That s when it is your turn to begin speaking. When your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person to speak. Best practice is to call from a quiet environment, speak slowly and clearly, and please announce your name. I d like to take roll at this time. [roll call] clerk: thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Items 1 a and b for case numbers 2019013808cua and var for the property at 4300 17 street. A request for conditional use authorization and variant, and item 2, 2021001579cua, at 2715 judah street, a conditional use authorization, is proposed for continuance to october 14, 2021. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to make public comment by pressing star, three. Okay. Seeing no members of the public i take it back. Go ahead, caller. You have one or two minutes. I m opposing this ceo on 2715 judah street clerk: we re only taking comments on the matter of continuance.
Project responser. Rivion is an exciting new company. Due to this larger size, they are expected to replace gas powers commercial business leads to move away from gas powered vehicles. They expect to release vehicles this fall. What you re seeing is renovated restored property. Next slide, please. 340 fell is a perfect fit for rivian. It s operated that way ever since. For its customers, for things such as tire changes, wheel alignment. Their service operations will be much cleaner and quieter and more consistent with the commercial neighborhood district. Next slide. Rivian s proegs will include an accessory sells area. Model cars will be displayed and sales associates can conduct sales. If we can go back to the first slide, thank you. Rivian will restore and enhance the facade of the historic building and continue its use for another generation. The conditional use authorization is required to merge the three existing tenant spaces. The small store front character will be unchanged. L
president yee: good afternoon. and welcome to the october 6th, 2020, regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. clerk: thank you, mr. president. supervisor fewer. commissioner fewer: present. clerk: supervisor haney? supervisor haney: present. clerk: supervisor mandelman? supervisor mandelman: present. clerk: supervisor mar. supervisor mar: present. clerk: supervisor peskin. supervisor peskin: present. clerk: supervisor preston. supervisor preston: present. clerk: supervisor ronen. supervisor ronen: present. clerk: supervisor safai. supervisor safai: present. clerk: supervisor stefani. supervisor stefani: present. clerk: supervisor walton. supervisor walton: present. clerk: and supervisor yee. president yee: present. clerk: mr. president, all members are present. president yee: okay. thank you. please place your right hand over your heart. will you please join me
but i am very familiar with that section of the building code and that s been an enormous frustration. as a retired c.p.a., i m used to opining, but opining on financial matters. i get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103(a). i think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, it s important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. thank you for explaining that. the question i think is a real question. i would like to have an answer to it. we may not have that answer today. i would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. that s the only comment of where i have common ground with your comments. i personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. but the building as a replacement building is too large. th
no, i wasn t. but i am very familiar with that section of the building code and that s been an enormous frustration. as a retired c.p.a., i m used to opining, but opining on financial matters. i get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103(a). i think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, it s important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. thank you for explaining that. the question i think is a real question. i would like to have an answer to it. we may not have that answer today. i would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. that s the only comment of where i have common ground with your comments. i personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. but the building as a replacement building