>> come shop dine and play. taraval street is open for business. >> my name is mark recollect the owner of lou's cafe on taraval street. since 2010, my brother and tj and vince and mom [indiscernible] we used to sandwiches all the time. we said why not us. geary boulevard in 2010. i figured i might to start in another location and when i opened the location in 2015. we treat each customer as family and we make our food with love and make sure everyone is happy. i recommend everyone come out to the sunset. >> take time for teraival bingo, supporting small business, anyone can participate. it is easy, collect stickers on a bingo style game board and enter for a chance to win awesome prizes. for

okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, may 2nd, 2024. when we reach the item you were interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind, finally,

i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and at this time, i will take roll commission. president diamond here. commission vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner imperiale here. commissioner koppell here. and commissioner williams here. thank you. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one, case number 2024, hyphen 001873 pca and map for the residential enclave mixed district. rezoning of 135 kisling street planning code and zoning map amendments is proposed for continuance to may 23rd, 2024. items two a and b for case numbers 2022 hyphen 009794, d, r p and v r at 1153 guerrero street are proposed for continuance to june 20th, 2024. item three, case number 2023 hyphen 006927c at 58 buena vista terrace. conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to june 20th, 2024.

i have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment on any of these items proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance. if you're in the chambers, please come forward and. seeing no request to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioner imperial, move to continue all items as proposed. second, thank you. commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner williams, i commissioner braun i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore, i and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. zoning administrator will say i will continue item two b that variance to june 20th. thank you, commissioners that will

place us on your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing item for case number 2023. hyphen 000072 icu 814 portola drive conditional use authorization item five, case number 2017 hyphen 005154ca. hyphen zero two at 1300 columbus avenue. conditional use authorization, an item six, case number 2024 hyphen 002495 pca for the 900 kearney street. special use district planning code amendments. members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be removed and considered under the regular calendar. seeing none, i take that back. there is a

member no, with that public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you commissioners, vice president, vice president moore, move to approve. second, thank you. commissioners on that motion to approve your consent, calendar items. commissioner williams i commissioner braun, i commissioner imperiale i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under commission matters. item seven the land acknowledgment. commissioner imperial will read the acknowledgment today. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone

have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item eight commission comments and questions. so i'll start off. i have two questions, the first has to do with sb nine. i read several, i'm sure many of us read several articles this week describing a lower court court ruling that overturned turned sb nine as it applies to charter cities. we're a charter city. i wonder if the city attorney or the planning director want to comment on how that affects how we are proceeding, sure. deputy city

attorney austin yang, that is a that case last week was from redondo beach, which sued the state over the constitutionality of sb nine, which is, obviously a state law requiring ministerial approvals of lot splits and two unit developments , it is just a trial court ruling. so it has no precedential effect on the city of san francisco. i would just add, just from a policy standpoint, i mean, sb nine obviously allows you to do more than one unit on a parcel that's zoned for otherwise single family. we've moved away from that, you know? anyway, so, i mean, even even though this ruling you know, may ultimately have an impact on san francisco, like we've moved locally to allow for up to four units on parcels that were formerly zoned for single family. i mean, it

started a decade ago when we allowed for allowed adus in, continued with the four plex legislation you heard by supervisor mandelman and then subsequent fourplex six plex legislation. you heard from, supervisor melgar and supervisor engardio. so i would just say as a policy matter, some of these jurisdictions may not have done that. we've we've moved away from single family zoning anyway . sb nine kind of provided another path to densify a lot in a single family district. any questions from the other commissioners on sb nine, i'll make one comment on what i read in the papers about the ruling, so as someone who reads with great interest all of the findings we make on every motion and every approval, i think that case is a testament to how important findings are and explaining your rationale. it seems like the state it in its, accompanying rationale for the

legislation, did not go far enough in tying the legislation to the issues that it indicated were driving it. so i think, you know, we should keep doing what we're doing, which is make sure our findings really support the decisions that we're making. okay, my second question has to do with downtown recovery. it's been a while since we've had an update, and i'm wondering if we could schedule something in the next few weeks that, you know, lets us know where all of the multitude of actions that were in the mayor's recovery plan stand. sure, we'll work with the pd to schedule that, because obviously they're involved on the economic development front, i'd say things are happening, so it's ripe to come back and talk to you about it. the mayor was recently up in sacramento to talk about two pieces of state legislation that allows us, kind of allows for the use of tax increment financing for conversions. there's a bond

that's kind of working its way through the city process at capital planning. and then we'll go to the board of supervisors that allows for some of the bonds to be bond proceeds to be used for public realm improvements that we talked about, like in the uli report, ali plaza, justin herman plaza could be used for, for that work . there's design work that's happening on powell street. that's, that's partly city funded, and then there are efforts that may be in the mayor's budget to, to help fill vacancies, especially along powell street in union square. so i think it's a good time to have that discussion. we'll work to schedule that. thank you. any other questions? okay. very good. commissioners. if there's nothing further we can move on to department matters. item nine directors announcements. just one quick announcement, commissioner. so was, recommended by the rules committee to the full board of supervisors. i think her hearing or her her approval hearing is

monday, so it's likely we'll see here next thursday here at the commission. tuesday item ten, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. good afternoon, planning commissioners veronica flores filling in for aaron starr this week, there were no land use items this past monday, but as the director already shared, there was one item at the rules committee, and that was for the mayoral appointment for commissioner. so the committee did pass this and forwarded it to the full board with a positive recommendation. it's scheduled to be heard at the full board next tuesday at the full board. this recent tuesday, there were only two items of interest. the first item was a planning code and zoning map amendment for treasure island and yerba buena island. this passed on its second read, and

there was also the landmark designation for the san francisco fire station number 44 that passed on its first read. this concludes the board report for this week. thank you. and, commissioners, the board of appeals did not meet last night, so there's no report. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, but the only item on its regular calendar was continued. so their calendar is also, decreasing as as is yours. there's just simply less and less happening commissioners that will place us under general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. good afternoon georgia,

thank you for considering, action item 8.3.2 in the housing element. i look forward to a robust discussion on that at some point, i just want to comment. i did have some guilt about sending all those emails. i have to be honest, because i know everybody's under a lot of stress between stonestown and the rezoning, but there was this article on the wall street journal last friday that propelled me to do that, because i knew about those those projects on the market. and i'll just read the headline. it says, san francisco's high end rebounds. a recovery is underway in the bay area as interest rate shock finally wanes and stock market gains fuel luxury home sales. so i made a copy for you all, and it's a pretty interesting article. it has a lot of stats, a lot of graphs, and, i think it's it might be helpful if you haven't seen it, so thanks for reading those

emails. and, i thought those projects were really good examples as to why the flat policy should be codified, and as i said, i look forward to discussion of that, the other thing i want to say is that, those were really pricey units in that sort of mirrored in that article, the other thing is i want to go back, if i may have the overhead really quickly, please. so, okay, so these were projects that i sent in in january, i think. and they're all they were all pairs of flats and they were remodeled. you can see there that's, clifford street and their prices went up quite a bit. here's one. it still hasn't sold, but the entitlements sold and there was an eviction in that one. here's this one here for an and you know, sold for 6.55. and two years ago. here's this one here

that had a resale for 7.3. they were all flats. and i think the other question that raises, and i hope maybe we'll talk about it, maybe not are the demo counts because so many of these flats, it's not just that they didn't follow the flat policy or there was no flat policy, but they took advantage of 317 b, 317 b, seven. but they also took advantage of the demo calc's and like that one there, which you had last january. and then here's this one here that they took the second address off of that one. now it only has the one address and this one here that's sold in 2022 for 7 million. so obviously, you know, the prices are still high. and maybe they're getting higher again, just like before. and i found, this thing from january where you talk about putting in adus, support for adus in existing residential buildings.

that's the executive summary january 18th. and you can put adus in flats if you keep the flats. that's all. thank you. have a great day. sorry about the stress. last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. i am here to protest at, a time accounting project detail report from the, san francisco planning department, in 1936. the year i was born, i moved into the house that my father had just finished building, at. and it still stands today. but the problem is , it's crumbling. and so we decided to renovate it and, that's exactly, we our plan. so, when we did this in 19, in 2018, i received this report in february of 2019, when i went

through it, i found out that the neighbors across the street, had been calling the city planning department and every time they called or had a meeting with the sponsor, who was jeffrey horn, who i have spoken to many times, i ended up paying for those telephone calls at the neighbor across the street made and for the meetings that he had with the sponsor. i did not know about this at all. it was not told to me that i was responsible for their telephone calls, and it added up quite a bit into the hundreds. and i feel that it is a very unjust and, and, unfair for, cost for me or anybody to have to pay the telephone and meeting costs for, for a neighbor to go this could

have added up to, to hundreds of thousands, probably if he called five minutes every single day, i would be paying for those telephone calls, this house was built where no houses ever were. when people didn't want to live up in north valley, in the hills, because there was no transportation. and i have been living there. well, i'm 87 going on 88, and i've been living there all these years. and finally i, with my daughter's help, were able to, just renovate the house. but we can't do this because we had so many problems with the neighbor across the street. there's a little cottage behind this house, and he said it wasn't legal. it's been there since 1910. that was the first time we had difficulty. then he said that there was a, room built onto this cottage. and that was

the second difficulty we had with him. well it just went on and on with this neighbor. and of course, the cost went up and up. and that is what i'm protesting. these costs that are so unfair. why i am paying for his telephone calls and his meetings. thank you. can you just give us the address of the property? 749 27th street. okay. right down below the dog park. thank you. ma'am, that is your time, final last call for general public comment. i think there's a question. first. commissioner williams. hi, ma'am, what is it that i wasn't clear on what you say you're paying for calls. can you explain a little bit more? i wasn't able to follow exactly how you were. every question that the neighbor across the street had about our plans. he

called the city planning. and in turn, i was responsible for paying for that telephone call that he made to city planning. i also was responsible for paying for the meetings that he called to have with the sponsor, jeffrey horn, at the san francisco city planning. i was responsible for his costs, and i think that's very unjust. what is our policy on then practice in that regard? we're i'm happy to provide. so anytime we have a project on file, if a planner is doing work anytime that we if we have a project on file, any time that we receive any kind of inquiries related to that project, our staff bill time accordingly for the time that it takes to review the project, as i understand, and i'm happy to kind of reach out to the planner and work, with the property

owner and the planner to see, where some of these inquiries are, we assess time towards the project itself. do we have any kind of policy that precludes the abuse of this process, where, you know, people call in repetitively and, you know, it ends up being a burden on the project sponsor? we can we have some discretion in terms of how our billing works. obviously, it's challenging, in scenarios where we have multiple community members or multiple public interest in a particular project, and that can impact the review, on our side. so i have the address down and i'll be following up the planner this week. right. and you have, this woman's contact information in order. yes. i'll follow up with her after this, after the public comment. have we ever had any complaints about this previously? or we receive inquiries about this, and then we have to provide the time accounting, billing to show the, when our staff have conducted

the review. so all of our staff are required to bill their time accordingly to the projects that they're reviewing. yeah, this isn't the time to get into a big discussion about this, but it may be that that is a policy that may be worthy of some investigation because, absolutely. i don't know what the underlying approval was like. if it's a if there's an nov, if it's different than if there was a coup, you know, for the project because there are costs to that, then we that we bill to so we can look at this case and bring it back to you too. as an example, if we want to look at our kind of how we build time because it's different for things that are in process for like a conditional use permit, where there's already a fee versus if there's a violation. and we're in the process of kind of working through an novw. so we'll we'll come back to you and give you an update on that. yeah, that, that

that would be good because it seems unfair for her to pay for something that someone else is doing, so i just like to relate one moment, man. it's related to the project she initiated, which is why it gets so complicated. right? right. commissioner brian, you had a comment. i'm just curious, i can't recall. do we end up hearing an item on a regular basis about cost recovery fees and policies around them? i mean, it's our budget. it's so it was all just baked into there. if you want to take a deeper dive in, fees and how we assess fees and recover time, i'm happy to do it. okay. i'm not going that far just yet, but i would be curious to see, you know, this example and to find out more. i do think that, well, i understand the need to recover our costs when people are initiating projects, but there might be some balance that we need to consider. yeah i'd just like to say that jeffrey horn told me to come here. i didn't know i had the right. we appreciate the fact that you brought this to our attention. we can't resolve this in public

comment period. that that's not the time when we do this. but we do appreciate the fact you brought it here. and staff will follow up with you afterwards. thank you very much. okay vice president moore, i think i think procedurally it would only be interesting to really privy abuse of that particular thing. i mean, we all have worked in offices where we are charging by the hour. however this leaves leaves it wide open for abuse. oh yeah, that that is my concern . and just i think that normally falls in like the end of we're going to just jump in here and just remind you this is a non agendized item. so this is where it reached a level of discussion already. yeah. thank you janice i'm just saying that's where i that's where i've heard this issue come about in the past is where, you know, there is a complaint there are kind of abusing that system where folks are complaining and those, you know, we have to respond to the complaint. so it so it adds up.

but we do have some discretion and we can kind of let you know when we apply that and don't. okay. are we done with general public comment. if so we can move on to your regular calendar for item 11. case number 2024, hyphen 002677 pca for the wawona street and 45th avenue cultural center special use district. this is a planning code, text and local coastal program amendment. good afternoon, president dimond. commissioners gabriela pinto of department staff, before i get started, i'd like to introduce jonathan goldberg with supervisor engardio office to do some opening remarks. thank you. gabby. good afternoon, president diamond and members of the planning commission. my name is jonathan goldberg, and i'm here on behalf of district four supervisor joel engardio. i know many of you are familiar with

the scope of this ordinance. as it was first heard by the planning commission in july 2023. it was subsequently approved by the board of supervisors in december 2023. that ordinance, which amended the planning code, zoning map and local coastal program to create the wawona and 45th avenue cultural center special use district is effective but not operative because it has not been certified by the coastal commission since transmittal of this lcp amendment to the coastal commission staff recommended the city amend the ordinance and clarify principal permitted uses for zoning districts within the coastal zone. we support this effort. this is to bring section 330 at sac into conformity with language in recent county. lcp certified with the coastal commission in the revised ordinance before you today incorporates those amendments recommended by and drafted under the guidance of coastal commission staff. i wanted to thank staff from the planning department, the city attorney's

office and coastal commission, gaby, dan and peter for their thoughtful collaboration on this ordinance. i also wanted to thank supervisor peskin for his early cosponsored and eager willingness to assist with these local coastal program amendments. thank you, commissioners, for your support today. thank you. jonathan so gabrielle pinto of department staff, the item before you today is an ordinance amending the planning code and coastal local coastal program for the wawona street and 45th avenue cultural center. special use street district and planning code, section 330 amendments to planning code section 330 will designate principally permitted uses within the city's local coastal zone for the purposes of appeal to the coastal commission . before diving into the ordinance, a bit of background on the coastal zone and the

local coastal program. the coastal zone extends approximately six miles along the city's western shoreline from point lobos. the recreational in the north to the fort funston cliff area in the south. illustrated here on the maps, the local coastal program is prepared and implemented document by local government that carry out the coastal act's mandate to protect coastal resources and maximize public access to the shoreline. in san francisco's lpc is comprised of the western shoreline area plan, which uses the land use plan and the applicable provisions of the planning code, including planning code section 330 and zoning maps within the coastal zones, which serve as the implementation program. the city's local coastal program was originally certified by the coastal commission in 1986, and it was updated in 2018 as part of the city's resilience and sustainability sustainability program. efforts. moving to the

ordinance, as some of you recall , the buena street and 45th avenue cultural center, sug was before you all in july of last year, along with the associated developments, entitlements, the development being a six story, six storey over basement, mixed use building located at 2,745th avenue that will serve as the united irish cultural center's new state of the art community facility providing a space for recreational activities, educational activities and civic activities for all for all outer sunset residents. having received a recommendation of approval by this commission, the buena street and 45th avenue sug was subsequently subsequently approved by the board of supervisors. however, given that the city amends portions of the planning code that apply within the coastal zone, a local coastal program amendment is also was also submitted for certification by the coastal commission. since the submittal, the coastal commission staff

have recommended and blessed a few edits to the both the sud and planning code section 330. thus, as of today, the suds effective but not operative until certification by the coastal commission. the orange before you today reflects the recommendation and amendments requested by the coastal commission and as written and provided by them. in summary, the recommendations are amendments to the sud clarifying the 100 foot height limit for the subject property at 2,745th avenue, while the subject property has been zoned for the building height of 100ft for the last 38 years, the city nor the coastal commission have been able to locate a copy of that map. thus, the language is reiterative and reflects the already applicable building height for the subject property. the second amendment being amendments to the planning code section 330 to designate principally permitted uses

within the city's coastal zone for the purpose of appeal to the coastal commission. this language eliminates an unintended consequence of the coastal act, and that coastal development applications for uses identified as a principally permitted uses will no longer be appealable to the coastal commission. for example, residential coastal development applications within residential and parkmerced zoning districts, and similarly for commercial development applications and neighborhood commercial zoning districts. lastly, as mentioned, given that the ordinance will amend portions of the planning code that apply within the coastal zone, and the order of the ordinance reflects the requirement to have all amendments transmitted to the coastal commission as part of the city's local coastal program, including the addition of the complete wawona street and 45th avenue sud, and amendments to planning code section 330. and here's a map of the sud within the coastal zone. in terms of next steps, the

ordinance will continue with hearings at both the land use and transportation committee and its first and second readings at the board of supervisors, and one son by the mayor. the city will transmit the local coastal program amendments to the california coastal commission for a hearing and certification. the department finds that the ordinance is, on balance and consistent with the western shoreline area plan and objectives and policies of the general plan. the ordinance will maintain a long standing community member united irish culture center within the outer sunset neighborhood and preserve an important part of san francisco's history. the ordinance will also remove and remove uncertainty in the regulatory review process for development that advance the city's goals of providing housing, job and business opportunity, and fostering community and recreational activities. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for any questions.

very good. is there any other presentation or is that concludes. that concludes the presentations. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. eileen bogan with speaks sense of parkside education in action committee strongly urging the commission to continue this item otherwise speaks position is to oppose, unless amended on a procedural matter. this case number is not listed on the pim for this address of 2,745th avenue on july 27th of last year. this project came before the commission, which includes a coastal zone permit with motion 21375, based on public comment at that hearing, commissioner dimond asked staff if this project would set a precedent for 2700 sloat or affect the commission's deliberation on it. staff did not respond directly

to this question, but replied that the study would be for this project only, concerns are now that ocean beach could become miami beach on august 1st. speak filed a preliminary statement of appeal with appeal number 23-035 on august 22nd. speaks brief was submitted over eight months later. this appeal has not yet been heard based on three continuances by the department itself. not by the project sponsor. the appeal is now scheduled to be heard on july 17th, with each continuance, the department stated that it was working with the coastal commission for much of this timeline. this is inconsistent with statements made by the coast coastal commission management. so is this, proposed ordinance an end run around speaks appeal which is based on the projects coastal zone permit being inconsistent with the city's local coastal program or

lcp. on page four, line 12 of the proposed ordinance, it states, consider that an amendment to the city's lcp on page one, line seven through eight, it states principal permitted use for purposes of appeal to the coastal commission, this would limit most appeals on page three, line two, it states for both the sud and all other zoning districts within the city's coastal zone. so this is not limited to 2,745th avenue. on page four, lines 23 to 24. the study does not contain the address, rather for the cross streets, and this sud does not contain the name of the organization, is this because an option may be to sell the development rights or the air rights enclosing? local media has reported that the government of ireland has committed to funding this

project in part. thank you. thank you, commissioners john kevlin here on behalf of the irish center, we're excited to be here today. obviously, you remember we were at the commission last summer for our original approval. it's obviously raised some unique issues that haven't come up in san francisco and in particular, the coastal zone for quite a few decades, there's been a lot of conversation about this amongst project sponsor, city staff, coastal commission staff. and again, we're very enthusiastic to finally have a resolution and be pushing forward towards moving forward. this project that has a ton of city and neighborhood support, there's a ton of people to thank because so many people have touched this at this point, i just want to acknowledge supervisor engardio and in particular, mr. goldberg, who's been helping us through this. supervisor peskin office, coastal commission staff, and in particular planning department staff who have really been in the middle of this, trying to resolve this, you know, to, to,

to work for all parties. so we're glad that everyone's now moving to forward together. and we appreciate your support. thank you. last call for public comment on this item. seeing none public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. the initial question for staff and that is on the kind of projects that would no longer be able to be appealed to the coastal commission and those that would, for example, the proposed slope garden center project. how would this, action affect any appeal on that project? commissioner dimond. president. dimond. excuse me. dan. cider department staff, the change. that's proposed in this sid and lcp amendment would would affect for appeal purposes only, what we

call the ppe issue. so this affects only one piece of the appeal infrastructure for in that project today, in what's shown as the appealable area on our coastal maps, if we could have the overhead. this is a map from 1986. so forgive me that it's less than clear. there's a roughly 300 foot buffer from the coastline. it appears in that darker gray shade that has always been recognized and acknowledged as an area where the city's coastal permits are appealable to the coastal commission, that remains unchanged. what we've learned of in our conversations and partnership with the coastal commission over the last six months or so, is that there's an additional avenue for appeal, this pu avenue. could you use, please, full words, not abbreviations. we don't understand them all. i'm sorry. we get we get enmeshed in our

bureaucracy. ppe stands for the principally permitted use, which is a idea contained in the coastal act. but as far as we know, nowhere else. the principally permitted use is, the one land use that is principally permitted in a given zoning district. if this sounds a little bit unfamiliar to you, it's because it is unfamiliar to san francisco's planning code. in many rural counties in california, we have zoning districts that allow for a single land use. for example, an agricultural area. it's not uncommon in coastal counties, however, in san francisco, because we're both a city and a county, that same coastal zone construct applies where, wherein. and this is difficult to explain because the idea itself is a bit foreign. if we don't have a single permitted land use, then every land use is appealable. this is to say, in a neighborhood commercial

district, because we have no one permitted land use, because we allow for shops and institutions and homes, every use is appealable under the coastal act, and we've never had an appeal, as far as we're aware, to the coastal commission under this provision. it's very theoretical, but this was raised to our attention by the coastal commission. this is in addition to the boundary you can see on the screen right now, what we're doing at the coastal commission's request through this is, effectively establishing a principle permitted use for each of these, zoning districts. so there's a very long winded explanation to say, essentially, that this will not have an impact on the appeal ability of most projects in the city, if there were to be a project that was code compliant to move forward on a property, for example, at the sloat garden center, that residential project in a neighborhood commercial district under the proposed zoning controls would remain appealable to the california

coastal commission. i hope that gets at your your your question, president diamond. i know it was a very circuitous answer. i'm sorry. i think your specific question was on the slope project. it's in the nc corridor. here. we called out and this again was at the request of the coastal commission that we call out a.p.u principally permitted use. we called that out as commercial on a on a in. you know, we typically don't see just commercial projects in our nc corridors. we see commercial with housing above. so if the slope project were to come back with a code compliant project that you would otherwise hear, that includes housing, it would be appealable to the coastal commission. it would or would not. would it would because it's not just commercial. so that's the odd kind of provision that the coastal commission, we had to choose between commercial or residential in nc districts. you know, our preference is we see mixed use residential with commercial. so those projects

will always be appealable to the coastal commission because we had to pick one. we picked commercial that would it would maintain the appeal ability of a slope project to the coastal commission as well as, you know, to the, to the board of appeals. right. and in the areas that are all residential at the moment, where it's, you know, two story house, those and those are not those after the housing, is there are principally permitted use. so in an rh district, if you come in and you're taking advantage of like our four plex legislation, or you want to add an adu, that would be a case that's not now appealable to the coastal commission because we've designated housing as the principally permitted use in that district. we want to see housing. it's not now. you mean once we do this, this is adopted , correct. if we still have this, but it could still be subject to doctor, right? correct. we're not removing normal processes would be in effect. and if we change the zoning, like through our rezoning effort, if we change

the rezoning, that's all got to be approved by the coastal commission because we're changing the underlying zoning in the coastal and for the project of interest at hand. the irish cultural center. how does this affect it? this sid and coastal program amendment would define the principally permitted use as a cultural center, which is further spelled out to match that which is proposed on the site. so the permit for this project could not be appealed to the coastal commission. after this zoning happens under the ppe, you issue. that's correct. but this would have to this ud has to be approved by the coastal commission. so the coastal commission is going to see this project. basically, you can't then appeal it again back to the coastal commission after they've approved it through this sud. thank you for all those answers. i know it should be straightforward, but not exactly

. thank you, commissioner imperial. yeah, i also just have and thank you for that clarification. present diamond, i think i understand the, the process, but my just for the motion that we're putting on, it's clarifying the 100ft height limit, which is already an effective. correct. yeah, so we're just kind of like emphasizing the 100 foot or being incorporated in the, in the legislation in the, in the coastal. it didn't show up in prior iterations in the coastal plan, although we couldn't find it there even though our zoning is part of that too. but it's clear our our the height limit here is 100ft. that's what's on the books. that's what the that's what's in the planning code. okay. thanks vice president more, if i hear you correctly, director hills, the 100ft is tied to the specific

use. or is it a generic clarification of 100ft being possible? that's our zoning. it's 100ft. i mean, the underlying zoning defines the use. so that would that would remain in effect for this parcel. that's part of the sud. the use on upper floors is a cultural, you know, you're you're permitted to have this cultural center on other parcels in the nc corridors. the uses remain the same. the sud doesn't affect it. so again, you could have commercial on a ground floor residential above. you couldn't come back in with a commercial only project on multiple floors in other outside of this sud zoning district. say that one more time. you know a project could not come in and say, we want to do commercial on the ground floor and upper floors outside of this sud. it's not permitted. we permit commercial retail primarily on the ground floor housing above. so projects still need to comply

with our zoning code. and if i could, just to sort of elaborate a bit more on the height issue, commissioner moore, because because it's of note, i think there's no question locally as to the height limits, doing our own research, we believe that the current height limit has existed on this site since we had height limits in the city, the coastal commission couldn't locate a document from 1986 when the local coastal plan was adopted that specifically said that in as many words and they requested that the cid and lcp amendment be amended to reflect that. so we wanted to work with them and do what they asked. okay. thanks for clarifying that . and i would just add to like speaks appeal brought up these issues where we, you know, and goddess engaged with the coastal commission, through supervisor peskin and supervisor engardio in kind of addressing some of these questions around principally permitted use that we hadn't addressed in the past. so was that their urging for us to clarify what the principally

permitted uses use was in the in the various districts? commissioner imperial, i'll make a motion to, to approve this project. second. and thank you for all the explanations. there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve on that motion. commissioner williams, i commissioner brown, i commissioner imperiale i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under your discretionary review calendar for item 12 case number 2023 hyphen 002390 drp at 426 fillmore street, unit c this is a discretionary review for which we have received a reasonable accommodation request, and the requester will be presenting remotely.

okay, just a moment. we just waiting on staff, actually . thank you, mr. winslow. sorry. good afternoon. president. diamond commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application. 2022 .0513.

4235. that proposes to legalize an existing 372 square foot roof deck at the fourth floor of a three unit residential building. the doctor requester, lauren simon of 426 fillmore street, unit b, the resident of the dwelling unit directly below, is concerned that the deck is unpermitted and has caused damage to his roof and ceiling from leaks. additionally, he contends there are no hoa records showing the common area was converted to the exclusive use for unit c, the deck has an unsafe hatch that covers the fire escape. on the property is a alternative is to deny the permit to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and one letter in support of the project staff supports the legalization. the original 1986 building permit drawings not included in your packet due to copyright issues. the roof was designated as an elastomeric membrane deck with

stairs and a one foot six inch high parapet at the rear, and a three foot six inch high parapet height required for guardrail at the lightwell of this location. at some point, a wood deck on the wood sleepers was built, but appears to have existed in the same configuration and footprint since 2004. it's worth noting there is a twin building next door to the north, with a similar building configuration, as well as roof deck to the immediate north. the deck is built on top of a portion of the existing structure that is within the buildable area, and faces a code complying rear yard from the public works condominium map, it appears that the deck surface is allocated as exclusive use easement to unit c , and despite allegations of harm, the requester brings no information of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as to why the deck should not be permitted by or granted planning approval and the issue. the doctor requests your sites or matters that are more appropriately resolved as a civil matter. since the permit

is to legalize an existing condition that is allowed under planning and do so creates no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. planning staff recommends not taking doctor and approving thank you. thank you. before you begin, sir, we're going to hear from the doctor requester first. sure, shirley. yes. good afternoon. my name is lauren simon. i'm the requester. and i would like to know if the secretary of the commission and mr. winslow have received the documents and the photos and the inspection report copies that i submitted prior to this hearing. yes, we received them. okay. so if you turn to page four of that exhibit a, you will see that a licensed contractor has called into question the structural integrity of the roof upon which this rooftop deck sits, and also recommends that there's be a structural engineer to inspect the roof and this particular

deck to because they did not believe that it was safe, particularly they said that they could not, they could not they did not believe that the roof was intended to be used for a deck. and they also called into question whether or not the structure of the building and the roof itself could handle a live load of a deck and with people upon the deck. secondly, another another inspector last week, because my roof and my ceiling had been leaking and the ceiling is now open and exposed and falling apart and damaging the carpet within the unit, and a roofer, inspector came out last week and also said and corroborated many of the first initial findings of the report that i just told you about, that i provided you a copy with that says that the roof membrane is failing and that the deck age to

be removed so that the leaks can be so that it can be a water test can be conducted to see where the leaks in the roof exactly are coming from, so that the unit can my unit can return to being safe and habitable. then i also provided you pictures, and it also shows that the deck itself, is old and that it is deteriorating and that it needs it needs to be palletized, and that it also needs to be removed so that the roof can be repaired. also, i've provided you with pictures to show some of what could be seen of that roof and of the moisture in the ceiling under the roof, seeping into my unit. and the mitigation efforts, to, to, to try to solve those, and two inspectors have said that they do not agree with

the inspection report of whomever the proposed unit c has, selected and they as experts, they disagree with what was presented to you as to the safety of the structure itself. and as to the safety of the roof, that this deck is gone. and then also finally, i'll just let i'll just say that even in the documents in opposition to my request for review, the, the information that the unit c owners provided you shows that the it only says an exclusive easement to the a designated deck area deck area not to erect and construct a structure in that area. and it's also if you even in the map that you did provide it also appears that the

area to be used, on the roof is relegated to the far northeast side of that roof and to a corner of it, not the entirety of the roof. also so if you look at the picture that i provided you on page eight, the fire department has said that the hatch needed to be removed because it was a fire safety issue. if firefighters were on the roof and they could not get back down on the fillmore side of the building, or of a fire started on the roof while they were up there, they wouldn't be able to safely get down because the hatch was covering that fire escape. now, on page eight of the document that i sent you, you see that the hatches off of there, but it's a hole in the middle of the of that side of this this deck that's been erected and, as you can see,

that is not that is not showing that this was intended to be the whole thing being a deck and deck area being erected on top of it. and so for that reason, i ask that, the commission at least stay this process so that the roof can be repaired and that the leaks can stop previously also. so, previous thank you sir, but that is your time of complaint is the leaks. you will have a two minute rebuttal at this time. we should hear from the project sponsor. oh, my name is todd brabeck, co-owner of unit c. nancy golson is behind me in green. she's. she's the co-owner of unit. see also. we also have the hoa president, deborah rosenthal of the hoa in the in a present, we we've owned nancy and myself bought the unit in the 2004. so it's 20 years now and it had a deck on it. it was in the sales material and also it was there

was an inspection report at the time given to us prior to us purchasing the unit. it was a it's an exclusive use deck. i'm sorry, sir, i'm going to interrupt you just for a moment. i'm going to ask the people entering the room if you could do so quietly. please excuse me, folks. we do have a hearing underway, so if you could enter the room quietly, we would certainly appreciate that. go ahead. sir. oh, it's an exclusive use deck. excuse me. i lost my train of thought there, and, as i said, it's been there from from inception. and a roof deck is shown in the building plans of the building. it says there are multiple, references to a roof deck for unit c and exclusive use deck by grant, also to unit c. we've been trying to get a in november of 2021, a building we had the building received a building department violations for month. among other things. they couldn't find a permit for the unit c deck, nor a permit for the backyard stairs in the

backyard. so we've been attempting to march 2022. we had several, california deck inspection come out. licensed contractor here who filed a san francisco housing code 604 compliance inspection affidavits saying the deck was fine, but the building department said that was not enough, that we needed to go through the permit process. we've been doing that ever since we got the building plans and hired esl designs to do the do. the architectural drawings they were submitted, which includes a new hatch also, which was approved by the fire department. it matches all city regulations and, that's where we stand right now. we've there was one incident over the last 20 years, prior to the most recent claim of leaks and that we really resulted from the building structure, which is the reason we put siding up in the, around the building to prevent the wooden from, rotting and

stuff like that. the current, mr. simon has, you know, complained that, you know, he has damage and leak damage and stuff. he has refused to let the nationwide insurance adjusters into his unit to confirm the damage. so that's where we stand right now. he's refused to allow them in to even view the damage. so it could be confirmed, miss rosenthal is very much familiar with the with the situation at the building. the hoa president. so we've been trying to get this, permit, you know, since, for, for years now. thank you. does that conclude your presentation? yes it does. okay. very good. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. good afternoon. commissioners. my name is deborah rosenthal. i am an owner of the building. as well. i own a unit there, and i serve as

voluntary president of the four member hoa that owns the building, i'm here today to just talk about and represent the interests and the objectives of the association, which are the safety of the residents and the value of the building, the, department of building inspection did issue a notice of violation, saying that the roof deck needed to be permitted. and in the course of attempting to get the permit, we learned about these other issues that i my understanding is, are addressed in the plans and the permit that have already been approved by the department of building inspection, so as the gentleman, i'm not sure his role there mentioned, the options are to either renovate the deck or tear it down. and as between the two options, i believe the renovation best serves the objectives and the interests of the association, the owners and the residents, which are to cure the open notice of violation, allow access to this roof that's

under the deck so we can see if there's damage and get it repaired and modernize and update an old deck, so that it's just more esthetically, pleasing as well. so the design firm that, mr. brabeck and miss golden hired is licensed. they're insured. they submitted the plans to the department of building inspection. my understanding is that everything is, kosher, so to speak, with the city, and so the hoa supports the efforts of the owners to make these improvements, with regard to the fact that there is a dispute over this, i would just say that there is, pending litigation in numerous disputes, but that those are tangentially related and can be addressed in civil proceedings, the only thing that is irrevocable here is that if we don't, fix the deck to the satisfaction of the department of building inspection, they could issue an order of abatement, which would be devastating to the value and to

our ability to rent, sell, occupy and everything. so thank you, that's my comments. thank you. okay, last call for public comment on this item. again, you need to come forward seeing none. public comment is closed. we should hear from the requester for a two minute rebuttal. yes. thank you, to the commission, i will just add that the there is now a triable issues of material fact. you have, esl, i guess say one thing. on the other hand, and then you have two licensed inspectors from the bay area who have seen it with their own eye and who have written a report stating that the deck itself is unsafe and unsound, and that the structural integrity of the building and the roof upon which it sits is unsafe and it's unsound, and that the repairs to the roof, are crucial and critical to prevent the leaks,

also there is a dispute of, material dispute of fact, whereas the person who testified during public comment also in a verified answer under the penalty of perjury to underlying litigation, in an answer wrote on behalf of the hoa that they admit that all of the roofs at this location are common area, and that's what they declared in november under oath, so there are these disputes there, again, the it does not say that the whole entirety or majority of the entire roof above my unit is for a deck, and it's and that is disputed, even by the literature that was submitted by the, proposed owner, unsew. thank you

. project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. if you need it. i'm sorry. there was no mention to its exclusive use deck. there was never any mention that it's a common area for the common areas are throughout the entire building. with the exception of the exclusive use use deck for unit c, the exclusive unit unit unit deck for unit a, and the exclusive use three parking spaces in the building. so that's completely untrue. what mr. simon just said, there was no reference whatsoever to the upstairs unit c deck being common area. it's an exclusive area by deed. and it also shows on the building plans. so, i'm not sure what what else i can say about that. the problem is that we, mr. simon, will not allow entry to the insurance adjusters because he filed a claim with the insurance agent, and he will not allow anybody to

go into his unit to look at the at the supposed alleged damage. damage? so there's nothing we can do about that, which miss rosenthal is aware of this. i'm aware of it. and so we're just not we just wanted to get the permit for the for the deck so it could be, you know, meet all city regulations. we've gotten confirmation that the, the deck is fine. it's in good condition, and, it's a nonstructural deck. so, you know, we've done everything possible to get the permit and to get this whole thing resolved. so the building department doesn't close us down. and that's about all i can say on that. thank you. commissioners. with that, this matter is before you. well, there's clearly a dispute. it feels like this is the wrong form to resolve this. they're, fighting this out in court. that feels like the right place for the dispute between the property

owners. i didn't hear any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that make me think we should take doctor vice president more. i talk with, architect winslow, backed up by city attorney yang to look at the subdivision plans, which seemed to clearly indicate that in follow up to my own question, that this deck is designated as restricted common area for this particular unit. see, that said, i would agree with commissioner diamond that everything else is a matter of internal hoa disputes and does not really have much to do with the responsibilities of this commission. so i would move to not take dr. and approve second. if there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take dr. and approve the project as proposed on that motion. commissioner williams i commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i

commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 commission honors that will place us on the final item on our agenda today. number 13 for case number 2023 hyphen 004324drp at 2330 lane street. this is a discretionary review, there was a request for interpretation. is the interpreter here? yes. very very good. thank you. so what we'll do is we'll hear from staff if and if we could silence any mobile devices during these proceedings, we would certainly appreciate that. we will hear from staff first. and if you could interpret this section into the microphone so that they can understand that we will hear from the interpreter. excuse me. we will hear from staff first from the project sponsor or excuse me from the doctor requester and then the project sponsor. and then we'll take public comment for those persons who need interpretation first.

okay if you can interpret that into the microphone. okay, lady, how you got to do. thank you. in your. why you come out how you like you can thank you. that's fine. i was told that i'm making the announcement, but i don't have the right. no, just their just their comments. that's it. right. well hold on. just. they're going to interpret their comments for those who need interpretation translation services here. go ahead. go ahead okay. good afternoon president diamond. members of the commission laura aiello for department staff. in case you're

wondering why david winslow is not presenting this dr. it's because the doctor is not based on architecture. it's based on the land use. so in this case, the assigned person for the building permit, i'm representing the department. so the building permit application was subject to planning code section 311 public notice and a doctor was filed by a nonprofit group that represents a large group of neighbors. the project will demolish the existing nonresidential structures and perimeter fence and construct a new 2500 square foot, one story steel commercial building with full lot coverage. the existing automotive use will be changed to a combination of cannabis uses consisting of industrial agriculture for cannabis cultivation, cannabis retail with a consumption lounge, and

light manufacturing for non voc cannabis cultivation. according to the applicant, the manufacturing of non voc products produced at the site will include items such as tea, candy, drinks, lotions, oils and dog treats. the request for discretionary review was filed by better housing policies. org the application included petitions with signatures from 241 residents of 1740 and 1780. bancroft avenue, which is located one block from the project site. the doctor requester is seeking denial of the project. the neighborhood has been voicing opposition to the project since the time of the office of cannabis eligibility, screening and neighborhood outreach conducted

back in 2021. neighbors are concerned that the proposed project will trigger an increase in crime in the neighborhood, which is already overburdened and will add to the gentrification of the neighborhood, and that the project is located too close to a public park and youth facility, and would disproportionately affects already vulnerable communities who live in senior and affordable housing. proposed alternatives include. to limit the number of uses approved at the site by removing the on site consumption lounge and the retail component to further limit the hours of operation to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. to add street improvements and to contribute a percentage of the revenue to the neighborhood group. so they may hire additional staff for communication shamann education

and engagement, as well as for organizing a neighborhood watch program. the proposed uses are permitted in the m one zoning district. the project site is located on a 50 foot by 50 foot parcel within the bayview neighborhood. a color coded floor plan depicting the location of each proposed use was included in the hearing packet. the proposed on site consumption lounge will be located at the rear of the building, which is typical because most retail businesses have storefront windows at the front of the building. lounges are regulated by the department of public health and are required to have a separate hvac system that eliminates all odors and smoke. the applicant hosted a neighborhood outreach meeting back in october 2023. there were only two attendees. the project was also required to present to

the bayview hunters point citizen advisory committee, and did so in september and october 2023. as noted in the staff report, there was no quorum at the second meeting and therefore the cac could not take action to make a recommendation. the department received six public comments in support of the project,■ and two comments opposed to the project include adding another from a non profit neighborhood group called the san francisco community empowerment center. after the commission, packets were distributed and one additional emailed public comment was received in support of the project from the brownie mary democratic club, and one comment was received from an adjacent neighbor who is opposed to the project. he's opposed to the cannabis lounge, as well as the siting on their shared property line. these messages were sent

directly to commission staff and forwarded to each of you. although it was just this morning or late last night, so i'm not sure if you had a chance to check them out. the department recommends is to not take dr. and approve as proposed . the proposed uses are permitted in the m one zoning district and will replace an unenclosed temporary automotive use. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions and matthew chandler from the planning department, who is our department's cannabis specialist and liaison to the office of cannabis, is also here in case you have specific policy questions. thank you. okay. thank you, we should hear from the discretionary review requester, please. and i think i was confused when we received a request for organized opposition on this is a discretionary review. so there is no affording for organized opposition. i'm

sorry, ma'am, i was confused when you asked for organized opposition to this project. this is a discretionary review. so there is no organized opposition, but you'll have five minutes and each member of the public will have two minutes as well to speak. into the microphone if you want to. if she wants you to translate it, just that members of the public will receive two minutes, lady mooi and yao long feng xiong highlight for begin. all right, ma'am, you have five minutes. can i translate what she didn't say, so. come on. you okay, okay. ma'am, you have five minutes. where does the projection go? the slide. if you have overhead projections, it's just on the overhead. if you have the thumb drive, it's in the. it's on the lap drive.

you'll be able to see it. the what's in the. have you inserted it. yeah. it's here. yeah so what the sf once you begin speaking sfgovtv will project it. okay. hold on. let me skip this play. this is a pdf. it's a pdf. pdf or pdf. it's a pdf. you just just hit this. so would you like peter? you can help school. we found it. bam! got sorry. it's like first time for us. so sorry. apologize for all the technical issues. thank you so much for your patience. okay,

good. all right. thank you. we can get started. thank you. okay. go ahead. my name is josephine zhao. i'm a volunteer for better housing policy. org or just call it bhp. good morning, pressid diamond and vp more. good morning. commissioners. we're here to talk about what do we envision for bayview. we are a community organizer and opposition against cannabis mega projects at bayview. this is a community organized opposition. and bhp is being designated as the representative for the bayview community because of language access and the complicated process, we are registered community organization and we have been doing pro bono work since 2015, and i'm here as a volunteer, taking time off from work where they saw me, they saw me. okay, who is the community? if you look at the map or the

blue, titles, the affordable housing complex, a block from the project site, senior housing and other block, you know, across on third street, a block from the project site on the east side, low income family homes, food pantry right by the park, casey jones park, the youth at risk youth center block a block from the site. and these people, as you see for 40 of them, came today. they are resettled from sros in chinatown and tenderloin, impoverished area. they are pressed from where they came from. they were victims of very difficult and traumatized childhood and upbringing. they wish for peace, safety and rebuilding of a community. the community wants next. next. the community wants

tutoring, arts, sports, after school program, health and dental clinics, furniture, interior design, home improvement stores and manufacturers. they don't want liquor, store, tobacco or cannabis store. community wants to reject the 2330 lane because, as planner, hello, a hero said that it will trigger crime that is already overburdened. lots of crimes there. a lot of asian americans are being beaten up and one was killed, not last year. and this will add to gentrification. too close to the vulnerable community next. so these are the petitions that have been submitted since 2021. and if there are six email, you know, support for the project and two three opposed. but this

is 241 signatures out of 248 units of that apartment complex. this bl, bmr of affordable housing apartment complex and the project sponsor fell to present together with the community at the bayview hunters point ccac. when we were there in march, they didn't want to show up, and then we request them to show up again in april. they refused, but when they were there in september and august, october last year, they did not notify us. the community wasn't aware and they have lost trust with us through the, additional private and, negotiation as well as community action through planning. they weren't sincere. they haven't been a good neighbor. they weren't forthcoming to discuss with us on the issues. next, the community efforts include, in

addition, includes six newspaper coverage in the singtao and chinese media is receiving citywide attention, including people have gone up to the mayor while she's walking chinatown and just told her things are happening and they are not happy . next, i know that it may be hard for you to write out reject, but we are offering six alternatives and which you can approve as many alternatives as possible to support the community. the time. please only approve cultivation and processing and reject consumption and retail. six authority measures, but the sixth one, the last one is that we would like to ask the project sponsor to contribute 1% of this revenue, or $5,000 a month, as a

goodwill, as a philanthropy or contribution to the community, so that we can organize a neighborhood watch. we are all volunteers and we don't have time. last one ma'am, do you choose people over profit? please choose people. thank you. okay. we should hear from the project sponsor. and then we'll hear from members of the public. also, maybe. you. good afternoon. apologize for. sir. if you could speak into the microphone. there you go. good afternoon. i apologize if i'm got a little smile on my face because some of these comments were odd. you've already heard from the, from the planner i've

been working with. but i'll reiterate some of that. and introduce myself. and for some of the community members who who don't me or who i have not met yet, maybe this will help them. my name is mubasher chaudhry, born and raised in san francisco in the bayview. the bayview is my home, i went to bret hart elementary next to the old candlestick park and high school on potrero hill at philip burton . i spent my weekends across the street teaching at mlk pool when it first opened and volunteering at the local senior centers through high school. my youth days were spent on lane street, where this project is being held , and this is where i've now returned to improve my neighborhood by providing a long needed service. as we all know, the bayview is a struggling neighborhood. as a member of this community and approved equity applicant, if you're familiar with that, i am the business owner and investor. no

big mega corp involved here, just me, a local san francisco resident and the longtime savings. my proposal in front of you is to open a mixed micro cannabis business. this includes a dispensary with a consumption lounge, a micro grow, and a micro manufacturing. a proposed to erect a new 2500 square foot building on a vacant lot, including improvements and esthetics improvements, street scapes and lighting. if you're unfamiliar with this area and some of the photos, you may have seen that this street is actually unmanaged by the city. street has not had any improvement ever since i've lived here, other than a few patches that we have to constantly call about. no sidewalk and only one light at the corner. the retail is roughly about 700ft!s, the consumption about 250ft!s, and the manufacturing about seven 50ft!s. have as many of you have

heard, the cannabis industry in the city is struggling, and many of my colleagues have told me to stay away or just step away from this project. but i believe there's a need for this in our community, and there's something more than just opening another hidden warehouse where we can just grow cannabis. i've personally designed and the layout of this project and some of the diagrams that you've seen to provide something more to our community. we'll have a safe place for consumers to consume cannabis and educational retail space with a see through glass, where you can see the growth of cannabis similar to when you go into an aquarium and you can see through the glass. we'll have cultivation in-house and light manufacturing, which we can create a variety of finished products. there will be a potential to host venues and educational seminars and much more that can be open to discussion. the community has

brought some concerns, but i feel that most of them i've addressed all except one not in our backyard. currently, there's only one other dispensary in the bayview with no consumption. i'm looking for your support on your approval on this project. i've been working on this for the last five years. realistically, since about 2019, going through the san francisco office of cannabis, then planning, then going back and forth with building and then back to planning. and this is where i'm at today. there's been some concerns that the doctor brought forward, and once again, i feel like i've addressed those safety, lighting improvements and those should all be in the packet. but i'm here to address those concerns for you again. but like i said, asking for revenue from an individually owned cannabis dispensary, a local native, i think that's like a slap in my face, and that being said, i'm open to any more public comments. thank you. if that concludes your presentation

, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. ma'am, if you could come up and speak into the microphone and we will be taking public comment from those who need interpretation first. oh, you got all the actually, maybe we can move on. yeah. mr. iona, how many people do we think are going to do public comment? i don't can we get a sense of how many people we anticipate needing interpretation on? this by show of hands. go. but essentially pardon? i have a question of time. yeah. i mean, it's dr. so it's already two minutes okay. okay. six minutes per person. if

the interpreter could also add just to say if those who need interpretation can speak in short intervals to allow the interpreter to then interpret their comments, i can't see how tangled. watching both. okay go ahead, my name is dbi huang. hi, one. or. my name is sammy wang, and i've been living in bayview district for ten years, i don't i don't find all the. comirnaty or the concern or the beyonce. at the beginning, i had the

concerns and worries of the safety of the area. however, i found that we have a large community of asians in the area, and i found that i have more, support in terms of safety. and, it's a positive site. you dye my hair color, i enjoy enjoying feng shui. i mean, my daughter, who i love, mala, however, since the legalization of the cannabis, we have a lot of, distractions in the area. we found many youth, actually were taking cannabis products, and they hide behind the buildings of our residents. so area. i wanted to antimatter to calm

down. i see you, why hiring some guy who has to go to kong. you. i know cannabis legalization is a is a is a good idea. however however, what we found is a totally opposite because we found that there's a street right in front of the third street library that has become a black market for cannabis consumption and a use. for. bruno avenue, you can go to look. in in terms of distribution of cannabis products, i know in in the area of third street and san bruno, there was already 5 or 6 shops already. we don't need any more

of that kind of shops. so that is something that only hong kong and south. taylor high 15 or the auction. so. so you. yankee or you go. to fong him. i also want to mention the last thing is the owner of 2330 used to operate a automotive repair shop and even during that time they were parking illegally, illegally around the area and even when we opposed the idea, they were he is not reacting to it or try to do something about it. and i know so this is an example of something that if anything

happens after the cannabis shop, after this get approved, he's not going to be responsible for negative things. why. are harder things or i would also. for the benefit of the seniors and the youth of our community. i'm hoping that the commissioner and the planning department people make the good best vice choice. we opposed thank you. next speaker. hi. i need. oh i'm allergic to a very strong marijuana smell because it makes it hard for me to breathe. and this marijuana store is right

across the street from my house. so when the marijuana store opens, it means i can't even open my windows. if you have the right to open the store wherever you want, then i have the right to fresh air. don't it? don't i? i await. i got more and i want to go. by then, my whole legal team. hi so i want to getting on . good afternoon. and i have been at bayview resident for more than also more than ten years. and i want to oppose this project because it's going to affect us, very heavily, negatively. hello. going on my

letter saying that you why don't you go? to edo. ondo. okay i cannot do. that you are looking. you can also see the condo. hello. what do we do? good afternoon. good afternoon everyone. i have been living in the area for more than ten years. at the beginning i am okay with the area. however, lately i found many negative site and especially recently i found out that during lunch hour there are many people hiding in their car to consume cannabis products. in a very i would say

okay, okay, so yolo engardio okay, my time is up to my. i have a grandchildren ranging from few months to a few years. and also we have a lot of seniors in the area. and i think having cannabis, store opened in the area is going to be a very negative thing. go away. you know, go tiktok of your time. i think. hajare i am opposing to this project. thank you. doug emhoff koi koi koi. gomen. okay. sao feng chao. although koi.

subsampling. yi. jingyuan geng hi ho ho ying ga you you cha. good afternoon, i'm selvan zhao i'm living in the bay view area for more than 13 years. it used to be a very good area and now has gotten worse and worse. time for fauci. how they. although they eventually take the whole long time in my view. more money in your shamann j&j ying yang ho cha, especially after the legalized version of marijuana use, we have a lot of very unpleasant bad smells in the area that is very, not healthy for seniors. and youth. younger people. in hong kong, shanghai, hong kong, wherever they go.

hotel d.o.j. daca i'm opposing to this marijuana opening, marijuana, operation opening, because for the safety and the health of our parents and children. thank you. thank you. before you begin, ma'am, i'm going to ask the interpreter to remind members of the public to silence their mobile devices. please i'm not sick yet. i am. hello. how how was. the. susan. susan. woman. the watson. i saw you dancing. or the woman. tatiana what were some of the

dancing face we had the woman, the teaching woman. good afternoon. everyone i've lived in the area for 13 years, and it used to be a good area. however lately, because of the opening of the cannabis stores. and we have a very bad negative effect. and also because it's so close to our house. i live at 1780 bancroft. are you the woman that's. my local. woman who says what i like? and i want to the san francisco local food for

some food. this woman, the woman my food on the dance. yeah. you will see what a woman. and what's so. by josé. so you mean that you. so i, i just want to say that this this proposed project is right on a street where i pass by every day when i go in and out of my house, and i live in the affordable housing area in san francisco and, and so this is something that we cannot avoid passing by. i like

to see some woman, some fancy food. woman. some woman, some high photo for me. so are you the young girl for me? the one you. so much for watching. thank you. jessica j&j. i am strongly opposing to this, cannabis operation business. because it's so negatively impact us and i want you, each one of you, commissioner, and planners, give it a very good consideration, because i am i want to know i am strongly opposing it. okay. thank you. dagenham. hello all

right. bank of mommy and daddy. good afternoon, everyone. i live on 1740 as a resident. and my name is danny. sailing subsampling. i've lived. i've lived in 1740, this, address for 13 years. all day for yahoo! roanoke term by. there are a lot of senior housing in our area, and there's also a youth area for the youth to exercise. in the hokianga to go to my beach, i go there are a lot of activities and exercise program going on, occupied by the seniors and youth and students. and also they have competitions

as you go to my go to johnny, we gotta go to mckinnon by if the cannabis shop is open, it will affect our mental our health and safety. yeah. okay. do you think you could donate fema fauci sydney hyatt i don't know. they can hold. i enjoy, especially the youth when they when they found out when they discovered that the cannabis becomes legalized, then they will go and try it. and i know for our generation, younger generation is going to be, affecting them in a negative way, harmful way. so mongkok one fun. timeaa hoi. hey man. go go go go go go go go

go. they they go. d.o.j. therefore, to help the development and healthy environment for our senior people and youth. and i'm hoping every one of you consider opposing this project. and don't let this project continue. i call selling, i command or i die, madam. hello hello. hello, everyone. i live on 1740. as a resident, i am strongly opposing the cannabis shop. and thank you everyone. i, hang ho and i. eugene chang. hello everyone. my

name is eugene zhang. i live on 1780 as a resident, my time. yangyang. yangyang i'm going to make a sam wu ying xiong. hey, how you doing all day? so your so your time. yang yang, cannabis is bad for our mental health and physical health, and it's going to have a environmental, pollution to our environment too. and that's why we don't need cannabis in our area. madam eugene, our social. south jamaica, they don't. come here without doing what they. and also the current owner used

to operate a, automotive repair shop that was already polluting and making the area smells. and i don't believe after when, when the when the cannabis shop is open, i don't think it's going to be, i think it's also going to be bad for us or worse. the young lady. so you got your own chin. take a good fauci your own chin. take your time to see that they. got they got to come here to venmo. i want to live in a safe and secure area. and i'm worried that, later on, there may be many people consuming cannabis in the area. and that will affect our safety and health. some. may call you one

day. and my god. i'm sorry. one day. they may go younger. they may go camping one time. yang yang or one time one day or i'm opposing the opening of this cannabis operation. and the most important thing that i want you to consider is because opening this is going to be negatively impact or affect our youth generation. and now if our next generation, has been affected negatively, who is going to protect our country? thank you. hello subsiding. hi hello,

everyone. how are you? i have lived on 1740 for 14 years. and what they boy, are you using. what you want? you want i we need a healthy community and a safe environment. i am a worker. i go in and out of the area every day to work. thank you. i'm opposing to this project. thank you. god, why see some chiho molecules? too many wahine muslim. some guy go to god. i my name is shamann yi. i live in five, four, five, three, address for 15 years. yao yao yang. hong

kong. okay, so you want to umma. i am strongly opposing to this cannabis business. business. and because i have experience of passing by some cannabis user. and every time i encounter that, i have coughing, i have other side. negative side effect to my health, because coughing and the smell. and that's why i strongly opposed it. venmo. and go to high. go to your. good afternoon everyone. i lived on 1740. have been living there for 13 years, and both, my language. so, so.

when i smelled the smoke from marijuana, i always have headache. that's why i am strongly opposing the marijuana business. there thank you. thank you. i got whatever i got. what i have to say. engardio what? they totally go see the home watching the movie. the young lady. hello, everyone. every all commissioners. how are you? when i also live on 1740. when i first moved in, we had a very quiet neighborhood. we don't have other intruders. you. timeaa to. go to. go. go to my own. so they get to take my

time. however, lately, because of the opening of the field marijuana shops in our area, there were, things happening. for example, many, cars got broken into, and we have other things happening to our neighborhood that we don't feel safe. that's why i'm opposing to this project. i. hello. i got some guy saying hello, young sapling. uyghur. hello, everyone. i'm 85 years old. i have been living on third street five, five, four, five area for 20 years till now. timeaa hang on. some guy like a

security. go lloyd austin. jen psaki can't. ever since the legalization of cannabis, the third street area corridor had 4 or 5, 4 or 5. cannabis shops. i mean, you gotta count the, cup time. i gotta go to confession. farnham castle. such a good job. more legalistic. thai time. capsicum, because there's no management or or or no one is there to regulate the consumption on the street. so there are many cannabis consumers, staying in the area. and the situation has gotten worse. will they go to some kind

? hotel uyghur i gonna die? my life can only. go on that area of third street. there are a lot of senior housing and having, marijuana can consume in that area is negatively impacting our, living, i, i already got some kind of type that you are single. you got you are. you can take time to take a time out. we got a few pfizer. knocking on the door. it's very, very badly impacting our health for our senior people on the third

street in that area, there's already 4 or 5 shops open, and you're talking about another, another, another processor are growing in that area. and that is going to. that's not necessary. we already have 4 or 5. so come on. go. hey mong ching fu. you think? i'm some kind of guy? that's why i am hoping that the official opposed to the area and stopped the, approving for this growth, cultivating of the cannabis in that third street area. thank you. hello. welcome back up

easily. hello, everyone. how are you? i'm 82 years old. what some guy. say something. who you think i look like? i've been living in third street. three, three, five, five, four, five for 15 years. come hang out some guy. yao samson, low yan gong, you in our area on third street, there are three buildings of senior housing. hygiene gogineni . i say, okay, tomorrow i'm going to. chongqing for shanghai low yan. hi, paco. lin yan. hi how the mojo got song ming. song sang ming. few years ago, a senior lost, the lost his or her life on the bus depot of number 44 street, b because he or her

got pushed down and knocked down i auntie dongdong, some guy, i mean, uncle sam. buttigieg. so you got my. you can timer so san yao zi so the proposed project would growing and processing cannabis is less than 300ft from where i live. armstrong and third street. loyang garden. what i hope you got. guy or jin yi sang. what they do. i sang hang what they do. they don't have. y'all got some? let me hold on some. someone's you know. so us seniors, we're afraid of going out now. we even when we have to go see a doctor

take appointment, we do it in the morning, not in the afternoon, because we're worried about our own safety. so they come back or they die or they die. they what they do. i gotta take this. i'm gonna go all day hiking. i know they go. go area. got all y'all. y'all. y'all saw him all day long tied with the yellow yang gang. what? they yang sang jun, the whole gang. so what they. so i'm here with more than a dozen or more neighbors of mine here. we're attending today because we are really worried about this new proposed project with, consisting of growing, processing and retailing of cannabis product. it makes us really worry. and i just want you to thank you very much. thank you.

hello. hi. hi, lacey wang xiao yun li or hate gao gao yang lin. later may kwok by echo park. staining may god yet. gao. yang. gao lin. gao. gao. yang lin. hi may god, man or may god your mom let demigod yao gonggong deng. hello, my name is xiao yang. li i came to united states in 1984 and i became a citizen in 1991, and i came to the united states for a better life. while i doubt may god moon by human yoga. icon. may god told they sell how

they want to timeaa i came to, hoping for a better life and, however now there are many cannabis. cannabis present in our land. why can't they? don't make the whole statement? i'm very disappointed. did. and ever since that, i came to the in united states very disappointed. i see why demand made when i go out. i can smell the smell of the marijuana everywhere. timeaa doing all this in hong home. how to do it one day i think. marijuana is very bad for us, bad for our health. and also it's bad for our youth. our my

children and grandchildren. hong jeong hyeong, kim ji di, marco. i do my team. i'm hoping that the official will have better control of not letting so many, cannabis shop open. that's all i want to say. thank you. and i hope d.o.j. come to, you. i do not go to thinking or to get something. hello, everyone. how are you? and i appreciate you all being here and listening to us. and let our voice heard. thank you, kim yong nam also.

josé. no way. j&j again. so i hope i get more and more lady ginseng. why they. and they just so just like the previous seniors had mentioned, i have high hope. i have hoping that you all are thinking in. you have us seniors at heart and you go on your. hutong recruiting so you can send some fancy money. come. you go. you got time to enjoy marketing. come or let him come and sit. i'm hoping that everyone gets smarter. and there was a bad mistake that i feel proposition 47 was a bad mistake

. and i'm that. that because of that, they created many crime and many people committing crime in san francisco. i want to thank marco gafanha. so in conclusion, i'm opposing to marijuana project. thank you. hello. ty gao. what? come on. go with the king of fanboy uyghur time team. hello, everyone. i am here, to voice my voice to let everyone know that i am absolutely opposed to this opening or of the cannabis project. some guy. say maotai? what what what? what time? and

what? home. how you need some taking home will definitely time to take. i'm strongly opposing the opening of this marijuana business. i, i live on four, four, five, four building on third street and we. because for mental and physical health of senior people and our youth, i am opposing this project. thank you. thank god hong leong bank of. hello, everyone. i live on 1740 bancroft. sinovac gin. you know, like a young man, young silk. timeaa. no. chongqing gang. i have reported to the police. there were two incidents

that i found. two intruder that, consuming cannabis product in our building. legal. hold on, hold on. call 911 covid junhui. non emergency non-emergency. more than 21, can you login? can you phone? no, it's not a pleasant process for me. i call 911 and they send me to a non non urgent matter line. and then call. then call me back until two hours later. gong go, officer hung or the lawyer and sonia sotomayor office. hey, gong, you can. you can go more. you get more, you see? so come the, san francisco going to go. go like bodega. dim, dim. how much? so i don't know how after

this, project is open, i don't know how we are protected in this way because last time when i called the non-urgent line, they came two hours later. by then, there was no the urgency is not there anymore to report. and so i'm just worried with this new project, how are we going to be protected, you know, and. i feel español, we cannot watch our phone josé how we can term.i want to go on now. you're seeing a bunch of senior people here. however, in our community, in our neighborhood, there are a lot of youth, a lot of children, students. they play activity and ride bikes. and how are they going to be protected? so, what i found out, therefore i'm

opposing to the project. thank you so much. thank you. go to some guy in google, go to the phone. go to go to church. my name is susan wu. i live on third street senior project building. what do you guys work on? guanica timeaa timeaa. i am, i know, and i'm sure you all heard about the danger and the negative effect of consuming, cannabis marijuana product. i don't want to go into detail or to, to load and to conflict by analyzing. what do i timeaa a

crucial time, today, because of the danger and a negative impact to our seniors and our youth, i am very much opposed to the, consuming of cannabis or, production of cannabis. i that's it. thank you. okay, sifu. govind, i think there's some agreement, like, i know the one can join and can take time, i am opposing. thank you. everyone all the official commissioners and planners listening to us, residents along third street in that area. we are strongly opposing the project. thank you, thank you. i'm going to ask the translator to request any other member of the public who needs

translation services to please come forward. samuel alito. okay. any other member of the public, please come forward who would like to submit their testimony related to this project. thank you so much. good afternoon. my name is deanna. i live in the neighborhood. i also sit on the bayview hunters point citizens advisory committee, but i'm here on my own personal accord as a neighbor in the area, my concern is having a cannabis retail space off of the main corridor. i don't think that's very common in any other neighborhoods in the city. there's not a lot of traffic. there's not a lot of people to have eyes on the location, which i think neighbors across san francisco can agree on whether they support cannabis retail or not, that it's better on a commercial corridor. it's also an undeveloped street, living in the bayview, i know we are in a unique zoning situation where this is an m1 parcel in the middle of residential and we expect this is going to be an

issue moving forward. i've heard from office of cannabis, we have 33, so ten approved cultivation sites and 23 more pending cultivation permits in our neighborhood alone. so there is a huge saturation in, and an influx that are residences are going to have to work with, as well as, deal with. and so just to keep those issues in mind in the future, i'm sure there's more going to be coming before you. but in this specific situation, it is having a cannabis retail location, not on a official, a main commercial corridor that is a concern. so thank you so much for your time. i'm going to ask for last call for public comment on this item. if there are none. dr. requester, you have a two minute rebuttal. dr. requester yes, you

have two minutes if you want it. thank you. as you have heard so many people here have lots of concern. you may say that they are uneducated about marijuana, but that's how their lived experiences chinese community have been through a lot of, opium issues and that's why they stay away from addiction. as right as parents, we already have to deal with hormones, video games, alcohol, liquor, and now marijuana. one more thing people don't want. it's a subtraction of what the community needs. i think that's the baseline. and it's especially off the main corridor. the people have to be on their vigilance to patrol and guard their neighborhood. and that's why they request a neighborhood watch program from us. and we have no capacity of doing without hiring. and we are

simply asking for 1% donation from the project sponsor if they really want to be a real neighborhood, part of the neighborhood good neighbor, donate to good cause to help yourself. to help yourself. that you prove yourself that you're a good neighbor. don't just say that you are. why are you going to profit going to if you care about the safety and the concerns of these communities that have no language ability and no way to fight and fend for themselves, they can't even do a dpr on themselves and ask me to take off my work to do this. when i'm low income already. what do you really contribute to the community? are you going to take away from us more profit over our heads, profit over this community? that's already i have seen so many killings on them. please stand up to be on your part. thank you. thank you. project sponsor. you have a two

minute rebuttal. thank you. there's been a lot of comments and, a lot of concerns, but i've addressed everything from safety. pretty much everything. but the only thing i cannot comment on is the cultural stigma. i come from an asian background, and if the translator was here, they could maybe explain that. that's one thing, that that's a self fight that you have to figure out. i cannot fight the cultural stigma in asian community. i'm a third generation asian american in the bay view. my grandfather first landed in the bayview when he first came to san francisco. so i know the street in and out. people talked about living here for 20 years. i've been here for, what, 35, 35 years old, born, born right here at sf general. so i know what i'm getting myself into. they talk about off street. yeah, it's better to be off street. there's concerns about having the

storefront right on third and then now there's a concern about the storefront being right off of third, like what is going on right, yet there's a lack of education, but i've gone over and i've attended five different neighborhood meetings, tried to host these and address these with interpreters who are my friends who went to high school or from the city. but the only thing i get is we just don't want cannabis. and if there's any other questions that you have that you've gotten more from this than i can address that. but that's where i'm at right now. so thank you. thank you. with that, commissioners, this matter is now before you. i have a couple questions for staff, and it may be is there a representative from the office of cannabis here? laura aiello for staff. we have our department liaison to the office of cannabis here to answer

policy questions. all right, so it's i don't know, fellow planner. i don't know who among staff can answer these questions, but i'll, you know, some maybe land use related some are, more regulatory. the project meets all of our criteria, and the applicant meets all of the equity criteria. is that correct? this is an equity applicant, and the project does meet the city requirements. okay. is there a security guard that's required at the front of the store? there are some standard conditions that apply to all cannabis sites, including on site security. okay. and we have approved numerous cannabis retail shops in the last five years all over the city, we have not seen that many cannabis consumption lounges, when they have come forward. there has been concerns expressed about just how effective the hvac systems can be in ensuring that

the smell doesn't escape the buildings on the commission. that has created concern when there have been residents, residential units directly above, the cannabis shops or directly adjacent. but in this case, there are there are no residences above or adjacent. is that correct? there are residential buildings across the street and adjacent on both sides, with no space between the buildings. i believe that one neighbor faces the adjacent street, and so their rear yard would be. yeah, i'm asking about where there's an adjoining wall that that's where it's caused concern in the past. yeah. i believe there's space between on both sides. there's space on all sides. okay. so what happens if it's built, and, neighbors expressed concern that the smell is escaping, that the hvac system is not working. what is the remedy? to my knowledge, the department has not received any

complaints of that nature. but if it were to happen, what is the remedy? good afternoon, commissioners matthew chandler, department staff, so cannabis uses are highly regulated at the state level as well as the local level, they they require a license from the office of cannabis and, and through the regulation, regulation process, they need to, submit an odor mitigation plan, and they also require further review and approval by the department of public health because consumption lounges and rooms are regulated under the health code, so as part of that review process, they need to, have a completely independent hvac system that is separated from the rest of the entire space. so independent with, for the consumption lounge itself, to where it has direct venting to

the outside and has scrubbers to make sure that there is no that it removes all of the odor and all of the smoke before it is vented outside. and, they also need to include signage that will make sure that people are not consuming outside, and as part of the security plan, they will have to include security personnel within the 50ft of the premises to make sure that they're actually monitoring the premises, to make sure that people are not consuming outside as well. and there are ramifications. essentially, they need to, have an odor mitigation plan on file to where they need to make sure that there's proper maintenance of all the facilities and the department of building inspections actually cannot even approve a mechanical permit until after they pass approval through the department of public health, that's all very helpful, but i still have my question, which is, you know, they open, they're starting to

operate, and the neighbors down the street are saying, hey, we're smelling you know, there's still an odor coming out of the building. do they file, a violation notice with dph, with dbi. how do the neighbors proceed if there's a problem? right. sorry thank you. from, read or restating that. so another thing to note is that as part of the good neighbor policy, they have to identify a community liaison in to where the community can always reach out to them and contact them, and address can help kind of mediate and address concerns. that is one possible path. but it's also my understanding that through the dph approval process, they have to make sure that they maintain all of their systems to make sure that they follow their odor mitigation plan. and if they're not in compliance with that, it can ultimately lead to a, i guess, losing their ability to have the consumption on site. okay thank

you, commissioner koppell. so yeah, a couple things. i can totally appreciate that this project sponsor, is trying to locate his business in his own home neighborhood. and regarding all the cases we've heard over the number of years, i think this gentleman is exactly the type of owner that this program was created for giving san francisco residents women and people of color, previously incarcerated persons, the opportunity to start a business in their own hometown and succeed. so as far as i'm concerned, this is the type of program that this this was meant for, and as was just recently seeing this, this product is starting to become literally federally legal, as of very recently. so i don't see any, any, you know, lessening of the, the substance in the future. but as far as i've always said on

this commission, we're in charge of, like, filling storefronts. and there's a lot of empty storefronts in this city, and we're supposed to give businesses the tools they need to succeed. so i'm in support. thank you, vice president moore, it is an extremely difficult discussion. and while in principle i agree with the thoughts expressed by commissioner koppell, i have a number of questions as this particular application somewhat differs a little bit from what we have seen before. and perhaps, mr. chandler, you could help, in most cases, i would say in 99% of the cases we see support from the industry coming to help a new applicant basically make its case in this particular case, this applicant on his own is on its own, and there is a number of pieces missing in the package that i would normally like to see, i.e. a specifically expressed security plan, an idea about

staffing, who is helping them, are there other business partners? he cannot be on his own. be everything that is required to run this organization. and in most cases, when a neighbor can introduce themselves, him, him or herself, there is indeed other people who are filling certain roles, including site liaison, etc. in order to facilitate the acceptance by the community that all the proper pieces are in place. one thing which i am concerned about, if you bear with me, i believe that an unimproved street was out. sidewalk, curb and gutter is a very difficult, foreground or stage set for a retail, establishment park. cars park at this moment, perpendicular to the storefront, obscuring of what people need. and that is an eye on the street, an ability to

see what retail activity is going on inside. there are quite a few establishments in my neighborhood, and i can see who's going in and out. it's friendly environment, a pleasant interior. so here we are basically on the street, which does not allow that type of a setting. the second thing is that in the plans submitted, there are there is verbiage that concerns me that, for example, in the area of consumption, vaping, there is assembly and entertainment. i have never seen the combination of those two words because entertainment, at least in planning language, means something completely different, and it's regulated by a different set of entities. perhaps mr. aiello could comment on that. there, destroying that is a colored site plan which gives a block layout for the establishment, sales and

services, cannabis retail assembly and entertainment in the back of the property. matthew chandler, planning department staff i guess first, addressing the color coded, i guess floor plan, which you mentioned, i was not the one that reviewed the plans in detail, but it does me looking at this, i would assume that what they are providing are maybe occupancy codes based on one of the other agencies. i don't know if that is something that the sponsor could confirm, but that would be my first initial thought about that. mr. cook, can you opine on that? yeah. and i was going to say if mr. aiello wants to opine on the other questions that you had. yes thank you. i'm sorry. could you please repeat that question?

my second question is the appropriateness of the street as an unimproved street with parking obscuring the front of the building, not allowing active retail use to be visible and appreciated from the street, including safe ingress and egress out of retail when there is no coupe or gutter, rather than only particular perpendicular parking. i believe the project sponsor can better answer this question, but per the plans he is planning on installing sidewalk and per standard conditions, there are security cameras required at the front of the building and also lighting, in most cases when we have active agriculture, i hear that the industry requires additional safety measures in order to protect the business at a higher degree than what you typically have at just retail sales. perhaps the applicant

addressed that himself, if you don't mind. absolutely, absolutely. i can address all those concerns as i've addressed those many times with the community, because that's been a huge concern. the plans should already incorporate, camera plan and show a security guard. if that doesn't show it on this plan, it may have been on another plan, but that's a part of the state regulations that we have certain amount of security cameras throughout the facility, as well as security guards, anytime the business is open, you asked about visibility on the street. it's an unincorporated, but it doesn't mean that it's not a busy street. the property. right next to us is actually a club slash bar. recent it became vacant for unknown reasons, but, this is a very active street. it's one street over for a part of this plan. also planning department has requested us to develop the street sidewalk because the sidewalk has never been developed. my family's actually owned this property since 2001,

i believe. and honestly, we could have cared less because nobody cared about it. but i'm coming in and i'm making the effort to develop it and do something better with it. my family lives in the property right next to it, which is divided by a yard space, and you asked about the spacing and whatnot and smell the smell, the smell as far as smell is concerned, the department of health has a lot of regulations on that. if we don't meet those, the guys told me straight up, if you if we get a complaint and we have to come out, we're going to shut the lounge down. simple as that. and we know there's a lot of those requirements that state already has. we're already implementing those. isn't it your last concern about this? the use assembly's entertainment this is just verbiage out of the code books that they're requiring. thank you for explaining that i appreciate that. yeah. thank you. you answered my questions. appreciate it. okay. yes. and just commissioner moore, just to confirm. yes, he's accurate that those are all occupancy codes from the building code. it's a

little bit hard because we use that in a completely more controversial, yeah, explanation than anything else. yeah, we have the same use in our planning code that is different than the occupancy code that the building department uses. okay, commissioner imperial. thank you, and thank you for community members coming in, coming to the planning commission, i do have question and i actually appreciate one of the cac member coming here, because that's something i also notice in, in the report that, you know, that the project sponsor did not attend, the bayview cac, meeting, would you like to. yes, i'll address that. i actually attended the meeting twice. and to be completely frank, i think the bayview cac is an absolute joke. and the reason i say that is the first time i arrived, there was only three members on the council. they were unwilling to hear it. and later they said that, oh, well, you didn't

submit everything. well, you didn't send me the application for me to submit the second time when i submitted everything once again, there was only three out of seven members and they couldn't make a they couldn't make a decision like what kind of membership organization is this? are we here to help improve the bayview? or you're just here to sit and just, you know, have some type of title? i don't know, like that's why and no disrespect, but that and unfortunately, the crazy thing is one of the board members i went to high school with and yeah, they went, i think that's fine. i you can sit down now and thank you for making that comment, excuse me, excuse me, so my actually my question is around the, the industrial use because usually when we look into the, you know, the cannabis or cannabis have come here are they're usually in retails. and the industrial use which is in the proper zoning of this and surrounded with the residential areas. but the cac member also

mentioned that there seems to be a saturation of cannabis cultivation in this area, that there are ten already approved and then 20 pending, in this area, like which particular area we're talking about? i, alice monsky planning staff, so the numbers for the ten operating cannabis cultivation businesses specifically, that is for the entire bayview, there are about four in, i guess, what we call the southern portion of the bayview, near to this location, and then there are ten legacy applications that are on file submitted to the office of cannabis. and then another 12 equity applications, of which this is one. and then, so for

and all of this in cultivation under the m1 zone or what are the zoning, no, some are in pdr. there's four different pdr districts, so the cultivation in there's m1, m2 and a variety of the pdr in the bayview. and i guess i'll thank you. and i'll ask the cac member question about it. have you, can you come up to the podium? has this been issue raised in in the supervisor's office about, you know, other, industrial, cannabis cultivation to supervisor walton? yes. oh, and i want to preface that i joined the cac in march, so i have a very short time frame, when i was at the march meeting, that's when we saw a huge, residents coming out to speak and, we

were, looking at two more cultivators licenses that day, in terms of the supervisor's office, i don't know if the cac has reached out directly to the supervisor's office. i do know community members have. and i also wanted to preface, i am here as an individual, not as a representative of the cac. so okay. thank you. i recognize you as an individual. yes. okay. thank you. thanks, this is, for me, you know, quite a difficult, you know, difficult project for me. i, i'm usually supportive of cannabis retail, and, and what sticks to out to me is this is in an industrial zone. and then there's added a retail use, that is not in the commercial corridor. so this is what i'm, i am kind of like, you know, i again, i, you know, the

applicant, the equity applicant in terms of like, it seems to me that there are a lot of improvements that you would like to do in these, unimproved street. but at the end of the day, it's there's still a lot of improvements that need to do in this street. it's not a commercial corridor still. so so that's also my concern that the retail use part of it is not appropriate in this location, but the industrial part of it, the cannabis cultivation is proper area for it, so this is where i'm, you know, i'm leaning right now. so i would like to hear other commissioners thoughts. commissioner brown. so you know, in general, i am supportive of cannabis uses when they meet the requirements of the planning code, they meet what's being asked of them in a highly regulated industry. which we have a lot of rules. and, you

know, there are some things that are under the product sponsors control that have to be met. and those do deal with security. they do deal with signage, about, you know, not having off site consumption, not having consumption outside of the designated space where when there is a consumption lounge, but but, you know, i would say i think i have a, a question for the project sponsor. i mean, bringing a project of this scale forward is a pretty extensive undertaking. and it was mentioned earlier. you know, usually we hear from business partners or others in the industry who have supported the project or who are mentoring or are helping this process along. would you mind just sharing a little bit about sort of how, this project has come together and, and, you know, who you're who else might be involved? or is this something that you're just trying to kind of figure out and bootstrap on your own? i'm just curious. absolutely. and i should address this sooner. when the other

commissioner asked me, let me first clarify that prior question, which was is this in an industrial area or a retail? this is actually a mixed use area. as we know, san francisco is completely mixed use. you have homes on top and stores on the bottom, similar to what you see in the mission district along cesar chavez or along folsom or along mission right. this is similar to that on the left. there's a bar across the street. there are homes where homes on top and retail on the front. but the house is facing third street, so we're actually in a mixed use area to address that question. as far as who else is sponsoring it, you're looking at them. it's me and my family. we're putting the money up and we already own the property, and i've been working on this, like i said, since 2019. so that's why you don't hear from anyone else? because i've been working hard, saving up to develop this as well as to run this whole operation. i did partake in another cannabis business prior about two years ago in the mission district, which i helped initiate and start, and that was okay. but i

decided to take this project on as my own. as we had the facility and the availability to do so. okay. and so that's why you might see missing information because there is nobody else. it's just me and my family. so that's where it is. thank you. i would just emphasize, of course there is there are the requirements that you've agreed to as far as the neighborhood liaison. absolutely and absolutely. yeah, i've already addressed a lot of those with the neighborhood and providing them with them with the good neighbor policy. but once again, i understand there's a language barrier, and i've tried to address that. but the hardest barrier here is cultural. and that's one thing that i cannot cross. that's just where i'm at now. so okay. thank you for that, i think i don't have a question for the sponsor about this, but also just a note that, you know, there are just in the interest of being a good neighbor that continue to engagement is really important. you mentioned also that the cac,

you know, is currently maybe short handed or, you know, have concerns about that. i hope that's also further motivation to continue to get more engaged with the neighborhood, including through you know, outlets like the cac and attending those meetings or even trying to join organizations like that. and i think it's really important for, you know, as you can see, this is really controversial. i understand the cultural differences that we're talking about. but, all we can do is, you know, there's a need to just continue working at that. and i hope that this is motivation to do that, so, so in general, i am in support of the project and not taking doctor, but but i see, commissioner williams has some comments as well. commissioner williams, thank you , first, i want to appreciate everyone coming out here, the project sponsor for, you know, bringing this project forward, i

have some compassion. you born and raised here, and so, so am i. and so i know how that, you know, you, you know, i get that part of it, but i, you know, a couple of things and i kind of agree with, with, commissioner, with theresa, it's the street. it feels to me like it's not really incorporated. i mean, it's not, it's not a main corridor, and it feels kind of like more in a residential, setting. and so i have it's you know, it doesn't feel like, well, maybe this is a question for the, for the, for the folks that, in planning, are there any other, cannabis businesses that are off the commercial corridors , in this area? to clarify, are

you speaking of retail cultivation? manufacturing retail? yeah, i can give you some information on the retail, specifically since through the planning code, we require that they be 600ft from other locations. so we kind of map that out, it does look like the nearest one would be, off of san bruno avenue, which is well over a mile away, but generally, you know, cannabis retail businesses are located within commercial corridors or commercial districts because it is within itself a commercial use. okay, of course, you know, pre adult use legalization, we authorized medical cannabis dispensaries as institutional uses, and now those are being converted to cannabis retail businesses. and a lot of those were kind of

peppered around like the south of market area. and the mission district. so some of those may kind of be outliers as being not necessarily always within a neighborhood commercial district, but generally cannabis retail uses within within themselves or within kind of the nc districts. and so and this is this is pretty much a kind of it's i know he's growing or he he proposes to grow cannabis, but it's also going to be a retail space. correct. yeah. so i mean, business plan wise, maybe that's best to be addressed by the project sponsor. but one thing that i think is important to note is that through the licensing process with the office of cannabis, they offer what is called a micro business license, which i believe the sponsor kind of alluded to, which that is, i guess any cannabis related business that is doing three or more uses on the site can receive a micro business license to where it, expedites the

permitting process because they're getting three uses approved at the same time, and also they only have to pay one licensing fee as well. so if they did not have three of these approved uses, there, then they would not qualify for a micro business license. so it is within itself three different distinct land uses. yes okay, let me see. yeah. and you know, the thing that kind of stuck out to me is, unfortunately, you had you you felt you didn't have a great experience with the with the cac, but that's, you know, that's an important body in the bay view, and, you know, it really, it don't really. it doesn't sit well with me just

knowing that even though you didn't have a good experience with them, maybe, you know, you could have, tried to get further along in that process because they're an important body. yeah, i'd definitely like to address that. i did attempt to do that, and on my last meeting at the cac, i was assured that, hey, all the questions been answered and if there's anything more great, i was reached out by the community members to meet again at the cac on a date that i was unable to attend, and i told them i cannot make it then, but we can set up a different date, which we didn't have. so i'm open to address any concerns and questions, but i kind of find it, you know, it's an educational matter at this point , right? and especially with older generations, i understand i got a dad, he's older and he's i'm fighting the same thing with the cultural thing with him. but i can when you educating

somebody on what these rules and regulations are and the things that we're having to do to meet the state requirements is, you know, and if somebody doesn't, if they have it in their heart not to want it, you know, you can keep telling them, you can keep telling them. it's like a kid if he if he's going to want the candy, you could tell him all you want. he's going to cry and you know, yell and whatever. but you got to give him the candy right? that's just the same. that's the situation i feel like i'm fighting against. and as far as the cac goes, yeah, i tried and i just had a bad experience twice back to back. and i just found that that was, that was a huge hurdle for time being pushed. and like i said, i'm fighting against five years here that something else could have been developed, you know, there. and we've been waiting for this project, and it's my city. at the end of the day, i know things are getting expensive. is it even worth developing like that? these are the comments that i'm getting from my peers. right. and this is something that i've been pushing. so i'm going to want to

push it. so okay. what, is as far as i know, you have several uses, for the space if and there's some concern around the smoking part. right. and that, i mean, how would you feel if, if, i mean, if you could just grow there, right. and not, you know, do these other things. i mean, would you be open to something like that or what's perfect answer to that question? the bayview is already filled with half a dozen grow houses. do i want to just open another grow house? does it even make sense to open another grow house? how does that even affect? how does that help the community? keep in mind and i don't know if i'm even allowed to say it, but i'm going to say it. i could go down third street on oakdale and buy weed off of somebody selling it illegally, right? like why? why what's the whole purpose of me even presenting something legal here? and having a dispensary with controlled product, knowing that it's not tainted. right. that's the whole purpose of having a legal business. right?

so that being the dispensary and that we all know san francisco's housing market is so difficult, you cannot smoke in many houses and many residents can't do that. so we're providing them a safe space. and so, you know, i said in my initial speech that i thought this through, and i really thought this through, and i got the opportunity through the office of cannabis as an equity applicant to get all these uses approved. and the land was zoned for it. so i was like, let's do it, and let's make something work. and yeah, i worked with a few other folks. i went around town, i checked out all the other dispensaries. nobody has something like this where you can grow and also purchase. and hey, if you don't feel comfortable and you can't smoke at home and you're going to get evicted, well, you can come here and smoke or consume or eat or whatever, right? so, so a little bit different to be able to provide to our community. there's only one other dispensary, one dispensary where you can actually legally purchase cannabis in the bayview. all the other ones that are actually open right now, you won't even know they're growing.

they're they're closed shops and , you know, maybe that's what the people want. just put a warehouse and just grow. but i don't think that's what the community needs. and when i talk about the community as a general, not one neighbor with 200 residents, i'm talking about , you know, a whole neighborhood here. so what about your security plan? that that that's something i think that people are concerned about. i, i mean, you said that it might have been in some other documents, but what is your what do you think is needed there to really be secure on, on that street? our business hours are standard 9 to 5 right. during daylight hours right now people walk through no issues. we're going to have a security guard and state requires an armed security guard that's in the front. we have a storefront, so glass entry so people can see through it. and then we're going to have security cameras on all that. during night times. we have additional lights aside from the street lights that will be on all the time. and then security guards and then gated fronts.

what about your operating hours? what is it? what what do you what do you do? we expect monday through friday, nine to, six. but i believe i propose additional hours. but the realistic hours will vary on how based on really our client base. we all know in san francisco it's been very difficult for the cannabis industry right now, but at minimum, we are proposing from 9 a.m. to five, i believe it's ten. 10 to 6 is what we had said on on the paperwork, 10 to 6 during daylight hours. so any other questions? any questions for the public that i can you think that they may need to know at this point it's do you have any more questions, i don't have any more questions for you, but but i just like i want to make a comment, just to, to the community that's come out here, you know, thank you for coming out, i just like, you know, cannabis has, you know, cannabis has been around for a long time,

and, you know, like, for example, my grandmother, they used cannabis for medicine. it's medicine from where i come from in mexico, where my grandmother was, was from. and so i kind of look at it in that way, just like, i'm sure, the asian community with their long, rich history, they use a lot of plants and stuff for healing. well, that's what cannabis is as well. so i just kind of wanted to let folks know that, you know, cannabis is can be used for medicine. and it's important to like, look at that, look at it like that as well, it's not all negative, and you know, so just understand that, a lot of people think of cannabis in that, in that way. that's why it's legalized. and also so, you

know, the decriminalization part or aspect of cannabis is very important as well, because so many people are using it and getting in trouble, and, and it, it, it just, it, it didn't it, i should say people were getting over punished. for, for using cannabis and, and so i think those were helpful things laws that that happened. and so, so i just i just want to make that comment. yeah. thank you, i asked a lot of questions before, but i wanted to put out what my thoughts are on this. and then i see commissioner koppell wants to speak again and maybe that's a motion that he's going to

make. it's a highly regulated industry. we are trying to encourage small businesses, he's an equity applicant who meets all of the criteria, and i understand the fear, that's been expressed by all of the neighbors who came out, but the staff has worked very hard, both at the city level and through state regulation, to try to mitigate those concerns with all of the conditions of approval. and i believe this is an interesting three part, business that has, you know, grow operation as well as a retail shop as well as, a smoking lounge in conversations with staff in the past, they have indicated, even though the i mentioned that the cannabis lounges are so controversial, if we don't have them, then what we end up with is people smoking in the streets because many, many apartment buildings, do not

allow people all, maybe all apartment buildings don't allow people to smoke, in those apartment buildings. so we end up with a situation where only people who happen to own their own houses or their own, you know, condominiums are permitted to smoke. and everybody else is on the street somewhere, and that the cannabis lounges are a way to try to get around that particular problem, as i said, i have concern when the cannabis lounges have residents right on top of them, but this is not one of those cases. so, i would not be in favor of taking doctor. and with that, i'll turn it over to commissioner koppell. so we've heard, in years past, that the city can have some amount of bureaucracy that sometimes takes an ice cream shop three years to open up, right, and we have our share fair of empty storefronts. what i like about the project is that it has the three separate uses, which i think warrants it not being on the commercial

corridor. if you're going to have an industrial use. i don't think the industrial use would maybe be appropriate on the commercial corridor, and, and looking at the site and you got to remember, this guy already owns the property. if, if, if he's denied to open a legal business in his own property that he already owns, i don't i don't see how we can not allow this. he already owns the property. this is a fully legal code compliant business. and what else is going to go there? i mean, yeah, there's no sidewalk on the property. but if you look at the actual site, there's plenty of room for cars to be parked there that wouldn't interrupt, you know, street traffic or other parking issues or, or, you know, flow of pedestrians. and i actually think this site is perfect for what this applicant is proposing. so i want to make a motion. can i just make a motion to approve, which means to not take to not take dr. and approve, commissioner koppell is that okay if we can add either

in the findings for the project sponsor to have communication or build communication with the cac 100? thank you. i'm sorry. could you repeat that for the project sponsor as part of the findings for the project sponsors to connect to? still to continue to connect with the bayview cac. so we're encouraging the project sponsor to reach out, to have dialog with the cac. is that. yeah, 100. okay i don't think there can be a condition that is a recommendation, not a recommendation. commissioner imperial did not suggest it as a condition of approval. it's more like a findings. yeah very good. commissioners i'm sorry, who seconded that motion? i did, thank you. so if there's, no further deliberation. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project, adding a

finding in the action memo that the planning commission encourages the sponsor to engage in additional dialog with the bayview cac on that motion, commissioner williams i, commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore and commission president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing today . that was not for the cac

[music] since the opening on third and mission in 2010 the grove is a epicenter. tis is part of the community. we bring tourist, we bring convention ears and have a huge group of locers who live here. we are their living room and love to see them on a regular basis and seek newcomers to the city of san francisco and serve them a good dose of san francisco hospitality. we make everything in house from scratch every dape we vahand carved [indiscernible] the chicken pot pie we serve probably a hundred thousand if not more. roasted chicken, prime rib, salad[indiscernible] coffee cake and [indiscernible] all the pies are fresh baked. the home made cookies are done, once, twice a day, depending how fast they go. we believe in goold old fashion

home cooked food. we want to be a welcoming, warm hospitable place for everyone to come and hang out. respond time with friends and family, meet new people. have important conversation. relax and enjoy, rejuvenate, get restored, enjoy one another and the at mus sphere the growth. the grove is over 730 to 830, 7 days a week, breakfast, lunch and dinner.