutrition. it became apparent that my students needed more than just yoga so i began training and became a certified holistic health coach. chris and i enjoyed working as a team so we decided to merge his culinary background. we hosted three-week cleanse workshops to teach clients to teach healthy meals, nutritional seminars and yoga and meditation practise. but most importantly to teach them about connectivity. together with built a community of individuals who understood knenutrition is more than you consume. it's your environment, your loved ones, your state of mind, your physical activity, your food choices and even how you choose to medicate. all of these elements merge to create whole-body wellness. if we could find a way to support our clients towards making healthier life choices, then they would have higher success rates. so we began thinking about our future to better it for those around us. this is where the concept for wellness was born. at this time, our family rapidly expanded to a large circle of like-minded individuals. it was two years ago we met and partnered with tim. he was looking to better his future. future. we were drawn to him because of his strong family backgrounds and passion and knowledge for plant medicine. we were just three individuals who loved this city and eager to improve the cannabis experience it was offering. these past years with him have flown by. we watched him get married, have his first baby girl and begin a family of his own. his family has become ours and we can't think of a better partner to support and have by his side. there's so much more to learn and we aim to educate not only our team but our entire community. we are striving to create something different and new to our city. we don't desire to open another dispensary but to elevate the future of cannabis integrated medicine with professional counseling, yoga, medication and infrared right therapy and cbd sauna. it will be a well-trained group and all those looking better themselves through nutrition and plant-placed medicine. this is a space for those who believe their fight is not up. both of my parents bathed cancer. my mom is a survivor of 25 years. years, but we lost my dad last year. sorry, so hard. this center is for people like them who need an alternative place to turn, someone they can find a knowledgeable staff and educated practis practitioners. we will be training and working alongside our team to ensure their update t up to date. no one medicine works exactly the same for everyone and we will, therefore, have an on-site for those who require additional support to find th what they ne. we will support local, small farmers growing responsibly and organically. we will give back to our community by hosting free seminars in collaboration with medical doctors and farmers and leaders of the industry. >> your time is up. thank you so much. >> thank you for your time. >> you're very welcome. is there anyone from the public that wishes to comment on this item? come on up. first come, first served. those waiting, line up on the screen side of the room. >> commissioners, my name is graham goodwin from the social club or cannabis social club. we want cannabis in every neighborhood. it should be our right. it's a legal product and this presentation was wonderful and it shows -- i think it's important, the diversity of the cannabis retailers. it's not one size fits all. and by you approving their application and future ones, they're responsible, you're going to develop, help to develop a lot of diversity in our products and in our presentations and that's really important because many of us were around all of these years when there's one or two choices, which isn't right. so please -- i would like to say unanimous, please support their application. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i sent as letter as a private individual where i focus on the fact there are two daycare centers, one on the same block as the proposed space, a school that has recently opened which is an inclusion language school for small children and there's also a children's art school right across the street from the site on washington street and for furthermore, the owner of the big apple store submitted an application for an indoor playground and we're looking for an update on that. mad river wellness projects open hours from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and plan to include cbd massage, yoga, medication and holistic nutritional counseling. i specifically asked about the certification and licensure of the healthcare staff and what they were calling doctors in the field collaborating with them and the business owners were very evasive. as a licensed healthcare professional myself, i'm well aware of the certification and training requirements for practise, safe and effective healthcare delivery and i'm very leery of self-declared healers. i would like to speak to you as one of the founders of the poke expect district and i'm currently the president. this is focused on promotion of the eclectic nature of merchants in a neighborhood with an increasing number of young families. my concern is not about cannabis. it's that the space is too large and the proposed business is not the best use. specifically, i have deep concerns about this dispensary's ability to break even, let alone make a profit. it is my understanding that the dispensaries pay higher than market rate rent due to leasing out to a store that sells a schedule a drug, which is federally prohibited. this space is over 4,000 square feet, which is enormous, and i don't know, i imagine their rent is quite high. dispensaries who pay their federal taxes have an effective tax rate of 75 to 80% of the gross sales because it is against the law for them to deduct any expenses like rent or payroll, except for the wholesale goods they purchase. my research shows the dispensaries that pay taxes run at a 3% to 5% tax margin. i would love for this commission to ask the applicant how much gross sales they will need to generate just to pay their rent, just back of the napkin mind, three will have to gross millions of dollars more. thank you. >> time is up. next speaker, please. >> ethank you for allowing me to share my opinions here. my name is claire ling. cannabis retail location cannot be within 600 feet of a school. there are two daycare centers on poke street and clay street and another daycare center on washington street and west avenue. all three daycare centers are within the 600 feet of the cannabis dispensary and all three daycare centers, taking care of children from three months old to five years old. i understand this is well-respected requirement regarding to the 600 feet. but if the children are taking into consideration in the dispensary open requirement, then the daycare center should count. if we care about our children's health and the environment they grow up in, daycare centers should be taken into consideration when you consider to open a cannabis dispensary nearby. there is a paper to explain the danger for children to smoke second-hand cannabis, including increasing the risk of sudden death in infants. in addition, spring valley and mentor school is about 1,000 feet away and everyday there are more than 300 children that go to spring valley and elementary school. many of them walk to the school and they will pass by this cannabis dispensary. i understand that the dispensary does not allow the client to smoke within 15 feet limit and that means it will push the complaint to smoke outside of the 15-feet limit. then when the children walk by the dispensary, they will smoke the second-hand cannabis and it will cause a health hazard to children walking by. thank you for listening to my comments. i hope the planning commission can take children, particularly young children under five years old into consideration. children do matter in our planning. children rely on us to have a healthy environment and environment to grow up, to live, learn and pray. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is quinn wong and we are the owners of the building at 1735 poke street. , the building that mad river would like to lease if approved. we're here today to provide our utmost support. >> you're the property owners? >> yes. >> so you're technically part of the project sponsored team and so your opportunity to speak was under their time. >> ok, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hili'm dela moran. i wanted to say cannabis users have children. cannabis users use daycares, cannabis users care for toddlers and the association with cannabis should not be assumed that they should be i irresponsible or harm children nearby. it's not like they'll be wandering close to a dispensary and i wanted to counter that narrative here publically, thank you. >> anyone else from the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, pull comment is closed. commissioner diamond. >> question for staff or the city attorney's office. under current san francisco ordinances, am i correct that 600 feet is the demarcation line for schools k-12 and we do not apply a standard for daycare centers that are within 600 feet, that is not a reason to turn down in. >> that is correct. they have to be part of the western association schools of k-12. we know they are uses and they are noted in the summary but it is k-12. >> so if the concern of the right ankl angle to approach ths to take this up as a legislative matter if they want to change the boundaries. >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung? >> i would note that this is a mixed-use building, residential units up above and this is probably the same comments i've made in the past. currently, they are not against the group c consumption on site and i have to problems with group a and b but group c, i would be objecting to. any type of exhaust system that goes through the building up to the roof is not going to be airtight. so i'll leave it at that. >> and i would just say that's why we added the condition in this packet for the neighborhood notice, for the building permit, so that way there would be the 30-day period where members could file discretionary review. >> that wouldn't come back here witbut to the board. >> if the discretionary review was filed, it would come back here but type a and b could be added with a building permit. we put a condition on this to say if they came in to seek c, they would have to go through the 30-day neighborhood notice and a community member or one of the community groups or supervisors could file a discretionary review and bring it to you. >> before you sit down, did you say there was another pending application? >> writers of opposition were noting this proposed indoor playground and we checked, it was filed on wednesday and for a daycare playground, indoor site. >> in this location? >> no, no, sorry, a few blocks away. it was just noted as a concern and so, we just confirmed that it was filed. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i have a question for staff. that question has to do with code. this is an application that has multi uses in one facility and they are different in temme terf what is permitted and how do the multiple uses come together in one location? the second part of my question is, in assemblies, this used to be a restaurant and do you have restrictions on the number of people allowed in the space? and what are the ingress, egress requirements under this scenario where i have to assume that there will be multiple activities having people present at different times? >> ingress and egress is addressed at a later stage with the department of building inspection, the fire code, but the space is large and i would assume they need at least two locations of ingress and egress and it has the table to accommodate that in this space. the legislation was made that all of these consumption permits could come as an accessory use at a later date regardless of the overall use of the building. so we looked at this one and saw there were residential units above and that's why we put the conditional addition on. >> that is not the name of my question. i was asking about the concurrent uses of massage, yoga, dispensary, because particularly for dispensary, you have particular rules for ingress and egress, loading and delivery, where the money is, where the products are being kept, et cetera. the business plan itself does not clearly lay out. it seems to be everything but i do not see if you're able to evaluate that and give us a recommendation. >> i believe this is the case because this is a newer example. we haven't seen a dispensary combined use. it may be where it goe where the comments and need to change the lay-out and it would be sent back to planning and we would re-review the floor plans. >> if i could add, to your point, regulations who can enter a cannabis retail space and an employee of those spaces is more stringent than a normal use. this is interesting in that this is a mix of uses. the america personal use is tooe and it's a personal use of the site but in terms of how the space would operate, any person entering, even for a personal service aspect of the business would need to be eligible over the age of 21 and any person working in that site would have to be an employee of the cannabis use. so it's complicated from an operational standpoint but our understanding in working with the office cannabis, it's definitely doable. >> before you go, this is enough distance away from the existing dispensaries, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner moore? >> on the larger scale, i would like to address an issue overriding my concerns for another project on our agenda today. we're starting to increase the size of cannabis retail to a level which i personally consider too large. in a small neighborhood corridor such as poke street and there are others, i think a 4,000 retail space for cannabis seems far too large for me. i'm observing 1.3 miles away from this location which was a popular drycleaner and laundry at the corner of hyde and this has become a cannabis retail store and i walk by there literally everyday and it's empty all of the time. it's not really contributing, as i have to observe to the animation of vitality for traffic, et cetera of that particular part of california street. and i see the same problem potentially happening on poke street where this particular place originally was a restaurant, which for whatever reason didn't make it. this is not a reason to put it into a retail use for which we do not have any guarantees that it will succeed. i generally want to express that smaller cannabis stores and i've seen quite a few which i discretely tucked into retail corridors work. the larger ones with large frontage, et cetera don't seem to quite do it for me. so i have some concerns here and i wanted to have them voiced. >> one for question for staff. the lady suzanna spoke, was she a representative of the merchant's association? >> she said in her presentation today she was speaking both times. the department has only received a letter from her personally. none from the neighborhood groups. >> she's the president of the poke business improvement district and, basically, puts this whole thing together. >> yeah, i would just note the letter was written from her as a private citizen. >> commissioner diamond. >> can i ask the president of the business district a question? were you speaking on behalf of the district when you spoke? >> yes. i'm the president of the board. >> so have you met directly with the project proponent to see if there's something you can agree on? >> yes. i went to the one meeting they had for the community which was poorly attended and the people who were there, for the most part did not approve or support the application. and i've asked to speak to them. we haven't met since. and from a project proponent's perspective, i would like to know what the status of discussions between the project proponent and the group? >> as soon as we signed the lease in august of 2018, we had reached out to the merchant's association and neighborhood associations and met with the associations at the time. once on october 17th and once on october 29th. suzanne markle-fox was a part of these emails and she was on an email from september 4th, stating we would have these application meetings. and i reached out to the community benefit's district, wanting to meet with them and talk about our project to no avail from them. i had also reached out prior to our meeting on november 6th, which was our main hearing, our main good neighbor policy meeting and reached out to try to meet with her again and wanted to talk to her about the project and she stated on her email she was not available at this time and we would have to try to convene some time in january, to which i have yet to hear from her at all. i have not gotten any response from her. she came to the meeting and came in with a little bit of a chip on her shoulder about the whole thing. we want to be here to work with the community. we're going to benefit, we want to make sure we're bringing something to the community, with our wellness center and with joe yoga and trying to encourage people to look outside of the box and really use this space to their benefit. we've got a lot to work on. i know it's a tough business. i know it's going to be interesting. i've opened five restaurants over the past 13 years. i'm a business center in san francisco alone. this month is my 13-year anniversary for district down in south market. we have been stellar employees, employing hundreds of people in san francisco, oakland and san jose with our businesses and i officially left a business in july to focus on this project with my wife and our partners. we've really tried and our landlords have really put a lot of effort out there, also, reaching out to all of the community members. and we've really reached out a lot and we didn't get a lot of response. so that's, i guess, all i have to say for that. >> thank you. just from my point of view, i would feel a little more comfortable having support of the neighbor associations nearby. commissioner moore. i'm sorry, commissioner johnson. >> i was going to say that. thank you, commissioner diamond for having those questions. i think we have often, when we have had applicants before us, there has been some dialogue with the business and improvement district and, if we're lucky, letters of support that kind of help us to understand how these uses tie into the use of the neighborhood. i think it's a really interesting concept and use and so, i look forward to seeing this project back. however, i still feel uncomfortable making a call on this. i'm told there is a meeting. so this is both a recommendation to the business improvement district, please sit down with these applicants and really talk about how this could possibly be knitted into the fabric of poke street at an interesting time of poke street and see how this can potentially be an asset. but i generally speaking, would move to continue, to give the project sponsor more time to work with the community. >> commissioner moore? >> i would support a continuance. i just would like to add a couple of items that we would be interested for you to clarify before you come back. just picking up from commissioner johnson and diamond. i think we need a clearer dialogue with the community, including the proposed facility at, i think it is california and poke for the apple store. the other thing, i think, i'm personally interested this is that the different uses are more clearly delineated in terms of how they're functionally operating in the space and that includes the tentative review of fire exiting and occupancy loads so that we're clear what we are proving is what we are getting. i would like to see a slightly bigger insight into your business plan, not about the money portion but the functional requirements of how these things work together. we need to be familiar with the technical requirements for cannabis retail, particularly back of house delivery and all of those things and that all includes security and a whole bunch of particular moves, but we would like to hear that has been all worked out so we're not getting into approving something where we like the basic idea but do not have a certainty about the operational realities. that would be my request in working out the relationship with neighbors. they will be there and no, thank you, i do not want to engage at this moment, i'm communicating with the commissioners. so we're making a motion and those are the requirements or issues we would like you to address if we're granting a continuance. >> i'll second the motion and call on commissioner diamond. >> i would like to make this a relatively short continuance, though. i believe a great deal of work has gone to your efforts to bring it to this point in time and i am hopeful. it seems like a use you ought to try. it's a novel way of approaching this and it seems like it could be a very interesting use, but it is important to me that you attempt to sit down -- further attempt to sit down and work out the concerns and address the issues that commissioner moore raised. so i'm thinking like three weeks or four weeks at the most to come back for a continuance, if that's sufficient time from everywhere else's perspective. i don't want this to drag on because you've spent a lot of time getting to this point. >> commissioner johnson? >> agreed and i would like to propose a date. >> i don't know if two weeks would be too soon, february 20 or otherwise march 5th. >> ok, two weeks. >> ok. there's a motion seconded to continue this matter to februar. on that motion, commissioner diamond? (role call). >> so moved, commissioners and that motion passes 5-0. >> commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar for 13, 2019-201 garry street. this is a request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon. i'm michael christian, department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review of a building permit application to establish approximately 5500 square foot cannabis retail use at 152 garry street in the basement first and second floor with existing three-story building in the downtown retail zoning district. the site is principlely permitted for cannabis retail and it includes the 600-foot rule. a request for a discretionary review was received by chanel. the project sponsor and chanel did reach an agreement to address the issues in the dr. the project sponsor is requesting the commission take dr and adopt certain conditions of approval for the project. they contain some but not all items of the approvement agreement. a draft discretionary review is being provided which contains approval for the agreement. the conditions include limits on signage, amplified music and operating requirements including the minimum security standards in what will be required by the office of cannabis by the review of the security plan for the project. as a dr requester and sponsor have indicated and desired to adopt conditions to address exceptional circumstances with the proposed project, they recommend this commission take dr and apply that. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> so either jonas or city attorney procedurally, can we call the dr requester and sponsor and have them on the record agree that they're willing to abide by this agreement? dr requester, come on up. >> i'm kristine wade on behalf of chanel and we have agreed on these conditions. >> you are dr requester number 1 and 2? >> i believe the other dr request was withdrawn. >> the second was withdrawn. >> and then the project sponsor? >> i'm with the project sponsor and we've all agreed to the project we've reached with chanel. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask that staff reports back to us on how this is working out because my concerns about the size of the project still remains and i think it would be positive to get a better feeling of how successful these large establishments really are. it's a question of balance. >> go ahead, rich. >> i think as we are seeing more of these businesses come to light, obviously i think there are about three or four currently in operation, during the next report back to the commission on the overall program and we can highlight the size issue as looking -- and the impact within the existing corridors. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff. you're occupying the ground and basement levels. what's on the second floor? >> so they're occupying basement first and second and i believe the third floor is a second office use. >> it's permitted as office use and occupied by the project sponsor. >> are they occupying the entire building? >> yeah. >> the actual retail sales is limited to first and second and basement storage and third floor would be office. >> is there a consumption lounge? >> not at this time. >> but it's not prohibited by the planning code? >> correct. with regard to consumption, the decision was made when we adopted -- when the board adopted regulations a couple of years ago to list consumption as an authorized accessory use to cannabis retail. that is the legislation that we are adopting or administering and as a permitted use, they are authorized to add that in the future, unless conditioned otherwise. >> this use runs with the property, then, not with the applicant. is that correct? >> correct. >> commissioner diamond. >> a couple of questions. i would like us to be consistent with how we're dealing with type c or at least moving in that direction. so the predictibility to how they manage that particular issue. for the last item, we came up with, staff proposed a 311 modification if they wanted to do type 3. is ar there a reason we couldn't add that as a condition so we are being consistent? >> your point on consistency, we have already had a number of other cases that have gone out for 311 and included a proposal for on-site consumption and were approved. the only time that the commission kind of sees a case and has the opportunity to add a condition of approval is whether it's subject to a conditional use or it does get dred. that's the only time you see it, but we've had a number of cases approved after going out for notice and not having that. so like i said, the legislative framework adopted by the board two years ago specifically does list it as an accessory use and the intent was for it to be something that's eligible to be added, subject to all of the standards of the health code. in order to be truly kind of fair and have a standard treatment of this, it would take more than adding a condition as a one-off on certain project. it would take either -- likely take a legislative action because we have this large universal site that will be permitted and go out for notice and don't get dred. >> i'm sorry, commissioner. the one difference, i think, and the concern we heard from commissioners the last few weeks is whether there's residential units and this project does not have residential units above? >> no. >> so the commission can ask staff to add a certain condition in going forward for buildings with residential units above. is that not the case, michael? can we not add the 311 notice? >> we can certainly do that for sites subject to conditional use authorization. >> drs are different, that's true. >> i don't know we need to do it right now, but i would like to come up with some predictibility around this and so, in general, you know, my personal view is if it has residents above it, i would like to see a 311 notification, for sure if it's a conditional use permit. i guess the question is legislatively, should we be re-considering whether or not when it's permitted, instead of making it subject to the vagaries they get dred, that even if it's permitted by right, maybe it shouldn't. >> if you would like to make that recollection to the board, we could pass on that recommendation. >> i understand from staff that we're going to be getting lots of these applications and it feels like consistency is a really important issue for me on these items. and not create each one as a one-off depending on who manages to show up or doesn't show up on the day of the planning commission hearing. so i would like to make that recommendation, that we. -- it doesn't need to be today but the best way to proceed on this issue, vis-a-vis putting in a request to the board to adopt something in this regard. >> ok. >> my particular concern is commissioner fung's concern, when there's residents above, it feels like we should going the extra mile and making sure those residents are understanding as to what is going to be happening and, you know, i still feel like we need more comfort, that the hvac is going to work. >> commissioner fung. >> i was going to say the same thing. if they're occupying the entire building, therefore they have control of the rooftop to put whatever equipment they need, it's probably less of an issue from what i've said before. >> commissioner moore? >> correct me, we are in c3, where we do not have upper-floor residential in this particular area anyway. correct? >> that's my understanding, it's not committed. >> so there will be more office than residential. so generally, as a policy issue, i agree with commissioner diamond when it deals with mixed use in residential districts but for c3, changes not intended, but for hotel issues which is not currently an issue. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would move to approve and i want to commend the dr requester and project sponsor in working this out yourselves and coming to us with conditions that you can both live with and that seem sensible to mep. i would like to incorporate commissioner moore's request that we get reports back from time to time at how this is playing out once they open. i don't want to link that at all to revocation of permits. just an informational report because it will help us to make better decisions. >> just to add, commissioner, wr cannabis is slow-moving, so we have three newly licensed sites now open and expect more newly licensed sites to come through. when we do have a bit of an opportunity to kind of see how our new sites under the new held code are operating, we will certainly report back. >> ok. >> i'll second that motion. >> commissioners, just as a point of clarification, commissioner diamond, were you looking back at the action you're taking? >> yes. >> specifically related to this subject property, not in general overview of cannabis. >> including this property. >> including this property, very good. and would you like a written or informational presentation? >> informational presentation. >> very good. do you have anything to add? >> can we say, maybe, one year upon opening of the business? >> yes. >> if there's nothing further, a motion seconded to take dr and approve this with conditions as have been submitted to you. and amending it to include a one-year update presentation. on that motion, commissioner diamond? (role call). >> so moved and that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> that place us on item 14, 2019-14021, 667 mississippi street. this is a discretionary review. >> i'm michael christian with department staph. a request for discretionary review of building application 2019-07176109 for a one thousand foot cannabis use with 3,000 square foot on-site smoking and vaping lounge in the existing 4,200-foot, one story, industrial building containing cannabis calcannabis cultivatio. the site is located 667 mississippi street, near 22n 22nd and one-tenth of a mile from the 22nd cal-site station. this was rezoned to a mixed-use district as part of the neighborhood's plan. there is a petition containing 146 signatures in opposition to the project and additionally during the 311 notice period, the project received eight email in opposition of the project and since it was issued, the department received 22 emails in support of the project. comments received on opposition generally sited concerns over parking and the compatibility of the use, saying it should only be placed in commercial uses such as downtown, soma and the district. there is concern with the inclusion of on-site consumption of cannabis. generally cited the need to provide legal cannabis outlets to combat the existing unregulated market in the city and confidence in the ability of the project sponsors to establish and manage an effective business. there is the compatibility with the petrillo hill neighborhood and other neighborhoods such as the grocery store unit are needed instead. since the project is a conversion of industrial space for cannabis cultivation into a retail use, the application would not result in any new daily needs served, nor fund the space available to such a use. this is common in the city and city studies, including the controller's result that says it resulted in lower rates of cannabis use in youth and crimes surrounding cannabis retail establishments. while many residents have a negative perception of cannabis, there's claims these uses are not compatible with uses and increasing the use of retailers is not near our cannabis market. as it site meets the requirements of the code, it does not include any residential uses at the site and furthers the equity plan and the department recommends the commission does not take dr and approve the permit as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> i would like to hear from the dr requester first. >> good afternoon, i'm albert lee along with my neighbor, emily wang and i'm a resident in the 150 notification zone and parent of two children who walk by this proposed location every time we go to the children's park. this project includes a cannabis retail storefront and consumption lounge in light industrial with no existing storefront. i find this proposed location exceptional and extraordinary for the following reasons. one, this doesn't enhance or preserve the character of a family-friendly neighborhood and representing 250 total residents, 100 of whom are children and many whom are here today who live adjacent and nearby to the proposed to facility and signed a petition opposing this petition. along the single-product commerce is creating a retail zone, not a sustainable community which would be better serviced with a mix of immenties. of amenities. >> 667 mississippi street is one of four lounges that have applied for permits within a four-block radius in the dog patch community, allowing smoking lounge would be exceptional and sets a precedent for being in an all-residential street surrounded on all sides by resident uses. other permitted lounges reside on commercial corridors. three, there are multiple early childhood site witness the 600-foot radius. by state law, this is not allowable. disregarding the state requirements is unacceptable as this area needs more early childcare in support as well as k-12 facilities and a note of extraordinary measure. four, it is exceptional to grant a change of use for a current cannabis unit is taken to an active jury trial. there's been pending litigation since 2018 and a jury trial is slated to begin in september of 2020 in the superior court of california, where the building owner is being sued for breach of contract and for fraud. this makes our neighbors question their past business practises and future handling at this specific location. this is exceptionally extraordinary for someone to be granted a change of use when their current permit is under heavy question. lastly, members of the group have already made requests since october to mediate and even recently, through the petrillo boosters there's jared eppler, which the project sponsor refused and engaged city planning and those have not progressed. thank you. >> i'm emily wang. i'm a neighbor on mississippi street. albert and i are doing our best, just two residents trying to represent about 250 people we've heard from, isolated in texas, mississippi and in pennsylvania in that two-block quadrant. so we'll do our best. i do have visuals. and i don't know how to appreciate it. project it. as you can tell, it's washed out. most of you are aware of the controllers report issued in december 5th of 201. 2019. there's 277 permits, 133 are retail uses for cannabis which it's a saturated market already. i think that's important to note because two weeks ago, one native was granted planning approval in hayes valley and the current permit at this location already has licensed to manufacture and distribute. so they're landlords and owners and have been previous landlords to others on this facility, as you have heard. anthey continue to benefit from grandfathered uses from 64. again, being a landlord, there's various businesses and it's unclear as to what will be in the future. there's concern the change of use may allow a resolving door of operators and it's a vertically integrated sites with two licenses on the same property. and we're hoping that you guys are a little bit more concerned with the neighbors who live and seek sanctuary here. this is a map from the office of cannabis and the green zones are the permissible areas and the red zone is the exhibit that is in our neighborhood. >> am i really out of time? >> yeah, you'll get rebuttal later. >> i thought we have ten minut minutes. michael christian said we have ten minutes so we timed ourselves backwards. >> i only show one dr requester. >> we are collectively representing. >> i only have five minutes, ok. >> you will can back up for rebuttal. >> i'll leave the pretty pictures up for you to look at. [ laughter ] if you're in support of the dr requester, your comment is now. those waiting, please line up at the screen side of the room. >> i'm reese walker and there have been a lot of changes in the neighborhood, including an influx of young families. and a whole bunch of different interests are now represented in the neighborhood. put and i would jusi have no prh legitimate business, licensed and safe in the neighborhood. dutchman's flat is right around the corner from my house on third street and before they were there, it was a slightly deserted, nobody on the street and now there's a guard who knows everybody in the neighborhood who passes by. and i think having that dispensary in the neighborhood has actually enhanced the neighborhood and made it safe. these are liberty business people and they've gone through the proper procedures and i think they should be welcomed into the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> right now we're accepting public testimony that is in support of the dr requester. so that would mean people who are opposed to the project. >> i'm mary, and i moved to the bay area to mary my husband and pregnant with my first child and now i have two children under five. one of the favourite things of petrillo hill, it's close to everything san francisco has to offer but looks and feels like a residential neighborhood. parking is ample and i can see people popping up. when i found out there was a aba proposal about a marijuana lounge, i've been devastated. that someone would allow a drug dispensary. drugs are illegal but drugs i'm trying to shelter my young children from until they are an age until they can make their own decisions in an adult mind. i was shocked the city would allow this. close to two preschools, close to home, a home church, place of worship and close to a playground we frequent on a regular basis and dispensaries are in a neighborhood and there are locations more appropriate. i'm pro business and i understand how hard it is for businesses to build in the city but the location in a residential area not conducive to residential success and close to children which is the intent of the law behind 600 feet, and it's a request and change in use and i'm opposed to this dispensary. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident living in 649 mississippi. i'm grateful to express personal view. nobod.this is much safer than s. and notice that the register and public school is located less than a mile boundary. (inaudible). >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm christina and i'm at 630 mississippi street and we've lived on the hill, my partner and i for over 40 years and i'm a resident of san francisco since 1974. currently, i'm a retired sfcu employee, but i started as a volunteer at the stark elementary school which is a part of the southeast sector up on the top of the hill and currently, although retired, i've been a full-time volunteer and currently also teaching art at daniel webster. i have done an informal survey in the neighborhood, the housing, some of the students i'm teaching currently at star king are kids that i taught their parents originally and from an informal survey, a lot of the parents are not too happy about the prospect of it being down the hill from where they live. my main objection is not conducive to this neighborhood. it's a quiet, residential neighborhood and i don't see the point of building another dispensary on this same street. there's already one approved for 135135 mississippi street, whics closer to the business quarter. i have no objections to cannabis dispensaries but i think they need to be placed strategically surrounded by other businesses and not on a quiet, residential street. i wonder, too, with the new regulation, i guess, originally, it used to be within 600 feet of a school and now it's 1,000 and so -- originally it was 1,000 and now it's 600 feet so they do not have the problem of daniel webster being straight up the block. it's between 20th and 22n 22nd and there is no 21st. and also, it would bring added traffic and currently, there's no bumps on our street. so we're finding we're having a lot more congestion and driving on our street because both pennsylvania and texas have bumps and so we're finding an increase in traffic. i'll leave it to others to speak about equity. but i have no problem with the city's ideas of equity business, but i don't think this is a particular place for it. thank you. (please stand by) where have all the children gone? everybody talks about children being our future. if you have no children around what is our future? of 250 total residents near the proposed facility, 100 represent children opposed this retail cannabis site. by way of a hand signed petition. if the establishment comes into the neighborhood, will it keep families here? this establishment is one of four lounges that applied for permits within four blocks of the neighborhood. what is unique, as you have heard this is one that allows for smoking lounge on site and sets precedent as it is located on all residential street surrounded by residential neighbors. neighbors are constantly outside walking dogs, playing with kids heading towards the caltrain. the idea customers may drive under the influence of cannabis or walking the street is scary. will this help or hurt the current residents of san francisco? finally, this neighborhood consists of different types of income. recent survey eighted 15% of the population is below poverty. we are lacking grocery stores and banks and pharmacies. people have to spend additional funds to travel outside of the community to be cared for. i ask you again, will this help or hurt the people of lower income living in the neighborhood? i empathies with you. thank you for the opportunity to speak today and for considering all sides before your vote is made. >> next speaker, please. >> i live across the street from the proposed lounge. you know, to start off, we don't oppose marijuana or cannabis dispensaries. our opposition is to this residential location in a completely residential area. we find this to be extraordinary. the change of use would conflict with the city plan that is not supporting the economic and well-being of the variety of businesses. we are underserved by basic community needs. we have so many applications, four in our immediate area, one down the street. our neighborhood does not need a retail location every 600 feet. we need more grocery stores, pharmacy, banks, standard community needs. we are not seeing that. we are concerned that this change of use would not be serving our needs and create a tourist location for people to travel to. this change of use would not conserve the existing character. it is a residential neighborhood with hundreds of residential units added nearby. right behind the land is becoming more residential not less residential in the immediate area. the photos in the dr response are facing the industrial buildings. look the opposite way it is nothing but houses as far as the eye can see. this is a residential neighborhood and the only retail on the entire street. this neighborhood should not be miss characterized as a transit corridor for caltrain. this is a residential neighborhood. we think the city should apply the restrictive state guidelines for the buffer zone. the reason there is no school is we are under be served by schools. we have an industry concentrating the industries in the area under served. we don't think it makes the city more progressive. it ignores the needs of the immediate community. the safety issues regarding late hours for the only retail facility on the entire block weren't addressed in if preliminary recommendation. there are safety issues with a cash business on a residential street. without that traffic other other retail to balance that out, there was an attempted break in at a similar facility a few blocks an go. it is a real situation anal alarms have on on and the alarms have gone off. i have been to the community meetings. yes, they go to the motion of the meeting if there are no offers of concessioners it is pr and theater. i know the request to reduce the hours there is no mediation. we have had community meetings. they haven't helped the community. >> next speaker, please. >> i am mary taylor, i live two doors down from the establishment. i am here to ask the commission to exercise discretion andyny the change of use request. my concerns around two areas. smoking lounge retail cannabis establishment will not enhance neighborhood character. it could impedes the enjoyment of the homes. i moved here in 2012. the surrounding area has developed. i used to be concerned about long walks when i first moved in. there was a paint factory knocked down. there is new residential housing at the landing. the area transitioned from mixed use pdr to more residential feel. i have been pleased as more and more people made investments by enhancing homes and moving in with families. it is a neighborhood. if the city would permit the change of use giving the continues transition to more residential occupancy, this will not be adding to the character of the neighborhood. more appropriate use of the space would be for grocery stores, drycleaners and child care facilities. living two doors down from the proposed establishment it is my view despite the promise of the owners to have the patrons move on and not linger, i will spend time called to complain. i don't want to do that but there will be people parking on the street in my driveway, loitering in front of my house and impeding upon my enjoy meant of my home. i would ask the commission consider the trajectory of the neighborhoods in the area and exercise discretion and take a step to limit the number of these establishments in this part of san francisco. you have an obligation to city to enhance our community. this type of thing will impede the ability to attract additional residents. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is andy learning. resident at 625 mississippi street. i have been there for four years and in the area for eight. i live with my wife and two children, and they have the most amazing mom in the world. i want to say that right now. am i allowed to show visuals here? okay. i will start by showing this. too bad it is a little too big. this is showing the dirt patch. >> you can zoom in or out on the projector. up on the top. >> in this area there is a lot of new residential going in. there are five cannabis retailers in construction or operating, four are proposed lounges. there are places for kids to buy marijuana or get liquor. there are no grocery stores, no pharmacies, no banks, no schools or child amenity spaces. this will havingauling all of te retail shops for san francisco and the area, not the neighborhood. the reason is failure in planning. these are pushed in the green zones where they are permissible without too much compassion. the neighborhood plan adopted in 2009 was to balance industrial use with growth and complete neighborhoods. the conversion of the space does not create a complete neighborhood and the rapid growth of residential housing. this is pushing the dogpatch into the neighborhood. the neighborhood is well served by the existing approved existing cannabis retail. the concentration also ignores objective 7.1 of the san francisco general plan to provide community services and facilities. the reason these are going in here is because the city has failed to provide the education opportunities we need in this area. >> this is oliver. do you want to say something now? >> okay. >> what do you want for the neighborhood? >> libraries and parks. that is right. okay. great job, oliver. >> next speaker, please. >> i am roberto. i own the building next door to 667, 661 mississippi street, a single family house. my mother, senior citizen lives in the believe. my concern is cannabis retail is largely a cash based business, i am worried about the safety of my mother and just having her there next to a building that could be robbed or taken advantage of because they have cash on hand is frightening to me. i also think that a retail space on mississippi street just doesn't fit the neighborhood. my family has been in that house since 1974. i was two when i moved in there. there were industrial buildings next door, yes, but nothing retail where people come in to buy stuff and leave. it is going to cause more traffic and going to bring, i don't know, it is going to make it uncomfortable for my mother to walk along that street. i am against having this change to retail cannabis. it is fine as it is right now. i am not against cannabis, it is not on mississippi street. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for letting us speak here. i live on 642 mississippi street with my wife and two little kids. i work in not for profit sector consulting and my wife works for a neighborhood organization working with seniors, low to middle income kids, after school and preschooling programs. the first when i heard about this location or this retail change coming up, i was shocked as i think some of the members, my friends here talked about as well that would be smoking cannabis retail right across the street from us. i couldn't believe it. i thought it was a joke. i am all for cannabis, and i think in certain matters that it does help. the location especially being on a fully residential street and i can show a slide here. as you can see, all of those blues and reds. the reds are where you have children who live. the blues are residential spaces. in the next exhibit you can see the yellow highlights. that is where the proposed facility is supposed to go, and you will see that it is surrounded by residential units. i don't have a well prepared speech as some of my other colleagues or friends have, but i am here to support and to voice my concerns, and i want to thank you for letting us speak. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. i am a san francisco resident, i am a mother, volunteer, taxpayer, and i also am a daughter of a life-long cannabis user. my mother used cannabis when i was a baby. as a minor who couldn't consent to being exposed to that. i was exposed to it my entire childhood. it occurred to me today when i wanted to speak on something else i will get to that as a adult we are really looking at how to balance the right to those who want easy access to cannabis with those who don't? the commission who is sitting behind the only barrier today you might not be consuming 45 45 minute cannabis use. some individuals have brought that with them. i have been breathing it for the entire time i have been here. i think that thinking about the expression for the neighbors and the children is really tangible in that example. the other point i would raise, i know there are a lot of facts and data offered, is that i ask the planning commission to ask what we want it to be in two years and 10 years. some of my neighbors have said that we could become a character of san francisco and it will be a dope patch or a fisherman's wharf where it is a fisherman's wharf of marijuana. there are families like mine crammed into homes less than 1,000 square feet while the cannabis retailers are in 4,000 feet. recently there was a closure of my gym. she came to the planning commission to try to get approval to move this child play facility that brought children of all income levels together and the facility had to close because the represent was too high. she tried to move to other facilities so families could participate. at any given time she had about 300 families. this couldn't be approved. upon appeal she was told that these are zoned for manufacturing and that is it. i would say is it our city's vision this is one with no child play facilities. it is only zoned for cannabis dispensary lounges. i also oppose this on mississippi street. >> next speaker. >> hello. i am brad. i am a resident of potrero hill. i live two blocks away from the proposed establishment. this is within the outside centered feet but across -- two blocks from the school, daniel webster one block up and one block over. i am married tona fabulous woman behind me who previously spoke. the vision what we want our neighborhoods and city to be dogpatch and mission bay is undergoing an amazing i will call it -- not transformation. the city is great but with the new basketball arena and new residential and what is being redone in terms of the landing and trying to build out the additional residential areas to have people to live in the city and work in the city and be part of the city, i just -- it doesn't feel consistent with the vision. i could repeat the number of proposed cannabis lounges in the potrero hill neighborhood, five our six. that is not the vision of the neighborhood i want to be part of or my concerned neighbors as well. i am here to speak my opposition to it. i appreciate your time. >> next speaker, please. >> how many minutes have we got? >> three minutes. >> i am rodney. i am in 200 block of mississippi. lived here 61 years in potrero hill. i think the city is going to pot. i mean it in a bad way. we are becoming the laughingstock of the nation with the homeless and all of the other matters. now, they should be in the potrero hill should be no disdispensaries. the dotthe dogpatch should fighr battles. this is not good for the traffic. they go to the lounge room and smoke the pot, they come out, they are induced with this. i did a little research on the thc. the balance, cord nation and what have you. you go drive a car. now, they got one over here i live on the 200 block mississippi. i don't know how they ram rodded the one on 100 block. we only get two minutes. let's be forward thinking. the people have spoken, young children and parents. do the review on litigation you heard about mentioned about the owner. i have had conversations with him, but i lived here 361 years. i -- 61 years. before you make a decision you should do review on the litigation. not only we should call what is the neighborhood want. we can put retail market there grocery store or something of matter. the traffic is pretty bad by the caltrain. we want to keep our neighborhood nice and secure, friendly, less traffic, less pollution, and most importantly for the nation i am against marijuana smoke. a lot of your people have smoken and they are trying to be nice to be. take points well. the points of the previous speakers, i think they should have come harder. i think we should grant this location, this dispensary and we should take up distribution there whatever they are doing there now that is not good. perception is not good for us. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> i am don henry. i have been a owner of the property three doors up the hill from the subject property for 43 years. one of the things i want to point out is that we recently had a public meeting at the property and several of the neighbors who are here went to that meeting. i learned and they learned that the folks who are in that building were doing cannabis manufacturing for seven years. none of us were aware of it. nobody in the neighborhood objects to them doing the business they have been doing. changing over to a commercial retail outlet is altogether different. the reason why they are manufacturing cannabis in that building is because the building is in their family. they own it. they have owned that building since golden dragon moved there a long time ago. they have been doing business and nobody objects to that. what i would point out mississippi street from 20th to 22nd street would be considered a steep hill anywhere in san francisco. there is no 21st street because the hill does not the condition of the hill doesn't allow for it. it is narrow, mississippi relative to pennsylvania boulevard which is next door. it has perpendicular parking. over the last 40 years everybody traded in two door for suv and that parking is a little testing issue. mississippi is also the only street outside of third street which goes uninterrupted to downtown and meets with seventh street. we get all kinds of traffic on there and it goes too fast, traffic that can't navigate. if they open up a retail business and they are successful they have three parking spaces out front. they have them set up as timed parking, 20 minutes. i am not sure how retailer doing smoking cannabis is going to kick somebody out after 20 minutes, but they are going to have more people and more cars driving around there looking for parking spaces than anybody will tell you there are no parking spaces on mississippi street. people taking the train park on top of the hill and walk down. thank you. >> anyone else want to speak on behalf of the d.r. requester? seeing none, public comment is closed. project sponsor. >> afternoon, commissioners. this is my second time here within the past month. i am still a little bit nervous. as you may recall, several weeks ago my partners and i came seeking approval for a retail cannabis store. thank you for your support. to summarize my long history. i was born and raised in western addition. got in trouble. due to opportunities and teaching i am currently the director of collective impact and the after school program for at risk youth. using my own story to help as part of that program i have been up to 150 kids two to three times each week to participate in artennis program -- in our tennis program. i am frustrated with another hurdle dr is imposing. i go to a lot of equity applicant meetings. the two most difficult problems are financing and finding the space. in addition, it has been difficult to pay for the carrying cost the dr has caused. part of the business plan is to have local equity manufacturers with a retail space to sell their products. together we can all insure oversight and education how products are sold directly to customers. we are committed to being responsible small business operators. i think our work in the community and operating small businesses shows how we will operate on site. i hope this commission will continue to support the office of cannabis and the equity program. the additional obstacles and delays make it near impossible for equity owners like myself to insure business success when we start with costly delays. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am angel davis. thank you for your decision on january 23rd to approve our project. i have a little cold. forgive me. i won't go into the back story. we are a partnership with members born and raised from san francisco. my friendship goes back a long time. when he told me we could expand to retail and consumption i was so excited i almost fell over. we come from food and beverage background. we envisioned this to be similar to the cyprus coffee where we manufacture the products and sell to customers and allow on site construction. one must think ahead to be financially viable. last year we made the expensive decision t to t to renovate our facility. our production expanded to sell directly to consumers by adding 700 retail feet of space. existing zoning of which it is permitted not seeking conditional uses or variances. our site is edial becaus is a p. we want a site for those who enjoy cannabis. a place that can help educate not only clients but community and would hire staff from the community. >> i'll take comments from the support of the public sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm walton chang, a 74-year-old resident of san francisco. from 1986 to 2011, i operated golden dragon and during that time, we had a paint company across the street where now there's the knox and only recently the last five years and next door was an underground construction company where they put 44 lives worth loss an 44 l. at times, the residents would open the doors and let the dogs out and we would have to clean up after them. from that area all the way down to army street and further, it's all commercial. i mean, we've had businesses and we've been zoned there for a long time. so i wish to not have the building move to condos or other developers, to have a small business, continue to have employees and being able to have a place of manufacturing. and family has been hard-working and there were market shops downtown and on market street and angel has been operating a fine wine bar and i applaud them and michael hall for what they're doing. oh, after my surgery, the cbd products that i took to have pain management was far superior than opioid medications that was prescribed to me. so i urge the commission to support this project. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. cheewe have to hold up on the clapping to move through the hearing, thank you. >> thank you for your time, commissioner. i'm antoine jones, i'm from the human dog patch area, born and raised there. i watched the changes happen. and when i first started at hunter's point, i started playing tennis there. the first person i hit tennis balls with was arthur ashe. at that time, i was up there teaching tennis with two tennis rackets and a ball hopper and that's where i met louie and alberto and they helped my kid out and i know where their hearts are at. i support this and i'm so gad to be back in fight for my kids. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i first came to san francisco in 1976 and i love this city. i am a founding member of an organization called project cbd and i'm a founding member -- i'm the founder of an entity call house of harlequin and i came here today because in my 20 some years of professional experience with cannabis as medicine, the team before you is some of the best i've encountered. they're self-financed, this is not a corporate thing and these are people trying to succeed as a business. and i came here not just because of those people but because 215, proposition 215 in 1996 specified each would have access to cannabis and i spent a lot of time helping that happen in our state. i was involved in the measure, senate bill 829 that governor brown vetoed and bill 24 that governor nusome just signed. this would be an asset to the neighborhood, not a threat. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i saw you two weeks ago when we were talking about ivy street and we obviously had a different situation where you had a room for of people singing the praise and welcoming them into our neighborhood. in fairness, i should say i live in hayes valley near the ivy street hill. so i have tremendous respect for the sincerity of all of the feelings expressed by the residents. again, i'm here to talk to the character of this team that is proposing a business, that seems to meet all of the qualifications of the use for this building. and i've known them for a long time, the reason i was here two weeks ago is the reason i'm here again today. i know they'll bring remarkable care, community engagement, security concerns to any project they do. and you know, to all of the residents that have spoken, they say, what are you here for? you've all heard my pitch about how wonderful these people are and how much i trust them. what i want to share with the neighbors this community is so, how does somebody feel? would you have that in your neighborhood? the answer to this is a resounding yes. we voted to have two cannabis citesites approved, one with ths team and one with another and i can't tell you the strength of conviction i have for the quality of people they are, their dedication to their community, the commitment to the hayes valley and turro community and with that, i would ask you to look at critical as you can how this site measures up in terms of being qualified for this use and if you find it to be such, i know it's difficult when a suspect has this many very sincere and committed speakers, but you have a difficult choice, but i think you will make the right one. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i'm ron miguel and i've been on the hill for a little over 44 years. i was sitting up there when we passed legislation. i was tutored in pdr and i think what i understand what is meant by integrated business model and this is what this is, you grow, sell and consume on one site. i greatly appreciate having been on the petrillo hill so long. the concepts mentioned by the other side, such as pharmacy, banks, grocery, library, park, we're talking something of over 1,000 feet and ain't going to happen here. this is a legitimate business. it fits the neighborhood plan. it fits the pdr concept and these are people that in other businesses and in other activities in san francisco are highly respected, long-term. they're not coming in without experience in san francisco. i opened my mouth at a neighborhood meeting a week or so ago and as my wife tells me, if you open your mouth, you have to follow through. so i wasn't here two weeks ago for the unconditional use, but i am here for this. i would have been before and i would have supported the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm dr. lupus. i was employed by the san francisco school district for 30 years as a teacher, academy e ac count legislator. i have known louie since 1991 and he was an outstanding student. his outstanding quality, however, was his lively spirit and eagerness to learn. as an english teacher with 20 years' experience, i was delighted to have him in my class. he wasn't only a classroom success story but a gifted athlete. although tennis was his first love, he was on the soccer team and swim team, as well. in fact, one year, he was named most valuable player in all three sports. it speaks to louie's character he has always strived to do his best as a student. he graduated from san diego state and now as a businessman. louie has always enjoyed a challenge. he is dedicated to doing things well, but also doing what's right. he values his employees who, in turn, do their best for him. there's very little turnover in his staff, which speaks to louie's character and his desire to always look out for those to whom he is responsible. i have known louie for almost 30 years. i know his mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, aunts, uncles and cousins and his beautiful wife and three children and i also know many of his friends. louie is a loving familyman, a devoted friend and a successful businessman who leads an admirable life in all ways. without hesitation, i recommend louie to you. >> thank you. next speaker to you. >> thank you for your time, commissioners. i was here a couple of weeks eight, as well, and wish to speak against on behalf of louie, and angel and just to a narrow slice of a relationship that's lasted over 30 years. but i know that when you hear about small businesses coming in, the hope is that at some point there's a give-back to the community. and my relationship with, specifically michael and louie, has completely based around that. in the '90s i ran a tennis program for kid at petrillo hill and shortly after four years there, i went to bayview, hunter's point where i worked with antoine, specifically. that was a relationship i brought louie in as one of my students who i coached and he helped me. i've known mike hall over 30 years after trying to recruit him and i've seen mike do the similar endeavors in the western edition. as my family grew, our relationship stayed based around those same principles. to this day, louie runs a successful business in hayes valley and supports mike's endeavors and mike runs a successful program which helps children. i try to participate and help out because that relationship has been special and i'm very confident that if given the opportunity to succeed in business, there would be in question if there would to be a give-back to the community because they live it currently and i know they would only use whatever possible venue that they have to increase that effort and outreach more. so i'm here to speak on their behalf, and specifically to their work prior and continued work in helping people. so thank you for your time and appreciatappreciate it. >> thank you. anyone else want to speak on behalf of the sponsor project, come on up. >> i just want to thank you guys for your time today. i'm perry jones, the ceo of callie heels and an equity applicant, so i'll be going through this same process. so i'm happy to see the progress today and to see the support and also for the opposition, because i think this is a time for us to be able to actually educate the community, as well as the board when it comes to the candidate's use. cannabis use. mr. hall is actually the coach for my daughter and i can understand the conflicts when it comes to cannabis. from a business aspect of it, i would like him to be able to accel and to be able to give a safer access when it comes to cannabis. i know we all know the history of petrillo hill, a bright history and a dark past, as well. at this time, the development is safe access to those youth and those teams that's in the community. i believe mr. hall and his team will do a wonderful job, give safe access and for the city to build a support equity and this is a prime opportunity to do so. i would love such an equity business approved because i think this would be an opportunity to give further education and safe access. >> thank you, anyone else on behalf of the project sponsor. dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. public comment is close. >> thank you, i'll try to make it fast. one of the things i wanted to get through that i did not, it goes back to the equity program. four and five native are landowners, not paying rent and maybe there's a monetary loss, but not a direct loss. they've been payin paying rent d streamlined as someone who kind of looked through some of the building permits, they got a florist nursery that was rented. there's a lot going on they've learned out to navigate and this is another stepping stone to be located here and i think that should be taken into account. they have great social capital and i think that's great, but that is not a reason for a land use change where the immediate residents will be impacted by it. they state they've been good residents for eight years. i had no idea they were here tor eighforeight years. the hours of operations that were sold to us in our october meeting were 8:00 closure and they're going for 10:00. i think there's a lot of mistrust and communications they might not have done in this neighborhood. one last thing and i know this came up in the poke street, there's a lot of question and i talked to the policy analyst for their early education. the state mandates a 600-foot requirement from daycares and preschool. the city of san francisco planning defers to the state and i think that is something you should look at closely. when i talked to the early education san francisco office, they weren't clear on it. if you are making the judgment calls right now and you're going to pimple these all over the city, especially in the eastern area, that's important you get clear and mang that policy really clear. >> thank you. now we have a rebuttal from the project sponsor. two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to reiterate angel and mike's thankfulness to all of you for a couple of weeks ago. i'm really excited to finally be able to get to work and it's been a long process. i feel like, especially with emily, we've all spent a lot of time trying to explain everything we possibly can. the first time we met her, ini invited her and her husband to come to our existing business. i think it's time for us to be able to show a successful equity program for the city and neighborhoods we love. we have every intention, like we did in hayes family. and i think the best thing i can say, the last gentleman who spoke against us said that we have been this the neighborhood for seven years and didn't even know we were there. and i think given the opportunity, we're going to absolutely continue to be a part of every neighborhood, merchant association group and every neighborhood group and we will continue going. this isn't like we went for a couple of months and we're going to stop and we'll continue. as you heard from the people that i work with with the after-school program, we're really excited to get that going again in the bayview and petrillo hill. i have three children, so i understand everyone that came up and we will be very aware of that aspect in this building. thank you. >> thank you. ok, all comment is closed now. commissioners? commissioner johnson? >> hi, everyone. so first, i just want to say thanks to everyone for coming out. i know that this is personal on all sides of the conversation. for neighbors, your concern about this potential change of use, you're concerned about your families, your neighborhood, your community and for our equity applicants, you're trying to run a legal business in this city and wanting to be integrated into this neighborhood is provide a successful business for yourselves, your family and for your communities. and so i just want to take a second to have everybody just take a deep breath. there is a lot up and at the same time, i think there is a constructive community conversation that we can have and we're going to be having that. and we'll be weighing all sides of the perspectives brought up today. you know, i'll say that here, on the planning commission, we have a difficult task. cannabis is legal in the city, right? and the voters decided that. and every neighborhood needs to have cannabis spaces. you know, i heard a lot of talk about the hill and the transform transformation it's going through and while there's a lot of transformation and families and recognising a lot of the original residents were impacted by the war on drugs. and so this is not a clear-cut issue. this is the tapestry and fabric of a neighborhood that we are trying to sit with as we make this decision. so i just wanted to name that. i do have a lot of questions and i'm sure my fellow commissioners do, as well, before i can turn it over to my fellow commissioners to make their comments. the first three are really just for the benefit of public discourse. there have been a lot of questions raised and i want to make sure that everybody is getting their questions answered. the first one is around state law and california law and state law and city law and 600 feet. i know we've talked about that a few times, but if you could, say, talk about that for the benefit. >> we'll start there. >> michael christian, department staff. under the bureau of cannabis control does have regulations that set buffers. those buffers are intended to allow flexibility for local jurisdictions and so, they do defer to a local jurisdiction if a local jurisdiction has a different buffer set. pout and the planning code under section 202. a does state that there is no minimum radius required from a cannabis retail use to a youth center or daycare. it only sets a 600-foot radius to a school defined as k-12 institution. there is a clause in there that does say that in the event that this state does set a minimum radius, that that radius will apply. the intent of the clause through the legislative process and in speaking with the city attorney is the fact that we don't control state law and if state law were to change, then we don't want to be approving new licenses that the state would then deny. but currently, the state does allow us to set our local radius and we have defined it in the planning code, and there not one and that is what we're running off of. >> the next question i have for you is how many consumption lounges are in the pipeline in this area? we've heard lots of different numbers. >> sure. so in the broader -- it was referenced and it shows a large square, kind of encompassing the hill and dog patch, up to the border of mission bay and so it includes the hill, as well as the areas on the other side of the freeway. within this kind of box, on the petrillo hillside, there's this location and on the other side of the hill, up and down the hill at 165 mississippi, we had another location which was principlably permitted, went out for neighborhood notification and did not have any discretionary review and that was approved. that site was a retail location, did not propose consumption at the time but may be added in the future under the current code. on the dog patch, the other side of the freeway, on third street, dutchman's flat which currently does not have a consumption lounge but have proposed to add one. at 600 indiana, another project that is out for notification and proposes a cannabis retail use and consumption lounge on the notification package and 457 mariposa, at 16th street, another notice proposing both retail and consumption space, a dr was received and tentative scheduled for april 16th. >> this is for mr. wang and the dr requesters. there have been neighborhood meetings, you've sat down and there were some negotiations, actually, in the packet. i'm curious, can you talk a little bit about the negotiations to the hours of operation and other things? >> sure, and we put that under that category because we had meeting notes so that a couple of the nearest neighbors -- the one that runs the 311 zone, we talked to each other, collected questions and had a sit-down, two-hour conversation and two other people who were not angel or mike, so we had that initial conversation to understand the operations better. i personally did feel better about things, but kind of reflecting the neighbor's request, we don't want retail there. and at some point -- and this was just a meeting, not really an agreement, and then, you know, later through the office of cannabis, they're mandated to send out 300 flip fliers and have a neighborhood meeting, which we actually instigated. we felt like they had a meeting in september, where fliers were taped to everyone's doors the day before. and so people didn't show up and there was a sign-in list and they had technically gone through that step and that's not sufficient. you need to make it so people can show up and that meant meeting up. it was more of an informational meeting. not a lot of flexibility given to the neighbor's concerns and hours of operation, taking out the consumption lounge. if you have gummies, things like that. we offered to mediate last minute with the boosters and they refused private mediation and that's kind of where we stand. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> questions for staff. >> do i understand correctly that the existing grow facility is principlably permitted and they can add retail dispensary and a lounge with a, b, and c consumption as a principlably permitted use? that in the absence of dr, they could have put anything in there that i just mentioned? >> yeah, so the existing site uses under prior permits are greenhouse and light manufacturing. before we had the legislative amendments a couple of years ago that defined cannabis used, we were still authorizing callty vacatioauthorizingcultivation ia greenhouse and that's what was legally classified and permit flood. permitted. they are permitted to have cannabis retail use and permitted to have a consumption lounge. >> and what hours under or code are they permitted to stay open until, in the absence of us putting constraints on it? >> so potentially some things that i believe is worth looking at for the commission. this is a unique circumstance. (please stand by). >> the adjacent property is used for residential. it is a live-work facility. those are generally not used in that manner. that would be a question for the commission. >> to be clear, on both sides of the street it is all residential with the exception of the block, all residential with the exception of this particular site? >> just to be clear, technically the site on 22nd street is not a residential. other than that, yes, everything is residential. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i am not sure the question is requested whether or not this isnition to discuss. in one of the e-mails there was detail about the background of the building owner, which was a lawsuit in the superior court. normally we do not get involved. at this particular moment it puts a small question mark about what is this all about? how does it affect the operation? how does it affect the credibility of the operation? leave it that way. >> i would likely defer questions to the project sponsor. generally, we don't consider these disputing to be a land use matter. >> they are for us user matter because we do need certainty that what is happening indeed is happening in balance with all of the things we need to consider. i do think that the issue of moving from an agricultural operation as it was in the past to what is now a pdr cannabis cultivation is one step which we all need to accept that is a natural evolution of the code. however, considering retail and active consumption on site becomes a different issue. that becomes a land use issue in light of the fact we have heard quite a few people speaking to the true nature of the residential neighborhood which has transformed when we undertook re-zoning of the eastern neighborhoods but at the same time we are not able to deliver the type of support services that the residential neighborhood typically enjoys, at a minimum a corner grocery store, with a bank or whatever it is. i want to be mindful of taking these considerations -- these thoughts into consideration. i would like to get a slightly better feeling. i am looking for the commissioners in terms of how they see it impacting or not impacting what is in front of us. >> one quick question for mr. mcgill. what was the timeline on when you formerly on the commission were hammering out the details? >> i was on the commission roughly from 2005 to 2012. >> got it. thank you. just to clear it up, mr. mcgill was sitting in this seat. he was president of the commission. i do value hi his opinion and he does reside in those neighborhoods. from a personal experience i do not live in dogpatch but in sunset. we had a highly contentious item on a dispensary on irving and 23rd, very much residential neighborhood, highly opposed. i frequent the neighborhood often. i haven't heard one bad thing. it is a business that filled a vacant be storefront. people are buying product like any other store. it is bringing more business to the other businesses. i understand you are a residential neighborhood. the dogpatch has always been different. not the stereotypical neighborhood. i am completely open to restrictions or whatever the commissioners might want, but overall i am in support. >> commissioner moore. >> since it is a little bit not exactly within the purview of the planning department. i would like to ask the operator to speak what is supposed to be a lawsuit in front of the super-yore coursoup-- superior s operation. >> the lawsuit is a landlord tenant issue that has nothing to do with the manufacturing or distribution. the office of cannabis is aware of it afternoo and would never e allowed us to have the licenses we have in there currently. they do a very diligent process, you know, i think that is the explanation. it is a landlord tenant issue, it is civil. they checked everything out. the office of cannabis knows everything going on. with my partners we are here to ask for a natural extension of what we are already doing and have been doing well there. >> another question for staff. can you comment on the status of negotiations that you have tried to facilitate between the d.r. requesters and the project proponents? >> sure. i was, you know, with discretionary review we have been trying to reform and adapt. we drive to have parties come to a solution outside of the discretionary review process and going to new businesses and projects neighborly. we do generally try to mediate discussions. something i know david winslow has done very well in residential projects and something we are trying to do more here. in this case, i have observed some degree of negotiation between the two parties. i attempted to facilitate that by asking what the asks would be, and there was a couple rounds of e-mails going through with that regard. some of the asks were within the commission's purview concerning concern over consumption. some of the concerns were, i believe, something the project sponsor felt was -- they were too far apart. they contacted the boosters to try to mediate. we also discussed some of those asks with the d.r. requester recently. you know, frankly, it is somewhat crunch time when we have negotiations happening two days before the hearing. in this case i was probably focused on getting the dr action for geary because i knew that was a done deal. my perception in speaking with the two groups, i think there is an opportunity for compromise. i think hours of operation is something that has been cited quite a bit as a concern because of the fact the city consent have control for that and consumption is something that i have heard voiced as a concern. >> do you think that a continuance for two or three weeks withinsis tens they get -- with the insis tense they get together to work on a ruling would be beneficial? >> i don't know. i don't know if that would result in much. i think that the two key issues. there is definitely room for discussion of hours of operation and consumption. that is something the commission can unilaterally solve. the other items voiced as concern included operating standards for how far up the street would be patrolled and cleaned which is under the purview of the office of cannabis and addressed through good neighbor policy that follows the commission's decision. at the end of the day the commission has control of the land use, not the operator. if the operator changes those conditions need to be part of the new operator licensing agreement as well. we are trying to make sure those types of conditions end up being part of the operator agreement and not a land use issue. if you look on the geary street approval that is why i incorporated the standards as part of operator licensing agreement to include off-loading those to appropriate agency, but my perception and i don't want to speak on behalf of the project sponsor the hours of operation and consumption are key issues that continue to drive this. >> i will start by put telling you my current thinking. i would be inclined to take dr review to address the hours issue and the consumption issue. it is a permitted use given it is the only retail facility on this block surrounded by residential that for me is sufficient extraordinary circumstance that i could justify putting some conditions on it. i do believe and this is to the d.r. requesters, if you don't like the 600-foot boundary the recourse is to your local supervisor, not the planning commission. it is legislation. we don't have power to change that. if you don't like the limitation or lack of limitation relative to daycare facilities, your best course is not here, it is with revised legislation in front of the board of supervisors. as to hours of operation and any limitations that we might be in favor of on consumption, i could see taking dr. i would also as an alternative if you rest of you thought it an alternative i could see continuing this for three weeks to see if thin if they can workt themselves. i am open to those. i believe the hours of operation and some limitation on consumption are appropriate in this circumstance. >> i hear what you are saying. a lot of times people request and want the consumption lounge in an effort to have less people on the streets consuming. commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i would agree. it is appropriate to take dr. i am concerned about this specific location, however, recognizing the code that it is principally permitted and to the larger legislative issues that have been brought up by fellow commissioners. what i would say there are a few things that actually make me lean slightly towards continuing. one of the things brought up by -- i have passed by consumption lounges and pot dispensaries that look like apple stores. they are gorgeous. they look like little grocery stores. you scant really see what -- can't really see what is happening in them. i like the invocation o of a dandelion. i see a façade. it is like a comment generally on applications that we see. it might be putting the cart before the horse. having rendering to help people have the look and feel this looks like clothing or wine bar than like what people think of it is useful to be able to see and understand that. i think that along with, i know there are notes what was discussed around the hours of operation, but we don't have an official recommendation. i would want the community to have a little more time to decide what hours they would feel are right. i would actually lean towards a continuance over taking dr. i am open. that is where i am at right now. >> commissioner moore. >> i would support continuance. new commissioner will be seated next week. it is an interesting discussion where we are faced with new challenges to the subject matter. following up on commissioner diamond, this commission has the ability to create policy around cannabis retail in proximity to kindergartens or places of children gathering on their own and suggested full legislation to the board of supervisors. it would be active for us to consider policy. we are in th the crossfire of people speaking to us. we will discuss it among ourselves. that is not what we are asking. i would support continuance and how many weeks did you have in mind as being advicable? >> i would say somewhere around three weeks. >> is that a motion? >> i make a motion to continue -- what does our calendar look like? >> march 5th. >> to march 5th. with direction related to renderings. if it is going to look and feel like those things we need to see that it looks and feels like those things. conversation between the community and applicant, negotiation on hours of operation. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would second that. there needs to be discussion around consumption. it is not a and b. it is type c. there isn't residential above but there is residential all around. it is not as clear cut to me. i would like to see where they get in course of discussion with each other. it is a principally permitted use. i want everyone to know i am starting from that basis. it is principally permitted. there may be ways to fine tune it to make it easier for the neighbors. the code says it is prionly permitted. >> the dr requester would not be able to attend on that date. could you continue a week? >> march 12th? >> does march 12th work, michael? >> maker of the motion amend to march 12. >> i accept that. >> i won't be here on march 12th. it doesn't matter. i am happy to second it. >> if there is no further discussion there is a motion to continue this to march 12 with direction from the commission on that motion. >> i think we should be a full commission for this. >> march 19th? >> amended to the 19th. >> very good. on that motion to continue to march 19th. (roll call). >> so moved commissioners that motion passes 4-1 with commissioner koppel voting against. commissioners, item 15 was continued. placing us on item 16. members of the public, we are going to take a 10 >> this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, david winslow. this is a public request for discration neary review of application 2018-0803 of 5 on 3 to construct a fourth story addition to the existing two-story three family house and decks to the rear. a roof deck is also proposed. the d.r. requester, on behalf of the 263 4:00 tavia street homeowner association and the 1711-1795 groom street neighbors across the street and to the east is concerned that this is out of architectural character with option impact to the scale of the block face, two against the city climate change by blocking solar access to the adjacent library's solar panel, three the elevator will exceed the height restrictions and the roof deck will create privacy loss, will result in real estate value. the alternative is to remove the additional floor. there are seven letters in opposition siting impact to the historic library next door and one letter in support. the departments residential design advisory team reviewed this abconfirmed -- and confirmed this meets residential design related to architectural character and scale and preservation of access to light. the project sponsor designed the building to add to existing building to maintain access to light at the mid block open space. staff found the proposed design of the fourth story extends the angled roof to maintain the form and scale at the street by extending the roof at building front. the 10-foot wide replaces the double wide door and the entry is widened. the window sizes are of similar scale and form as neighboring and are proposed to be maintained. the public library to to north extending to the full lot coverage was to ensure its access to light with a 12 food side set back to allow northern windows to access the light. iit is unobstructed to solar access to the rear yard. solar panels are not protected by state or local law and that would allow them as impediments to development. furthermore the project was reviewed and revised in preservation staff and they worked extensively with the sponsor to get the scope of work to a level that would not require the secretary of interior standard analysis. they analyzed site line studies from various points on the street to the adjacent resource. third, the code allows projections to exceed the height limit. the roof deck is back 5 feet from the side, front and rear building. because of the roof slope it is back 20 feet from the front building wall. as to pose minimal impacts to neighbors with respect to noise and light. lastly, the loss of light due to this addition is not exceptional or extra ordinary. the setback and width of street provide more than reasonable resistance to the d.r. requesters with respect to light. per san francisco policy views are not protected. staff went to the site of the library at noon today to get a better sense of what the quality of light and what the prospect of this fourth story addition would be and i am here with elizabeth and shannon ferguson and our consensus was that it it would be minimum and they are here to answer further detailed questions that might arise due to preservation regarding the library. with this it meets the department guidelines and recommends you approve it as proposed it does not present any extraordinary circumstances. i am happy to answer questions as are shannon and elizabeth. >> thank you. start off by hearing from the d.r. requester. >> hello. i am the president. on the plan commission, in addition to the lighter problem for the library, we think the impacted on the roofline would be very important. octavia street is made of a shape building. the slope leading to the library. you can see that in photo three. the proposed design would be higher than the building immediately adjacent to the south and it would bring harmony next to the lower l shaped library. just by looking at the photo, we can see a very gentle slope and making it very square and higher would totally change the roofline. we also think that the roof deck is unnecessary given that the backyard as well. the condition would prevent more than enough urban space. it would compromise the privacy of neighbors and create noise. elevator on top of the additional floor and roof deck with a glass wall would totally break the character of the neighboring properties. if we lower that for this house in this neighborhood we would do that quickly because there is money to do it. the neighborhood would lose its character. so we urge you to at least delay approval for the reasons that my co-owner will expose right away regarding the library. we ask that you delay approval. thank you. >> anyone from the public wish to speak on behalf of the dr requester opposed to the project? >> you have two more minutes. >> i am maureen. i represent the 1791 to 1795 green street across the street from the proposed renovations. we were dismayed to discover when we saw the public material. >> she is listed on the dr application. >> i am getting back the time that you took. thanks. so we were dismayed to see the public materials on the internet from the discretionary review that we had filed with 2634 to note that after going through the bother and expense of filing those there was nothing indicatessed on the website there was any opposition from neighbors for the project. there still to date is nothing listed on the website that there is any opposition. i have a file folder of more than seven letters from residents and neighbors with concerns about particularly the light of what is going to happen with the light in the library. this library underwent massive renovation completed in october 2012 to the tune of $8.5 million of taxpayer money and private moneys that residents donated to friends of the library to support a wonderful new space for the community. that library is used constantly by families, residents of the neighborhood and people outside of the neighborhood. there are neighborhood meetings there. it is an iconic building and city asset. you guys approved to undertake that renovation and at great taxpayer expense. it is a little surprising now how can you consider approving diminishing the impact and use ability of that space because of the light issues that may occur from having the height restriction? i know they are asking for -- to expand the height above 40 feet. >> that is your time. you will have a two minute rebuttal. >> sorry. that is your time. you will have more time later on. anyone else. >> can i submit the letters? >> of course, you can. anyone else want to speak on behalf of the d.r. requester opposed to the project? three minutes. >> i am maggie chang. i live on octavia street. i am here to represent molly who is not here today so i just want to emphasize about the library. as far as i know, the library is part of the public space. it is one of the landmarks that like the other libraries, i was wondering if this was research as a landmark library according to if landmark status. this hasn't been defined so i wonder if we can delay this approval until the landmark status is defined. this library is very important to our neighborhood. we spend so much money on it and the energy, solar panel is very useful. when the building is built-up and the solar income is useless. i am asking if the commissioners can delay this decision until the landmark status is decided. thank you. >> anyone else in support of d.r. requester? >> good afternoon, thank you for spending time with us. it is a long day. i am here as well to oppose the existing plans for the building adjacent to the library. i moved into the neighborhood about six months ago. a big part of the reason for the move was i have a 16 month old son. it is a beautiful place to go and spend time. i also am here to plead to the owner and developer to think about maybe the things the commission doesn't care about in regards to the economic value in impact to the views. it impacts me significantly. i am not opposed to development. i am opposed to this specific development and ask for reduced size of development moving forward. thank you very much. >> anyone else? >> i am penny wells at 1900 vallejo street. i lived there since 1985. i don't know what it is about our neighborhood, everybody wants to build there including the city. they are tearing up the streets. we have so many projects including the library at 1890val a show and 260 8:00tay via that started in february of this year and will continue to may. it is enormously noisy. my whole lifestyle has been impacted by all of the noisy projects. i know building has to go on. what i am speaking about is not necessarily i am going to oppose if project but what i want to do is have the architect and owner do everything they can to mitt gate the noise. what i noticed is a number of projects carve all of the boards and the marble and, you know, for the building in a garage or the door and windows are open or on the sidewalk which is dangerous. it is noisy. when you have all of these buildings surrounding, the noise is like a threshold. i will be here times 1,000. it is a place i want to live, work. you can't be on the phone, i can't have visitors. if you want to take a nap, forget it. you probably noticed the threshold of noise is a jackhammer which is appalling. no one seems to care about the impact of the noise going on. now there is a project on 1776 green street that is on proposal. i don't know what happened with that at the corner of octavia and green street. also, going up on vallejo street which the work had to be done. the high rises that did the appointing work is like jackhammering the buildings. i want to speak to the sensitivity we who live in the city. i realize it is a city. it is a huge expansion of noise that i have heard since 1985 when i first moved here. i just want some sensitivity to that. if i could think of away. i there throw this idea out if some person can surround the jackhammer to mitigate noise. be sensitive. cut the marble and boards off site. that may cost the owner some more money. you know what? they will benefit when they sell the property which they probably will do. i would like to suggest the curtain sound curtain to be maybe put up that will mitigates the noise. that is what i ask. >> anyone else in support of the d.r. requester? >> seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners, david winslow and staff. i am jane cook. i am the owner of 2651-5 3:00 tavia. my husband and i are 30 year residentses san francisco we raised our family 8 blocks from that. we hope to create two units for multigenerational living for elderly parents and children and ourselves. my husband and i work from home. we worked with the planning staff. >> sorry. ssfgovtv can you go to the competitor please. >> historical preservation with countless e-mails the proposed plans before you are positive collaboration between us and the sf planning department. i would like to thank the staff for expertise. we are pleased with the design and believe they meet our needs and comply with the planning code and maintain the character of the neighborhood and the library. my architects will take it from here. >> good afternoon. i am sarah and i am the architect with my business partner. this is a three story residential building built in 1950 located near octavia and green street next to the golden gate library. the intent to accommodate multigenerational living. project goals provide accessibility for elderly parents, work home office space. two units. enhance entry of street fronts. reduce prominence of the garage. landscape for street presence and rye place out -- replace the outdated windows. the owner wanted a larger building. after receiving the comments from the first plan we need the unique nature of the building next to the li library. we work with the planning department and residential team for 15 months to arrive as the design sensitive that required no extraordinary circumstances. our original submission was modern looking with front deck. on right is current proposal. following changes. redesign façade to set back the vertical addition to allow more light, increase neighbor privacy by reducing roof deck, minimize elevator penthouse. no stair penthouse and the elevator penthouse are code compliant. it will match the height of the existing building to the south. these are the original designs. to the left is visible from the street. portion to the right is obstructed from the street due to masking from the library. following changes match window to the street, align first two sets of windows. maintain existing material, reduce roof demwith 20-foot set back from front and 5-foot set back on all other sides. set back fourth floor to match neighbor's alignment to allow more light and air to neighboring buildings. fourth floor is set back 15 feet behind the roof detail. addition increased three feet above the left and six feet on the shorter side on the right. here we address the concerns of light at the library. this shows the large existing light bulb that maintains the natural light. windows currently overlook the building and additional story would result in a minor impact. to understand the concerns an independent consultant was retained to conduct the impact analysis on the library solar panels and neighboring knowledge. building. it was 5.8% per year. impact to neighboring acknowledges 1% for 1791 green street, and 3.8% for the pattedtio. in conclusion we have been thoughtful in considering the intents of the planning guidelines. our plans comply with all building codes. thank you. >> anyone want to comment in support of the project sponsor in favor of the project? okay. seeing none, d.r. requester you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thanks. on the plan, i think it is misleading. you see the floor as being flat. the requester said the building would match of height of the building on the left. that is true. we are on a hill. if everybody matched the building on the left then we have a big step that is what we are complaining about. to keep the slope natural the height should be where it is right now. we can't match the building uphill all of the time. the second thing is i don't want to make it on the requester but she presents herself on the website as a position of real estate. it is a job or occupation. the target is not to accommodate best needs, it is a real estate operation which is fine but not from our point of view. >> thank you. project sponsor two minute rebuttal. >> i just want to clarify that, yes, our building will match the height at the side closest to the neighbor. it is set back from the rear and set back from the front so that the diminished volume and steps of the street and building is very intentional to reduce the massing and reduce the light and air in the neighborhood. as for the owner's intended use, she is in fact a real estate developer with properties but she is intending to use this property as her home. she has lived in pacific heights previously and hopes to return back to the neighborhood because she loves it. thank you. >> thank you. that is going to wrap up the dr and project sponsor comment. commissioner moore. >> i have a question. for mr. winslow. since this building is on the sloping street, wouldn't we expect the building to step with the others so that it basically does not become much taller than what it is? i see that on this rendering. it looks like it gets quite a bit taller than the ad joining building. en. [please stand by] sticking with two units, we would like to see a little more benefit in enlarging the building, like an adu, which is not given here. since this building has some impact on what i consider high value public interest building. i would have kind of expected a critical look at how the building is enlarged and for what purpose. when you look at the number of bathrooms, size of walk-in closets, et cetera, there is quite a bit of extra space in this building. and again, coming back to my initial point, i like to have a building that is being enlarged with impact on the building of public interest value to make another contribution relative to adu when it enlarges to the extent and what is in front of us. in what form we're supporting the enlarging of buildings, this is not just an addition, this is a vertical and horizontal expansion that almost comes close to -- i don't want to use the word -- a de facto demolition. i don't want to use that word, but it's very close to it given the extent of the enlargement here. >> it, in fact, is not a de facto demolition by our standards in 317. >> just looking at what we're seeing today and seeing that we've been chipping away at this for 15 months and the project has been shortened, i'm in support. >> i believe this has a reasonably large lot for the area it's in. 120 feet by 125. the roof deck is not necessary or desirable. there is plenty of open space in the bottom of the building. and i believe that is actually not contributing to what is happening in that area. so i would actually kind of question that is supported. >> commissioner diamond: i support staff's recommendation. >> motion? >> second. thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to not take and approve the project. on that motion, diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore no. koppel aye. that passes 4-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> and we're adjourned. >> this is a huge catalyst for change. >> it will be over 530,000 gross square feet plus two levels of basement. >> now the departments are across so many locations it is hard for them to work together and collaborate and hard for the customers to figure out the different locations and hours of operation. >> one of the main drivers is a one stopper mitt center for -- permit center. >> special events. we are a one stop shop for those three things. >> this has many different uses throughout if years. >> in 1940s it was coca-cola and the flagship as part of the construction project we are retaining the clock tower. the permit center is little working closely with the digital services team on how can we modernize and move away from the paper we use right now to move to a more digital world. >> the digital services team was created in 2017. it is 2.5 years. our job is to make it possible to get things done with the city online. >> one of the reasons permitting is so difficult in this city and county is really about the scale. we have 58 different department in the city and 18 of them involve permitting. >> we are expecting the residents to understand how the departments are structured to navigate through the permitting processes. it is difficult and we have heard that from many people we interviewed. our goal is you don't have to know the department. you are dealing with the city. >> now if you are trying to get construction or special events permit you might go to 13 locations to get the permit. here we are taking 13 locations into one floor of one location which is a huge improvement for the customer and staff trying to work together to make it easy to comply with the rules. >> there are more than 300 permitting processes in the city. there is a huge to do list that we are possessing digital. the first project is allowing people to apply online for the a.d.u. it is an accessory dwelling unit, away for people to add extra living space to their home, to convert a garage or add something to the back of the house. it is a very complicated permit. you have to speak to different departments to get it approved. we are trying to consolidate to one easy to due process. some of the next ones are windows and roofing. those are high volume permits. they are simple to issue. another one is restaurant permitting. while the overall volume is lower it is long and complicated business process. people struggle to open restaurants because the permitting process is hard to navigate. >> the city is going to roll out a digital curing system one that is being tested. >> when people arrive they canshay what they are here to. it helps them workout which cue they neat to be in. if they rant to run anker rapid she can do that. we say you are next in line make sure you are back ready for your appointment. >> we want it all-in-one location across the many departments involved. it is clear where customers go to play. >> on june 5, 2019 the ceremony was held to celebrate the placement of the last beam on top of the structures. six months later construction is complete. >> we will be moving next summer. >> the flu building -- the new building will be building. it was designed with light in mind. employees will appreciate these amenities. >> solar panels on the roof, electric vehicle chargers in the basement levels, benefiting from gray watery use and secured bicycle parking for 300 bicycles. when you are on the higher floors of thing yo of the buildt catch the tip of the golden gate bridge on a clear day and good view of soma. >> it is so exciting for the team. it is a fiscal manifestation what we are trying to do. it is allowing the different departments to come together to issue permits to the residents. we hope people can digitally come to one website for permits. we are trying to make it digital so when they come into the center they have a high-quality interaction with experts to guide then rather than filling iin forms. they will have good conversations with our staff. shop and dine in the 49 aff. promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so. [gavel] >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, february 6, meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar, and i'm joined by supervisor peskin and supervisor matt hainy. and i would like to thank maya and corwin for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, thank

Related Keywords

Georgia ,United States ,Netherlands ,Oakland ,California ,Texas ,Washington ,Mission Bay ,Indiana ,Bayview ,Hayes Valley ,Cyprus ,Mississippi ,San Francisco ,America ,Dutchman ,Perry Jones ,Petrillo Hill ,Jane Cook ,Angel Davis ,Mary Taylor ,Gordon Mar ,Michael Christian ,Michael Hall ,Julie Vance ,Daniel Webster ,David Winslow ,Walton Chang ,Mike Hall ,Maggie Chang ,Ray Behr ,Reese Walker ,Kristine Wade ,Emily Wang ,Don Henry ,Quinn Wong ,Antoine Jones ,