Little bit on the Carriage House. This is a little odd, but i want to talk about our variance request. About a month ago, after more than a year of processing, staff told us it may not or that it is disinclined to grant our rear yard variance request for the Carriage House on the grounds that it can be approved as an a. D. U. With a waiver from the Zoning Administrator. And respectfully, this is not something the project sponsor supports for a few different reasons. First, it would prohibit this unit from being available for someone to buy. While that may not sound like much, the Carriage House is a unique Home Ownership opportunity, nearly all new 800 square foot homes are in multiunit buildings. This would be a stand alone home, allowing someone who wouldnt be able to afford a home, that opportunity. This would aban awkward a. D. U. Unit. Would be an awkward a. D. U. Unit. Finally and most importantly for the Zoning Administrator, converting the rear garage into a dwelling unit meets all the criteria for a rear yard variance. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. This is an oversized lot. The Carriage House is already located in the rear yard and has been there for decades. Literal enforcement of the rear yard requirement would result in an unnecessary hardship or difficulty. It would force the Carriage House to either remain vacant or have a tenancy type imposed on it. The difficulties would be using it as storage. I would point out the a. D. U. Approach requires the administrator to grant an exception from the rear yard requirement. Its done as a waiver administratively and without this public hearing. I would say that its necessary for important property rights, other similarlysituated projects in the last few years have been granted this kind of variance, including the project on york street which got it for a number of new units. Its a little different. I would also argue that having control over tenancy type is a significant property right as well. Converting this to a dwelling unit will not harm neighbors and create new housing in existing structures, consistent with many different policies in the city. So we ask the commission to approve this project and respectfully request that the z. A. Consider granting the rear yard variance. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Really . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. This conditional use, then, is for the five units which includes the detached yes. Unit. And that detached unit or Carriage House is not previously a residential use so its not nonconforming then . The structure is a noncomplying structure. The use is not. Storage is permitted in the rear yard. Storage is, but residential was not there, so its not a nonconforming residential use . Correct. Okay. So the but its tied into the five units for our purposes, and the rear yard for the z. A. s purposes . Yeah, this is a little tricky depending on the outcome of the variance. What you are reviewing is a density request, and based on the Zoning Administrators take, we can sort of play with that as well. Has it ever varied . Good question. Ill go to my senior on this one. I cant recall a case quite like this. Its something for the commissions consideration as well. Because the staff noted you are considering the density. So you wouldnt need to grant the conditional use authorization for the fifth unit if they pursue the a. D. U. You would still need it for units three and four because its hr2. So you wouldnt need to grant as much of a conditional use authorization because there is another path available. The provisions are relatively new. Maybe nay they didnt hear the direction until recently. Its something the Zoning Administrator and i have, when a project comes in for a variance, and theres another alternative where they dont need the variance, that they can go through the a. D. U. Process, we have often denied those variance requests. A number of those have been appealed to the board of appeals as commissioner fung knows and the board of appeals has overturned those denials on a couple of occasions. So i wanted the project sponsor to be able to explain why they didnt think the a. D. U. Process was feasible or available to them here. So that was their opportunity, and thats what they have now done. So if the commission feels that its appropriate for all five units, i have no issue with the project itself and having housing there, its a question of is there another process by which they dont need the variance and that we would have an a. D. U. Which would then be rent controlled. Is that better than what they are proposing now . I was just confirming what entitlement request is in front of us. If we have the five units as a conditional use entitlement request but the variance is turned down, what happens . They would have the ability to have five units on the lot somewhere. Yeah, but they wouldnt have the ability to convert the rear unit. They could still do it through the a. D. U. Program. If you granted it, they wouldnt need it for the density. You want to address only the procedural question that was raised, please come forward. When i discussion discusss issue, it was suggested to me this commission could adopt a motion that is conditional, its conditional use, but it would be conditional that there would be five units. If the variance is granted and four if the variance is denied, with the idea then that that fifth unit would be an a. D. U. It would be up to five units, effectively. If the variance is denied, the project sponsor would pursue an a. D. U. Have you considered that . Thats under consideration. Okay. Commissioner moore. I want to set aside the a. D. U. Question for a moment, as much as i would like to see it, the project indeed builds condominiums, the addition of an a. D. U. In its location i think is manageable and quite a nice idea, because it was labeled as affordable by design. That holds for building an a. D. U. , that holds for renting an a. D. U. , but that aside, i think the project is approveable. I only have one question for the architect, and that is that i believe that the unit one has serious issues of no privacy at all. And im asking as to whether or not you would consider making slight modifications to that particular fact. When you look at how you get into the unit, you have to turn to page 81. Youll see that those people will be rising on the stairs going up to the other units, basically walk by the bedroom units, including those who go into the unit which one is that here . I forget my numbers, here. Unit 4, going straight to the passageway would also walk by those bedroom windows. So all three bedroom windows of units one are affected by people walking right by. The same thing happens in the rear where theres a master bedroom where the stairs, the fire escapes, the rear stairs are coming right by bedroom one and bedroom two. I consider that a lack of livability. And im wondering if theres a possibility to slightly reconfigure how those windows get light but do not come directly to the edge of the walkways and undercutting, creating an alcove. Good afternoon. Im with consulting. If i may have the overhead, please. So correct, thats the entry to unit four and unit one can be the walkway from sidewalk to that open area in front can be reconfigured to be away from the windows on the unit one and also basically provide more privacy for unit one, a buffer between that windows to the entry area. On top of that, that allyway or breezeway between the front of the house to the back of the house will be soundproof so basically mitigate any walking noise or access of the tenants in the back of the house, mitigate those noises to these two units. Thats open to work with staff to find the best solution for that. I appreciate the passageway. I dont think its ultimately a deal killer if its properly insulated, thats fine. My concern is about the windows just do not have the privacy i would be looking for. Thank you for your answer. Commissioner koppel. Yeah, i wanted to commend the architect. We have seen each other before. You guys always pretty much come by with a really contextually and modestlybuilt addition to the neighborhood. Im okay with the project as proposed but with commissioner moores additional comments included, i would like to make a motion to approve. Second. Im sorry, can you clarify the motion is for the staff recommendation with commissioner moores suggestions for design . And then if i could, i would also clarify in the motion that it would be up to five units, if thats what the commission wants, just because of the a. D. U. Thing. Wait, can you clarify what you just said . Because its two Different Things that could be. Right. So im asking if the commission can clarify in the motion you are about to make if you are okay with basically if you are okay with the project that only takes four units if they decide not to pursue the rear yard. Thats very important. To the maker of the motion. Im okay with five units, and im okay with having the fifth unit be an a. D. U. , which is what i understood the staff recommendation was. And so right . The back carport or storage being used, being the fifth unit. Thats where we get into tricky territory in that the staff recommendation is for the commission on the density the staff didnt make a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator for the variance. So they are kind of okay. But if we are approving five units as density, then the Zoning Administrator can can either grant the variance so they have the fifth unit under just a regular c. U. Provisions or deny the variance and they can still pursue it, but with the a. D. U. Its convoluted but if the variance is denied, they can still move forward with the project but with an a. D. U. And even if i guess what is the commissions consensus on the a. D. U. . I will speak to that and maybe you can provide us more guidance because im confused about what you want. I get it that you cant give them advice. He gives us advice. So i would like that to be an a. D. U. , and i get it that it provides it would possibly provide an Home Ownership opportunity for someone that would be at a lower price point than could be available. But it alsovoys a Home Ownership opportunity for it also provides a Home Ownership opportunity for someone with rental income to support their high mortgage and will provide a rental unit for someone who is going to be living there, so that would be consistent with what weve said in this commission. It is rent controlled. So we will go with that to me that would be my preference, to have five units and then have the unit in the back be the a. D. U. And i get it that it has to be attached to one of those units. I think that in the market, thats actually desirable. In the real estate market, people do look for that. Commissioner koppel. I wanted to clean up my motion. My motion was intended to include commissioner moores requests, but with the project as proposed. So please feel free to chime in and chip away at that. But that was my motion. It, it commissions preference is for the fifth unit to be an a. D. U. , then a. D. U. S get density waivers, you wouldnt need to grant the fifth unit. You could limit it to four. In the project as proposeed four plus one. Five units, but if the commission would like to see that rear unit being an a. D. U. , it could grant the i need to read what the motion says again. So in the motion, you are sayin so the motion is for the project as proposed from the applicants, it includes five units with the fifth unit being in the rear yard, obviously granting the fifth unit as a c. U. In the rear is contingent on the variances, the Zoning Administrators variance. If that doesnt go through, it is no more as proposed. So it can be separate out of this process because it doesnt need a conditional use. Okay. Got it now. I havent eaten. I will commissioner moore. Were you then saying that we support the four units with slight modifications to unit one, but the fifth unit, we would prefer not to take a variance but manifest itself as an a. D. U. , thats what we are saying. Thats not staffs recommendation. That is not staffs recommendation but that is what commissioner moore and i have said. And i think thats different from the motion that you have made. The motion of intent. Yeah. So do i hear a second to commissioner koppels motion . Second. Okay. Commissioner johnson would like to im sorry. Commissioner johnson. So the motion i think i got it, actually. So if i if it doesnt pass we have to make a counter motion. I will say i would like an a. D. U. At the rear unit. Commissioner diamond. If im to vote on commissioner koppels motion, am i voting for a five units or am i voting for a four unit c. U. And an a. D. U. . A fiveunit c. U. And the variance. You are not voting for the variance, you are even if the commission is encouraging that fifth unit could still be an a. D. U. , to complicate things further. If i vote against this motion, then we start against . Yeah, we would have another motion, yes. So, as i understand it there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the project as proposed with commissioner moores design modifications. On that motion [roll call vote] that motion fails 24 with commissioners diamond, johnson, moore and melgar voting against. Is there an alternate motion . Commissioner diamond. Oh that was not okay. Commissioner johnson. Make a motion to approve the conditional request of the four units with the amendments made by commissioner moore. Second just to clarify, you are saying four units and they have the option of adding an a. D. U. . With the option of adding an a. D. U. Do you need a second . Go ahead, commissioner diamond. Second. Okay. Theres a motion thats been seconded to approve a project with four units with the potential of an a. D. U. And commissioner moores design modifications. For unit one. Im sorry . For unit one. For unit one. On that motion,. [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes 51 with commissioner koppel voting against. Deny the requested variance that they can seek the unit through a. D. U. Program. Very good. That will place us on item 19 for case number 2018011904cua at 1420 tar very well street, a conditional use authorization. We received a request for Translation Services on this matter. Is that person here . Good, because our translator left. Good evening, planning commission, commissioner melgar. Southwest team. Im actually going to be presenting this for linda who unfortunately was ill today. The project before you is a conditional use authorization for the demolition of an existing threestory approximately 2,176 square foot singlefamily dwelling and construction of a new fourstory approximately 6,219 square foot mixeduse building with three dwelling units and ground floor commercial. The subject property is located on the parkside neighborhood and was constructed as a Single Family home in the early 1900s. Historic resource evaluation conducted for the property concluded that the home is not a resource. Properties in the immediate vicinity consist of two or threestory Single Family and multifamily dwellings, commercial buildings and two to four story mixed use buildings of varying design and construction. The block face is characterized by a two to four story builds, mixed styles. The existing structure is a twobedroom, twobath home with an attic which measures 34 feet, overall for the structure to the midpoint of the sloped roof. The new structure would provide three bedroom, three threebedroom units, two bath dwellings ranging from size up to 1632 square feet and will include a ground floor area of commercial space of 1,731 square feet. And overall building will have approximate ate of 45 feet. In addition, the project will include 1,392 square feet of usable open space through a combination of private and common open space. To date, the department has received one comment expressing opposition to the demolition of the existing residence, which is constructed back in the early 1900s. Due to to its historical value in the neighborhood. The staffs recommendation is approval of this conditional use authorization. Its on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, all the project does involve demolition of a residence, the proposed replacement building will provide three familysized units of varying comparable size and a new ground floor commercial space. The Department Also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons of adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes staff presentation. Im available to answer any questions. The project sponsor is available to answer questions as is my preservation tech support. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Washington. We will now hear from the project sponsor. My name is bill, im an architect practicing and living in the city. Ive lived there since 1977 and practiced. This is my 43rd year of practice in San Francisco. I enjoy doing what i do. I raised three kids. I really try and feel that i enjoy working on projects where they are family. I do my best to have my projects be familyoriented in terms of the design, particularly in this case of the threebedroom. I also feel as a bonus you also get the commercial space at the ground level, what was there now has been rather plain, white stucco walls, its very empty, and not an attractive street to walk along. I think this will greatly enhance the pedestrian space along the street. I want to be brief. The only thing i would mention, there was confusion on my part at one point, i thought i had an email from the planning about a continuance that didnt happen, but our rendering which we did was submitted rather late. The only thing i saw on there, when i originally started the project, i assumed that it was a 40foot height limit. I was notified by planning because the retail or commercial space, i should say, below, that there is a 15foot requirement for the bottom floor so we went from 40 to 45 feet. Looking at the project now, i certainly feel, i hate to say this if my wife is is looking, but i feel the top should be eliminated. I think it would be nicer just at the set height. Thank you. One more thing. The owner isnt here. Hes owned the building 19 years. There was nobody evicted. As far as we know, there was no opposition. Ive gotten no calls. We did meet with one adjacent neighbors, more informational about what we were doing and the construction, how that would impact them. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any Public Comment on the item . I have one speaker card, ilene boken. I am with the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. Im also the president of speak, sunset action committee. Im here in opposition of the demolition. As president of speak, i did attend the meeting for 1420 taraval. I asked the architect will the residents had historical significance. The answer that was that the site had been researched and had no significance. Based on this questionable information, there was no followup by speak at that time. Speak has enacted preservations for half a century, including the site of the former Shriners Hospital on 19th avenue which was preserved largely through speaks efforts as well as the sullivan house. The 1420 taraval site does have historic significance. This is according to an email from staff. It was constructed in 1907. It is an early and rare example of residential buildings in the neighborhood. This is a keenen house and early arts and crafts house and the first bay style house. There have been minor alterations. These alterations, however, appear to be easily reversed. The current house has a high level of integrity. As a sunset parkside neighborhood was largely developed after world war ii, there are few buildings which predate that period, therefore you would urge the commission to deny the demolition permit for 1420 taraval, which is one of the buildings of architectural and historical significance that remain in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner fung. I wanted to check with the other commissioners. I didnt get any rendering. And the drawings i got dont show me the architectural character. I dont know whether the printing was incorrect, but i got blocks of black. Okay. Mr. Washington, do you have an answer for this issue . From these drawings, i cant tell what the character or design is. You should have had in your packet, there is this one rendering thats provided by the project sponsor. Dont have that. Texture on this copy. Why dont you present the project in detail and explain architecturally the condition . Can you pull the microphone so that we can hear you . Sorry about that. I actually did not receive the packet in the mail. Normally this is mailed to me, and i wasnt quite sure, so whatever was mailed out, i never had a chance to look at. I do promptly five to ten of these a year. And normally its pretty straightforward, and i do color, particularly on the sydell sidee side elevations. The bay with the woodsideing and the other part would be a cement plaster type. We would have a storefront at the bottom with the windows above it. So is there any specific other questions about the aesthetics . Commissioner fung . Okay. Commissioner moore. I would agree with commissioner fung that the middle by accident or whatever, lacks a number of substantial pieces for us to see, in addition the photography about the building which is supposed to have architectural value as an Historic Building are not there. What concerns me most is that i personally do not see the benefit of tearing down a wellsized, wellproportioned family home and adding three units which look more speculative, particularly when it deals with a ground floor addition of a commercial space, which is primarily there for office. Its too deep, with no windows to do anything else but office. It cant be retail, it doesnt have enough frontage. So im concerned that this looks very much like a developer project to maximize profit and move the project into being sold. I do not im not convinced, as i said before, that the added units really address issues which really deal with the type of housing we are often looking for. I also dont believe theres detail that the two roof decks at the top are appropriate for this neighborhood. So i would prefer to continue this project as the architect controls what type of package is being submitted, give us more clarity about the ground floor use and the justification how the unit design really adds value rather than being speculative units that destroy a larger family home. That would be my direction on this. Continuance with additional work to be done by the architect. Commissioner koppel. Just to kind of put this in a reference frame, this is sunset, and we talk about the west side of town very frequently. And actually this is the kind of housing im actually looking for eventually at some point, without going above the height limits, just dense if iing existing lots. Just dense if if density for tg lots. We have more Single Family homes in the sunset. Obviously three full flats, and whether it be a lobby, a. D. U. , garages, whatnot, i think this is the direction we should be going, especially in these neighborhoods, at some point. Commissioner johnson. I would agree with commissioner koppel. I actually would see this type of housing as an asset. I do i would like to hear from staff about the issue of it being potentially historic. If you could comment on that. Stefani, department staff, preservation planner. So we conducted ceqa review for this project, which included looking at whether or not we consider this a Historic Resources for the purposes of ceqa. We did have a qualified consultant prepare a Historic Resource evaluation report. A historic evaluation report determined the building was not significant individually under any criteria. Staff disagreed with that, and we ultimately made a determination that the building is significant under two criteria, but that it didnt retain enough integrity to be considered Historic Resource. So we acknowledge that its significant, but we looked at the existing conditions and took into consideration the changes that have been made, because when we are doing our review for preservation, we have to look at it in its existing condition and not what if. So we determined that there was enough original material that had been moved, there was enough changed that had been made that it no longer retained integrity. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. I too support doing three flats in this area. It adds more housing on the west side. But based upon that brief view of the design, im not comfortable this its the right design that fits into the neighborhood, either in color or style. But i only had two seconds to look at it, but it was jarring to me. I will say that i too would support a three flat over commercial on this property. I think that it is as the other commissioners have stated, the kind of infill housing that i would be looking for. That being said, what is in the packet is whatever it is, i dont know if its what you meant to put here. I dont like it. I think its unimaginative. And i also dont like the materials as i can see them on my screen. I dont know if it varies like the materials sheet or something that you meant to include. But i would like a little bit more in terms of the design for us to approve what we are looking for. I also like the issue with the roof decks, it is a real one, because it is above the two neighboring properties, and i cant see from the materials what its like in the context of the properties behind it. So i dont know what it does, both the roof deck above the commercial space and the roof deck on the very top unit. So i would like to have a sense i mean, i understand that its a required open space, so i would like to have a sense of what it does to the neighboring properties. And i dont really have a sense about that. So i just i think we need a little bit more to make this decision. But the three units over commercial for me, its yes. Its just im not really sure what we are approving. Okay. Commissioner moore. The other question i would like the commission to think about and i will be asking him perhaps to come to the microphone. In my rule book, living rooms are oriented to the south, as the existing building does. This has been reversed to living rooms being on the north side and the bedrooms being on the south side. All of us in the builtup city would like to have sunlight in our living room, including what dining and kitchen may be affected, and here its reversed, and i wonder why that is. And i would like that to be considered in terms of quality of life. Ill give you an answer on that one. The lower level really has at the first floor of living has the large roof deck, and therefore wherever you have the deck, thats where you want your living room to orient to. I did think very clearly about putting the living rooms in the front. I just felt because of that bottom unit and because on the 25foot width property and three unions, you have to get two rooms of egress in there, and thats really tough in these projects. And just given the layout that having the living rooms in the back with the deck, particularly for that lower level made sense. And once that was determined to try and do individual designs and reorient the upper units would have been a really a detriment to the overall design of the project. There also is and i know this is a problem the taraval has by the way, its a great street for transportation. And im going to be honest with you, if you cant put three units here, this is not part of the avenue. This is on a commercial street. And if not here, then where would be my question. If this was in a neighborhood, you wouldnt want this type of building, but this is in major commercial street. I will say theres all kinds of comments on design. Weve seen the issues with 25 and 100 neighbors being opposed. We dont have a single neighbor here coming in opposition to the project itself. I understand there was a misunderstanding about the historic report but there is absolutely zero opposition to this. There is so little impact on this. In terms of the roof designs, i do quite a bit of it. We have all the roof back design. Im happy to give you more information on that. Commissioner melgar. But the roof deck is per because you can sorry, mr. Sanchez isnt here, but you can get an over the counter permit for a roof deck based on it being set back here, i did take into consideration not to impact neighbors. I looked at the dimension, its 13 feet from the end of the roof at the top. I do not think theres any visibility of anybody looking over into the anybodys neighbors backyard. And i think given that plus the setback, that puts it at about 40foot difference. In San Francisco when we have rear yards, we are neighbor to neighbor, so really the open space here has no impact on any privacy or noise issues. And i think its been pulled back. I can pull it back more if thats the desire here. But i i hope you heard. Because i dont think we said any of that. Im sorry. My wife says i get didnt say anything about the density. I think many of us, thats exactly what we want. We said the opposite of what you are thinking. I apologize about the presentation. I actually did not get this in the mail. If i had got this in the mail, i would have made a call. There was a lot of confusion. I dont know if this helped. At one point because all right. Thank you. Commissioner moore. I still believe that commissioner diamonds request to see the building more in context to consider what a roof deck does and shouldnt do is important. I believe that there are no roof decks in this neighborhood and the roof deck does still affect others. So that decision should still be decided in a completely independent way. And we should not be trying to decide that in the moment. We are not denying the project. I can support three units. How are, i need to have a better understanding of what the ground floor does, because its unworkable. Did somebody make a motion for continuance . No, we have not done that yet. But i will do that to ask the architect to listen to what we talked about here, provide us with a more substantive package, including considerations about materiality and building fit in terms of context. So i make a motion to continue the project by looking towards two months . Do you need a month . Eight weeks . Holidays. I would say sixweeks. Staff, you heard us, right . Continue. What is the date . That would be like january 30th. We are consistent. Well work with project architect to work on design, make sure the presentation that is presented to you ahead of time is clear and specific. And if you have any other details, we can work with the architect. Thank you, mr. Washington. Is there a second . Second. On that motion to continue this matter to january 30, [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passed unanimously 60. That will place us on item 20 for 2019015307cua at 2222 bush street, a conditional use authorization. Good evening, commissioners. Laura for planning staff. Because of the late hour im going to be very brief. The proproposal is a conditional use authorization to establish a Cannabis Retail use within the upper fillmore street neighborhood commercial district. The site is located in the Western Addition neighborhood and the japantown planning area. The commercial establishment characterizing this area include a mix of Retail Stores as well as numerous eating and drinking establishments. Surrounding residential zones districts are zoned rh3 and mr1. The property is a through lot with frontage on willmont street. It is developed with a two story over basement mixed use building. The proposal involves interior tenant improvements on the ground and basement levels with no expansion of the existing tenant space or building. It is conditional to business signage and changes at the rear of the building which are not visible to the street. No tenants will be displaced by this project. The subject site was previously occupied by the former building owner, unity church, which utilized both the basement and ground floor levels. The church has relocated to page street, and the site is currently vacant. The nearest similar cannabis use is located 1. 4 miles away on gross street. In your packets, the Public Comments are noted. There were seven in support and one opposed to the project. After the commission packets were published, we received additional comments. There were five email messages from neighbors in support of the project and six email messages from neighbors who are opposed to the project. Those in opposition cited concerns regarding the lack of parking, a fear of increased crime and proximity to childcare uses. The project has support from both the Japantown Merchants Association and the fillmore Merchants Association, both of these letters are included in your packets. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization. The project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. The proposed use will occupy an otherwise vacant storefront, compliment the mix of goods and Services Currently available in the district and contribute to the Economic Vitality of the neighborhood. This concludes my presentation. Ill be available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor. Good afternoon, distinguished members of the planning commission. Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is timothy, a verified equity applicant with office of cannabis. My wife and i have lived in San Francisco all our lives. Equity qualifications has many different criteria. One of the groups of people recognized by the distinction are these people individually adversely affected by the war on cannabis, which we all know is legal. When i was nine my stepfather was sentenced to two and a half years for growing 30 plants. When i was 11 my uncle served three years in follow some for r the cannabis. One can only imagine how much this affected me. My mother was a single Parent School teacher and did her best to fight for me and teach me how to be a good person. When i was 21 i was arrested for a cannabisrelated issue. In 2013 after consulting Legal Counsel and seeing the compassion, i could operate without fear of retribution, i decided to work for a medical cannabis delivery service. I did everything from grow, learn about extracting cannabis, answer the phones and make personal deliveries. Up to this point i always thought cannabis only use was to get you high. In interacting with the patients, i learned people were using it for medicinal purposes. For me this struck a cord and i decided i needed to get more involved in the medical cannabis movement. In 2015 i became a San Francisco territory sales rep for northern californias legal distributer. San francisco being the center for the medical cannabis movement, my career quickly evolved. I went from one amazing opportunity to the next and had the chance to teach fellow San Franciscos on the value of medical cannabis through hours working at dispensaries and being a brand ambassador. By 2017 it became apparent i needed to seek alternative means of income as my career was feeling mentally and spiritually but not enough to get by. I was made aware of the equity program, i applied and was verified. Knowing i needed partners to get the business started, i began to take interviews. This is where i found josh from liberty cannabis. It was important a partner have a Strong Foundation and belief in cannabis as medicine as well as a Great Respect for San Francisco heritage of the medical cannabis movement. With josh, i found that partner who not only believed in cannabis therapy but spearheaded a project for d. R. Mothers to use cannabis for seizures for their children. Josh has given me the guidance and support through this process. Without him, it would not have come this far. I am eager to let him introduce himself but also wanted to touch on the project before i turn it over. One thing to note about the location at bush street in the fillmore district is theres not another dispensary within a mile. This means we will be providing a muchneeded cannabis dispensary for those who rely on cannabis as a form of medicine. Its worth noting we have been contacted by some of our neighbors who have expressed their excitement over being able to purchase their medicine in the neighborhood. Because we are bringing Cannabis Store to a neighborhood that has no experience with dispensaries, we knew in order for this dream to become realized, i would need to be very engaged in our community. This process started by speaking at the fillmore Merchants Association meeting. We were honored to receive their letter of support. I was asked to teach classes on cannabis a half block from our location. I was introduced to the chief priestly. He runs a nonprofit that helps employ minorities and formerly incarcerated individuals. He asked if i would help create a class to educate his practitioners about what the Legal Cannabis space looks like and how to operate in it. I am currently creating that curriculum. I took it upon myself to host a meet and greet at the fillmore jazz festival. This is where i gathered over 90 signatures. Ive gone around to every merchant within 300 feet and gathered support. In addition to multiple letters of support from individuals and businesses, ive received letters of support from the Japantown Merchants Association, District Six Community planners. All the associations speak of the positive impact. I attended a meeting with the Japantown Task force, listened to their concerns and did my best to address them. Is that five minutes . It is. Your time is up. I thought i had ten minutes. Its up to ten minutes. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I have one speaker card from christopher hayes. Im christopher hayes. I wonder if we can get this thing operating. There it is. You need to speak in the microphone. You can pull the microphone towards you. Its bendy. There you go. This is the facility right here. This is bush street. This is fillmore. My wife and i moved into this house right here on willmont street in 1978. Its an 1883 victorian. It had no foundation when we moved in. Now its got a foundation. Its been retrofitted. So weve been there for quite a while. I only wish that the commission would add two conditions to their approval of this. And the first is that as you can see, there is about a 30foot undeveloped area in the rear of the lot which the willmont street frontage. Its been used by the unity church for employee parking only. We have five kids, children who live on willmont street. And we really dont want the people who use the store to use willmont street. They come in and park there. And employee parking is fine. Customer parking should not be allowed on that street. The second condition i think you should do is i dont know if smoking is supposed to be allowed but it should be disallowed at the store, because the wind blows from the west sometimes, from the south and from the east sometimes. And we are going to get it if smoking is allowed there. So you should also consider that st. Dominicks church is 390 feet away. They have an a. A. Meeting once a week. Theres a preschool 885 feet away on the Southwest Corner of pierce and pine. And the school which has grades k through five is 1500 feet away. Thank you. Thank you. Next Public Comment, please. My name is ryan with local five. Not only have the applicants been a very active participants in the equity program, theyve also been dedicated to organized labor, having the foothold in this industry. We are putting our full sport behind good actors in the industry who are going to help legitimize it and make it prosperous as well as making it open for labor and careers within the industry. So we support this measure. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner johnson. So i know this area very well. I think ive often thought about what would go in the unity church space. And one thing that has come to mind as ive been reviewing this packet is we talk about wanting to make sure that theres Cannabis Retail equity, meaning that we have Cannabis Stores in all over the districts, not just in some of them. So i was interested to see that this popped up in the fillmore, which i dont think weve i havent seen before. I was touched to read all the letters of support that have come through. And i also i would be amenable to the suggestions that were named by the member of the public who spoke around Customer Parking not happening in the back. Onsite consumption is it sounded like in the packet it said you were not going to do onsite consumption so i would be supportive of that being part of the motion. And so i am supportive of it. And i want to make a motion, but i also want to give my fellow commissioners a chance to speak. Commissioner koppel. Is there anyone else that wants to chime in . No, she took my point. I would like to make a motion to approve through commissioner johnson. [laughter] second. Subject to the conditions . Yes, very much so very good. Theres a motion to approve this project can conditions as have been amended to include no Customer Parking in the rear and no onsite consumption. On that motion [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes unanimously, 50. Commissioners that will place us on item 21 for case 2018015554cua, 95 nordhoff street, a conditional use authorization. Five minutes. Its 8 30. Good evening, president melgar, commissioners. Department staff. The case before you is a request for conditional use authorization. Existing lot currently containing a sickle family dwelling units into four lots, two will be substandard lots. It will develop to the proposed four lots with Single Family dwelling unit for a total of three dwelling units and an existing Single Family home. One lot will remain vacant. It is a lot located on the west side of nordhoff street between stillings and mangels avenue. A hearing was heard on april 11, 2019 in which the commission continued the item and request the sponsors explore the construction of a. D. U. S within the three proposed Single Family dwelling units over the reduction of the dwelling units. In response to the planning commissions direction, the sponsors have explored reduction of Single Family dwelling units. The sponsors have reduced the size of each unit by 150 and 160 square feet. In doing so, the top floors will be set back at minimum 28 feet and 6 inches from the property line. The item before you is required by 121 for the subdivision of an existing lot and the construction of a Single Family home. To date the department has received four responses in opposition of the project. Members of the public expressing opposition state concerns for the increased density and transit impacts to the neighborhood. The department received 24 responses for the project. The Department Recommends approval with conditions believing the project