Your acronym is Design Review and document approval as particularly approval for this project. [laughter] commission fung. I had a similar question but directed toward the project sponsor whoever the project sponsor is. My name is terese, im the senior director for five point. Can you flush out the analysis that occurred to reduce the retail . Oh, absolutely. Significantly. You know, i think as ms. Moore said, it is true that in fact, particularly for outlet malls the amount of demand for that type of Shopping Experience has decreased significantly. And in fact oewd produced a report a year ago in which they talked about the challenges that San Francisco is now facing because of the change in retail. Many people are now spending their money differently. They are spending their money on physical fitness lifestyle, dining out those kinds of experiences. Thats one change. And the other change, of course, is the future of ecommerce. And theres been a significant amount of change in the Retail Sector because of the ecommerce. So for all of these reasons combined, it really made so much sense to create a successful project anchored in a way that we are proposing for you today. As a followthrough on that, you have 170,000 square feet. Of regional retail, thats correct. And what does that mean when you say regional retail. Thats a very good question. A lot of people ask that. I think oftentimes people think of retail is the kind of retail that you go some distance to actually make your purchases. So for example if you are looking at furnishing stores or Appliance Stores or those kinds of things that serve large large sectors. Thats what we mean when we say regional retail. When we talk about neighborhoodserving retail we talk about your local businesses. So it could be a barber, a dry cleaner, your pharmacy, a grocery all of those kinds of things. Then the regional retail would be the larger box . Not necessarily. I didnt mean to imply its going to be big box. Thats kind of an not okay here. But what i wanted to say is its the type of purchase that you make. Its not necessarily big box. So, for example, you see a lot of what they call formula kinds of retails where you see the same thing over and over and over again. What we are wanting here is something a little more unique and special. So if there is a successful restaurant up on third street in the bayview and they can locate a second restaurant in our neighborhood that we are creating thats the kind of thing that we are looking for in this project. Thank you. Sure. Can i hear a motion . Theres a motion, yeah. Just one comment. I forgot to mention at the top of my presentation, the handouts before you also included a couple letter the letters of support. One from the Southeast Community facilities commission. They just wanted to make it very clear that they were unanimously supportive of this as well. Commissioner moore. Move to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve. The design for development amendments. [roll call] so moved, the motion passes unanimously 40. [applause] folks in the crowd, theres only four of us up here. We dont want to extend this hearing any longer than we have to. But we are going to take a small, small bathroom break. And just for the benefit of the public who may not realize but item 15 17 and 18 were continued. Item 16 is being pushed to the end of the agenda so we will be. Good evening and welcome back to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing for thursday october 24, 2019. Commissioners we left off under your 3 00 p. M. Calendar on item 19 for case number 2018011717cua, 1369 sanchez street good evening commissioners. I have to understand every time whether mr. Bussy comes before the commission whether or not hes paid, he is paid for this. I have a professional relationship with him and i am not swayed or influenced at all and i can be fair. Commissioner richards, kate spacey in the city attorneys office. You are not obligated to reclues yourself in a situation like this. Youve disclosed the matter. And as long as you believe you can give the matter a full and impartial hearing you do not have to reaccuse yourself. Good evening. Stefani Planning Department staff. The item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to document and legalize a demolition of existing threestory twounit building at 1369 to 1371 sanchez street. The overall project includes a remodel and expansion of the two existing units modifications to ground floor garage and roof deck. The project received approval in 2017 and this application is intended to legalize additional demolition that took place during construction. The project site is located on the east side of sanchez street between cesar chavez street. The building was reclassified to category c. In 2515 as part of the review, Environmental Review of the original application. The property is located in rh2 Zoning District and 40s heightened bulk district. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of two to three story Family Residences in a variety of architectural styles. As detailed in your packets, the project was originally filed and reviewed in in 2015 during the neighborhood notification period a discretionary review application was filed. The case was heard on april 20, 2017 and was continued to june 1, 2017 to allow time for the project sponsor to revise the project based on comments provided by the commission at that time. At the june 1, 2017 hearing the Commission Adopted findings to take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications. During construction additional demolition work occurred that caused the project to exceed the demolition thresholds outlined in the planning code. The areas where demolition thresholds exceeded were as follows. Additional areas of existing rear walls removed such as the area vertical elements demolished exceeded the threshold by 15 percent. Areas of the existing floor space of the second and third floors were removed and replaced, exceeded the threshold by 13 percent. A complaint was filed by the department of building inspect on august 6, 2018 describing that work had occurred beyond the scope of the originallyapproved permit. The planning enforcement case was opened at the same time. Planning staff had conducted multiple site visits between august 2018 and march 2019 to inspect the work completed. And in march 2019 the conditional use authorization application was filed. The project has not changed in terms of its size design or features. The purpose is to legalize the changes to the demolition calculations that occurred during construction. The Department Recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable. The existing twounit building will maintain two units and larger configurations and no additional changes or modifications are proposed to the previous project. This concludes my presentation. Im available for any questions. We have a representative from dbi here with a presentation as well as the project sponsor. Great. Thank you very much. Good evening commissioners. Patrick chief building inspector dbi. Im here to present to you an update on the project at 1369 sanchez street. To begin with, the agenda in this presentation is as follows. Im going to speak to existing. One second. Sf gov, can you go to the computer . Thank you. The agenda is as follows. Existing as built conditions the permits review, inspections enforcement, findings and finally next steps. This slide represents 1369 sanchez street as it was prior to the construction. The picture is from november of 2017. Here we are looking at 1369 sanchez street in its current condition as it has been since august of 2018 when the violation was issued. The permit application that was filed in august of 2015 received planning reviews dbi review and review and approval by cpw. It included the remodel of the front elevation, a horizontal addition to this house towards the front of the Building Three new bathrooms and three new bedrooms and two bathrooms at the third floor remodeling of the kitchen add a vanity at the second floor, relocate unit one from the second to the first floor along with a new roof deck. Additionally permit application that was filed in august of 2018 following the issue answer of the notice of violation is now the permit that is here before you. It states comply with the violation 201882681. It is a revision to the permit from 2015 which has been suspended. It revises the demolition analysis including removal and replacement of the front stairs and the removal of the rear stairs. Plan review services. A single permit was filed on august 19 2015. Reviewed, approved and issued on september 29th of 2017. So approximately two years later. The evaluation of work documented is 425,000. Multiple city agencies reviewed and approved this permit including planning dbi fire department, tfc and dpw. The permit includes a horizontal addition at the southeast corner, which i believe should probably be this west corner. At any rate, additionally the descriptive language includes three new bedrooms, two new bathrooms 3 13 three third floor remodel. The permit has been suspended and work stopped based on the issue and notice of violation by dbi that occurred on august 18 of 2018. New Building Permit has been filed and is currently being reviewed by the Planning Department. Dbi plan review will follow plannings approval. Inspections. Three Building Inspections were performed by the district building inspector for foundation from may 30 to june 27 of 2018. So roughly two months before we got the complaint for the demolition, we performed these three inspections for concrete pours. They were for different areas of the foundation and they were approved based on special inspector approval prior to the concrete being poured. So what that means is the engineer Testing Agency folks would need to go out there and look at the concrete and look at the rebar pardon me, before the concrete could be placed. So we have special inspections that are in fact listed on the original and what is now suspended permit which covered the structural evidence of the construction itself. Complaints. One complaint was filed august 6, 2018. The violation was posted based on that complaint and is currently on hold till the pending review and approval of the Building Permit currently before you. The complaint was investigated based onsite review conditions and as it related to the approval permit documents. It was determined that the scope of work documented in the drawings had been exceeded. And the work was then stopped pending approval of a Building Permit to document the additional work. This shows notice of violation. It states complaint investigation has revealed work has exceeded the scope of the Building Permit, a site visit has revealed front stairs and west front wall have been removed, rear wall and is it fair to say have been removed portions of the floor framing have been removed. The notation is stop all work obtain revision that documents the front the removal of the front facade, rear walls, stairs and floor systems which exceeded the scope of the Building Permit that was in place at the time. And it also states city planning approval required. Moving on to the approved demolition, you can see well not very easily, but you can see here that anything in the hatched representation on the elevations is what was approved to be removed. So you can see the entire roof was slated to be removed on the left hand side of the slide. And at the front facade, you will note that basically around the garage, the garage door area and projecting upward was all approved to be removed. Then there was the area around that window on the upper floor at the front facade that was to be removed. So essentially all that was left in the front facade was that sliver kind of down the middle between the front door and the windows the garage and the windows above the garage. So really very little left of that front facade. And it is a bit of a balancing act to try to keep those three or four studs in place while you are doing additional work. The north facade, the wall was to remain. And for the most part, it did. That wall remained in place, which you can see from the picture that represents it in place based on how the site conditions are right now. The south elevation is a little bit different, because if you look at the south elevation youll see that the matched area right there was being. There was minimal demolition at the area of the facade. Next steps permit application under review by the Planning Department appears to document the conditions and the changes needed to ensure compliance with the notice of violation. We conducted site visits out there together, and we reviewed what was being proposed for submittal and comparedcompared those documents. Work will be scheduled for review and getting directions to the contractor or stakeholder and im going to suggest that we will conduct weekly inspections until we see that the stakeholder and the contractor are back on track and we eliminate the possibility of anything going sideways moving forward with the project. Thats my presentation. Im available for any questions. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. Normally im not one to take a case like this because im not a big fan of the demolition issue. But it highlighted one of my concerns its the means and methods of how we do these jobs. Its really nice to draw something up. But trying to build it is a lot harder. There were really two issues that caused problems here on this job. Issue number one was this wall being shifted about four feet to the south. So the floor joints between here and here which were supposed to be left in place were now three to four feet too short. The joint doesnt extend from bearing wall to bearing wall, it serves no function. And there was a fundamental misunderstanding that even though those joints serve no function, they have to remain in place. The contractor to his credit, was honest with everybody on this issue. He said, well, doesnt it make more sense to try to slide these joints over so somehow we get them supported on the new bearing wall over here. They would actually serve a function. And he slid them over so that those joints actually did something except you cant slide joist over under the rules and not count it as a demo. When planning came out they asked told the truth, slid them over because they were too short and we were trying to figure out some way to continue using this framing in addition to additional framing. So in this area on the second and third floor large holes were created because of this bearing wall issue. And he tried to account for that by sliding the joist over. And when they asked and im not the original engineer on this. I just reran the counts. They said yes we slid them over trying to reuse them, and that triggered the 50 percent of being over the floor area on a demo. The other issue and again i wasnt there were these firewalls on either side. And somewhere along the line, there was a discussion about these walls need to have sheetrock on the outside. How you get sheetrock on the outside of an existing wall, i havent figured out how to do. He was under the impression it was okay to lean the wall down, put the plywood im sorry put the chip board up on the outside and lean it back up. And those were the two areas in both situations that pushed him over the threshold. When planning came out he told them the truth he thought this was the way to do it. Its not. It is a problem. But it highlights the means and method issue of trying to build these buildings, because they are not two dimensional sheets of paper. They are a three dimensional building out there. This has been sitting on someones desk for 15 months. I believe it is a demo but its not a demo with malice. If you are going to be doing complex jobs like this, you have to have the engineer and the architect on the job almost twice a week, maybe even more. You cannot do these jobs by a simple drawing. You have to live on the job with the contractor. And i believe the Building Official suggested weekly meetings. I dont think thats enough. I think theres got to be at least a meeting once a week with building, planning myself and the engineer and architect and if any neighbors want to come out, we have to make this transparent thats the minimum. And then the second meeting a followup meeting or premeeting with the engineer, myself, maybe the architect but myself the engineer and the contractor, and we, the second meeting going over what you are doing and clearly trying to explain the threedimensional nature of how you build and how you comply with the rules. And they apologized for this. We are sorry we did it. We want to get this housing back. The neighbors have asked me repeatedly when will you build it back. Any questions or rebuttal. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item . Come on up. Two minutes please. I didnt submit a card, im sorry. Before my time starts, can i its only two minutes . Yes. I want to stipulate i did not file these complaints but someone did using my name, which is pretty disgusting, creating a fake gmail account. Be that as it may when i was here back in june of 2017 my intention was there was an inefficient use of space. And i think that it was good what you did, following 317b7 you didnt have the sham unit down below the garage. You put the bedrooms down, you made an upstairs and you had the second unit on the third level below the roof deck. I think thats not an efficient use of space. I think it should go back to as it was before all this unfortunateness happened. I think you need that Side Entrance there that mr. Reardon talked about that could be a perfect thing for an adu. I dont view this as punishment. I view this as practicality. Because this is what i said two years ago that you should do. I think the upstairs unit is only a one bedroom, its should be a two bedroom. If its going to be rented why do you need that whole big area and the family room and kitchen and hope space. I know open space. I know thats what people think you need to market for but i also think people like bedrooms. A week ago you approved the little bedrooms on 12th street. You could do it here too. If you look at the original layout, it was a pretty decent layout, where everybody would live like that and used to live like that in stacked flats in San Francisco. I think there should be a roof deck because no roof deck on the black or nearby and it decreases the relative affordability. So ill just standby the letters i sent you on the 16th that ms. Narrows referenced. I want to thank her for her help and i want to thank mr. Reardon for explaining things clearly. Its unfortunate this has been empty for five years. One more thing i would like to say. Just like the fourplex they did an interior model they are going to be on the market soon. Its going to be done. You dont need to make something too big. Ill stop talking now. Next speaker please. Hello. Im a renter in San Francisco. I would agree with the previous speaker that leaving this unit vacant for five years is a travesty in the housing crisis we face. Also when you Start Building something on a really old building, new things come up. So for the delay for over a year, just because they had to move a joist around is a waste of time and im sorry for the neighbors who had to look at this. So please approve this project. Thank you. Anyone else . Come on up. Good evening. Im here on behalf of the owners. You cant speak as a Public Comment if you are the owner. This is just for members of the public. Oh, okay. Im sorry. Thats okay. Anyone else . Public comment. Okay commissioners. Commissioner fung. Question for mr. Buskovich. These percentages related to demolition, if you slide those floor joists over arent they too short then . And therefore you had to rip out on the other side of it . It didnt make sense what he was trying to do. It didnt help. The joists served no once they move that wall over, the joists were worthless. Because your bearing wall is gone now too. I agree. But he was trying to do the right thing. If he had left them in place, they would be still serving no purpose. They were floating in air. Commissioner richards. Chief inspector reardon, i would hope on december 19, you can come and explain 2847 48th street because you have a way about you that makes sense that i can understand. So i would invite you to come for that project. The original permit applications in 2015, how extensive was the overscope of work that was done in your opinion . So based on what was approved on the drawings, i would say that there was probably, you take 35 percent demolition of vertical and horizontal elements, they were probably in the 60s so i think thats what the drawings represent. And is it normal process to just expand a permit and try to get the project sponsor to do an abatement . The suspension request came from planning. So when we get those requests, we follow the request yeah. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner moore. I would agree with ms. That what is in front of us is still not credible relative to using the building. I believe that the original intent was to have the multibedroom unit on top and the smaller unit on the bottom with no roof deck. The credibility of what i see here isnt quite there. Particularly because sufficient open space by which joint access to the rear yard could be achieved with the smaller unit being on the bottom and the access to that rear yard being joint the use of the garden. I do not see that roof deck in this particular location is appropriate nor do i see that the smaller unit is on top and then claim the roof deck, i think thats a real estate move that has little or no credibility for me. Im more interested in more balanced approach to the project with no roof deck and switching the units. Commissioner fung. Question for planning staff. Does this roof deck conform to the general standards that this commission has put forth . Generally yes, i believe. And there was the roof deck was reviewed at the discretionary review hearing where the commission asked so there were two different options presented to the sponsor at that time with regard to how to address the units and then kind of the roof deck. The first option was to maintain the existing pattern and the second and third floor units. It incourts the ground floor incorporates the ground floor Square Footage. It maintained the existing pattern and of the second and floor units and make the ground space into an adu. And on top of those, there was discussion about requiring the roof deck to be set 4 feet in from the rear. So the roof deck is set 4 feet in from the rear and i believe its set in a few feet from either side as well as the front. But in terms of the reconfigured units arent they roughly the same size as before . No. So the two the existing two units were singlefloor flats per what was previously approved the second floor flat would encompasses or take over some of the ground floor Square Footage behind the garage and then the third floor unit was maintain the third floor flat. Roughly the same as what it was before, the third floor . Roughly. Roughly. Roughly. Yeah. Commissioner moore. A comment on roof deck. The roof deck preference that the commission has discussed and encouraged the department to adopt have not been formally adopted. However the general idea is that any roof deck should not exceed onethird of the available roof area which if i look at this drawing is kind of achieved, including the setbacks to all sides maintained. We do discourage stair penthouses. So here you have an open stair and adjacent to retractable skylight, all keeping in the center of the roof so its not visible. However that is only a comment to clarify for commissioner fung that there were preferences for roof decks which have not been fully implemented. Commissioner fung. Im prepared to accept the departments recommendation and approve this. Is that a motion . That would be my motion. Second. Hearing nothing further, there is a motion thats been seconded to approve the matter with staff modifications. [roll call] motion fails 2 to 2 with commissioners moore and richards voting against. Is there an alternate motion. Move to continue this. Second. To available dates. December 19. Since mr. Reardon would be here hopefully on that day. Commissioner fung. December 19. Okay. Very good, commissioners is there a second . Second yes. A motion to continue to december 19 commissioner fung. [roll call] so moved that motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. Items 20a about and c for properties at 100 california street, 300 california street and rhode island street respectively. These are allocation revocations. Good evening commissioners. The Planning Department staff. So back on july 22 of this year the planning director issued a memo to the commission providing an update on the Office Annual limit program. Among other things that memo addressed potentially Unused Office Space that was previously allocated by the commission. The memo stated the Zoning Administrator was researching the issue and hearing for potential revocations would be scheduled in 2019, and this is the first of such potential hearings. The proposal today is to revoke full or partial Office Allocations from previous projects previously granted. They are at 100 california street, 300 california street and 350 rhode island street. Each of these projects were included in the directors memo. The other four projects listed in the memo have either voluntarily forfeited their unused allocations through written correspondence to the Zoning Administrator or undergoing Additional Research and analysis to determine if or what quantity of allocated office space may be unused. In that regard, the property at 601 towsend street is the only property on that list to completely finalize their forfeiting which took place this week. Your case report stated that the large cap currently contains 896752 square feet. However considering the add back from towsend street the cap stands at 969,352 square feet. I would like to report that Additional Research found that nearly 102,000 square fetal kateed in 2012 allocated in 2012 was never used for the proposed conversion and it was not listed on the directors memo because it was not known at that time. The Property Owner of berry street agreed to forfeit that space into the program and i would like to thank the Property Ownership and jim for assisting in that research and their forthcoming cooperation. Moving on to the items before you today, the Department Recommends the commission take three separate actions to revoke unused Office Allocations at three separate properties. This action is recommended in conformity with resolution 146a and eachs project approval motion because each failed to commence construction on some or all of the office space well beyond the 18 month period after the approval. The first is for 100 california street. This allocation was granted in 2008 for a 75,000 square foot. No Building Permit was filed and no other action indicates any intent to move forward with the project. The second propose ed revocation is 300 california street. This was granted in 2013 for a 56,000 square foot addition to an Office Building downtown. No Building Permit was filed and no other action indicates any intent to move forward with the project. The final proposed revocation for the commission today is 350 hawaii street. This was grant rhode island street. This was granted for an Office Building. However while the building was under construction, 87,000 square feet were instead authorized for an Industrial Arts postsecondary educational use doing business as california culinary academy. This change was documented through a letter of termination from the Zoning Administrator confirming the program fee paid for that Square Footage could be refunded to the Property Owner and it was refunded. The current zoning for this property limits office in such a way the unused 87,000 square feet may no longer be legally established as office space. As of today the department received no Public Comment on these proposed revocations. I received no indication that any representatives from these properties will be present today. That concludes my report. Im available for any questions you may have. Thank you mr. Teig. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner richards. Makes sense, theres no more office at this space. Move to approve. Second. Move to revoke. Move to revoke. Very good. On that motion to revoke Office Allocations for the three propertyies. [roll call] so moved. The motion passes unanimously 40. Items under discretionary review, items 21a and b were continued. Item 22 for case number 20192255 3d rp at 563 castro street. This is a discretionary review. Good evening commissioners. Southwest team leader. The item before you is a project that includes change of use of an existing commercial space to a limited restaurant via vegan sandwich bar. Its a retail use. This change of use was filed it concerns the loss of a key retail space. The importance of specific Retail Locations as it is adjacent to a Public Parking and the suggested proposed alternative to relocate the business to an existing vacant restaurant space. The departments reviewed the project and application confirmed the change of use doesnt present any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance with respect to compatibility with the proposed use. It is a use permitted by right. A limited restaurant is principally permitted within the castro street neighborhood commercial district. And the existing vacant space could easily be converted in fact the restaurant, it can be converted back to retail use. The department is in support of the project as submitted and is advising commission not to take discretionary review on this project. Thank you. Is the dr requester here . Good evening commissioners. Its been a very long day. Im sorry to be ending on this, something i think deserves your attention. And its something that i care about, which is the cultural direction of this neighborhood, cultural direction of this neighborhood commercial district. And is castro going to become a fast food mecca . Is that what we want . Do we want fast food or do we want to keep a lively mix of uses . Fast food mecca doesnt exist. A healthy environment does exist. Citizens here may have consequences. Whether they were good decisions or bad decisions weve got a lot of burden placed on this Castro District and upper market Business Community from the transit plan that just was approved a couple weeks ago thats going to limit vehicles access, you had major retailers that wanted to come in that for one reason or another was decided it was not appropriate. They made the right decisions. It had its price. I would like to go to the overhead, please. Computer, please. Thank you. So this is a look at what is going on in the castro. The my words were over all the yellows which is the fast food along this block face. The bright blue is the project site. And the red are vacant retails. Theres a real problem in this neighborhood. And there are opportunities for fast food to go in elsewhere. This is the project site. This was all american boy for many, many years. When i was 17 years old as a freshman at berkeley my first visit to the castro was i was taken by my first openly gay friend over to San Francisco to visit all american boy where i bought the raddest black stained clothes, it was like the hallmark of fashion at the time. And the legacy business. And legacy location for retail in this community. This is the popup store that was operating really successfully while this application was pending. Theres a vintage retail clothing store. This is the inside. This is what this business should be. This is what should be in this location, not another fast food restaurant. The neighbor next door has done a beautiful job on the building. This building is the only asbestos shingled front victorian left on the block. I have a house around the corner when my kids grew up that had asbestos shingles done by the same guy at the same time. Vandalism throughout this neighborhood and most of the victorians have been restored. This one hasnt. Same family owned it since 78. The tax basis is very low. They are not taking a hit here. They can afford to keep this vacant, finding the right tenant. This is an example of what the rest of the block is like. So i would ask this commission to consider seriously the direction that we want to set for this neighborhood retail. Are we going to let the center of the block become another source of carryout food . Its not about the menu. I like falafel. Its in my blood. Im a regular up the street at rossys although i eat at all three of the other restaurants on this block. But rossys is my guy. I go down the street to gyros express. The meat, i go there. All right. So anyhow, i want to move forward and tell you that im concerned about this block. Castro beautifycation program was a fortune spent down there. Rainbow sidewalks rainbow lighting, the crosswalks, all these things that have gone into making this beautiful. And we dont want to turn this into just a waste paper all over the sidewalk from people carrying out their food. I think enough is enough. We should save this spot for future retail that could spur new foot traffic into the neighborhood. Weve got to preserve the resources weve got. I encourage this applicant to find another location on this block or in this neighborhood to open his business. And i would present to you that theres reason to deny this applicant the conversion of this retail space. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in support of the dr requester . Come on up. Good evening commissioners. Just to show you how popular all american boy was ive had this beach towel for about 30 years that i bought at all american boy. And i still continue to use. I welcome falafel into the neighborhood. I think it would be awesome for the neighborhood. However currently in the neighborhood we have 14 empty food service locations. All different sizes all different shapes, that are sitting empty waiting for a restauranteur to come in and take over. In the last seven years we have converted six excuse me, seven retail spaces into limited restaurants. Thats a lot of retail that we are currently missing that is now restaurants. At a certain point, you have to ask what are we offering people when they come to the neighborhood if its just limited restaurant after limited restaurant were really going to die. Weve got problems now. This is just kicking us further to the curb. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Anyone else in support of the dr requester. Hello. My name is asa. I am in support of the dr requester. Oh, wait. Sorry. Anyone else from the public in support of the dr requester . Okay. Seeing none, project sponsor. Hello. My name is asaf. Im with flying falafal. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My team and i were looking for a location around the castro area for about a year and the mission as well. And we werent able to find a good spot until we found this one. We feel like its a very good location and has a lot of potential. Its also principally permitted. We feel like were a very different restaurant and would be adding a lot of value to the neighborhood. Theres also a lot of vacancy ies. There seem to be a big vacancy problem in the whole district. So we would like it to be approved. Great. Thank you. I have some spirit cards for people in support of the project sponsor. Im going to call these names. [calling names] anyone else in support of the project sponsor come on up, line up behind the speakers, and you can go as well. Come on up. You going to throw this at us . Hi. Im daniel cohen. And i support the flying falafel and i would like to see this permit approved. I can go there for lunch. Their food is delicious. And it would be a travesty. Im not understanding you sir. Could you speak a little clearer. Normally i dont speak with my mouth full but perhaps you can do both so make it sure that i understand you. Thanks. My apologies. The food is delicious and it would be a travesty if the city blocked more people from enjoying it. But further more, who filed this discretionary review should be ashamed of themselves to file this to choke off competition. Abuse of this planning process but really the process here is working as intended. The review process was created to give the ability to reject anything new and it is the height of irony that a city like itself that calls itself progressive has such an antiprogress permitting process. We have vacant store fronts that could be filled with shops and we have the worst housing shortage in the entire country. This is what San Francisco is spending my tax dollars on. How do you dispute over 40 who should be allowed to eat falafel. Discretionary review should be abolished. Why should gear express have any say on whether falafel can go into business. Next speaker. Thats some good falafel. Hard act to follow. Im a renter, not in this neighborhood but in the square. There are a lot of vacant storefronts in my neighborhood. I know the blight that is on the neighborhood so if i saw a new shop coming in, why would that be a problem . I see the problem firsthand about vacant storefronts and this is exciting to get more restaurants in. The person who spoke in favor of the dr said its an issue that deserves our attention. I think hes wrong. A business, opening a business doesnt deserve a discretionary review. He said that he was supporting the dr because its about whats best for the neighborhood. No, he is supporting the dr because its whats best for geoexpress. Its not best for the neighborhood to protect legacy Business Owners over new Business Owners. We should allow businesses to open. Whoever has the best falafel should win. Its not about all american boy. Im assuming theyre out of business. Theres no proposal to bring them back. Its about whether gyro express is going to have business. I dont see why your time should be wasted over trying to protect one shop over another. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hi. Im alex. Im a renter here in San Francisco in the chinatown neighborhood. And although i hope youve gotten a chance to find out, chinatown theres a lot of great restaurants, a lot of diversity of food, affordable options for people who often dont have a lot of good options in the rest of the city for affordable places to get their food. I think thats largely because for a long time in San Franciscos history people have been allowed to go into chinatown and be industrious and set up a business as they see fit. There was not a lot of control exercised over chinatown for a long time largely for bad reasons the neighborhood was largely written off by the city. But that allowed a lot of diverse tastes to flourish there. And i think it would be a shame to try to choke off the same thing happening in other neighborhoods. So please support this project and reject the discretionary review. Thank you. Next speaker please. Im hillary, i live in glen park. For my Public Comment i would like to read from an article that appeared on sf gate in december of last year. Its called owner explains why hes expanding his entire everywhere but sf. Born and raised in San Francisco has grown up and no longer feels welcome at home. Closed the store in the castro after the lease expired but hes given up looking for new locations in the city and moving on. He has a total of 50
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.