massage that requires conditional use. it would be the first city recognized massage building on pulte street. -- on polka street. we have contacted the department of public health and the police department that regulates the size establishments. at this time, neither agency has concerns about the business or operator. departments that has received letters of support. today, staff just received a letter of support from the mayor's office of economic workforce development, which i can forward to the commission if they would like to review it. in opposition, staff has received two letters from nearby businesses. the department's staff believes the conditional use authorization request would be

desirable and compatible with the net but and it recommends approval. at the project would provide greater diversity of uses in the theory that rigid greater uses of the area andpol street. it would offer consumer service to residents and workers. it promotes small-business ownership by a local resident, and there is no indication that applicants are involved in any illegal enterprises typically related to massage establishments. this concludes the staff presentation and i am available for comment. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the sponsor of this project, and i have been doing business in block 1300 of polk

street for several years. we are doing well, have a lot of support from customers living in that area, and now i am proposing another location at 1617 polk. i have been doing outreach and working with merchants and neighbors, and already there is wide support. also, we have cooperation with the police department but also public health department, so with this regard, i respectfully request the approval of this project so i can move forward with another business, creating more jobs in san francisco. thank you. president olague: thank you. open for public comment.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is dawn, with the middle polk neighborhood association. i was concerned because i did not understand the business. i was concerned. however, upon visiting the correct location, i learned that i was wrong in my concern, and what we had o heren polk abnnd bush is a clean, classy spa. thai massage is a form of therapy. since first seeing this business, i have become a client and have been back several times. this particular business

expansion has been presented to the residence of the middle polka neighborhood association twice, once an art neighborhood meeting and our second time in our january meeting, reminding people this would be heard today and people had the opportunity to express any concern. the only comments we received from the residents were positive regarding this expansion. the polk district neighborhood merchant association is favorable to this business expansion, and the police captain reports this business has a clean record with no calls for service. in addition, i like to note that on the door of the correct location there is a clear sign saying do not comment if you are looking for an illicit or in legal services. this business is a classy spot that would be a great addition to pull street, the neighborhood, and we hope to

welcome them with your approval. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is lori martin. i'm a business owner in the lower polk corridor, and a client. in 2005, when they came in, i was super excited something with diversity, something unique to my neighborhood was coming in. i am happy to report that the own a,ron, relocated his business to the corner of bush and polk and has been successful. he is an absolute asset to our neighborhood, and i hope that he is granted the permission that he needs to expand his business to the middle polk neighborhood. president olague: thank you.

is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i did not come for this item, but i know ron personally, and he is the part- time property manager for my church. he has been for a number of years. is very reliable, dedicated, and very honest. i support his effort. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioner sugaya: i don't know if i have a conflict, but i get massages there occasionally. i must admit, my body cannot take the time massage. because of what they do, but i had a very it enjoyable massage

the other day. i don't know if that is a conflict. i have to pay him, he does not pay me. i can attest to the fact that his business, i think, is probably in need of additional space. when i was there around christmas time to purchase some gift certificates, about three people came men and he had to turn them away. -- came in and he had to turn them away. so i would like to make a motion to approve with conditions. commissioner antonini: second. commissioner moore: i was going to chime in and say i love thai the size and i am glad that it is moving into more central locations. i am in full support of it and i will welcome the expansion. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to approve the

condition. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i just wanted to mention that i have to read clues myself from the next item. >> commissioners you are now on the items 12 a and b, case number 2,009.0175, and 214-2 16 17th avenue. commissioner antonini: i need to rid clues myself from this item. the product sponsor is a dental patient of mine and i have received in excess of five federal dollars for dental

services. even though some of it came from a third-party carrier, the rule is regardless of the source that is deemed a conflict. so i will be back after this. commissioner moore: we have to first move to reduce them. commissioner borden: -- to rec use him. >> of the motion to recuse commissioner antonini -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the case before it is for conditional use authorization for development on a lot > 4999 square feet. it the subject property is located at the corner of california street and 17th at

avenue in the nc-1 zoning district. it contains an l-shaped building on california street and commercial building. the proposal includes demolishing the existing two residential units on 17th avenue, demolishing approximately 945 square feet at the rear of the commercial structures, subdividing the subject lot into two lots, creating one lot on the california and 17th avenue that would contain the remainder of the commercial buildings and another fake a lot that would front on 17th avenue at -- another vacant lot that would front of 17th avenue. it would include four ground level of street parking spaces

and a one story vertical addition that would contain one residential unit of the commercial space. the project will result in two buildings of onetwo -- two buildings on two separate lots. the project is also seeking a rear yard variance and active street frontage variances, which will be heard by the zoning administrator following the commission's actions on the case. complies with the planning code and is consistent with the general plan. the staff recommendation is approval with conditions, and i would like to illustrate the morning of the project over time. we worked with the preservation staff and the project sponsor to minimize the impact of the addition on the commercial structures. this is originally what they

came forward with. it is quite large, with a large cornice that sticks out. what we sought to do was make a day later building -- lighter building, more transparent, and feed more into the background. that concludes my presentation and i am happy to take any questions you have. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, i am tony kim, representing the sponsor. it will preserve an historic resources. i plan to analyze the potential development schemes of the subject property and the initial scheme involved stacking three

stories above the existing building, the full life. my client quickly realized this was not feasible and would cause a negative impact to the historic resource. we worked closely with the preservation staff and our consultants to determine what portion of the existing building was worth saving in what could be removed. from those discussions, we realized subdividing the large lot into two code complying lots would appropriately preserve the historic resources, develop a building and look for the vertical addition with the appropriate setbacks so the proposed addition to support and it to the historic resource, and create a new vacant lot on 17th avenue with the residential building that fits on a residential street. this triggers a number of variances. i did not lead to the labor them, but we should address them. on the new corner lot, the vertical addition is set back 10

feet. as a result the addition list pushed back from the rear of lot. we are allowing a small setback. the new interior lot requires 15 foot rear yard, providing 15 feet on the ground level. it does not seem like it is practically usable. it is deeper than our lot and building. therefore it seeks to encroach into the required rear yard and provided 15 feet private backs that are staggered and elevated that are more practical and usable for each unit. the interior building also seeks a variance from the planning code that requires a proposal for active use on the ground floor. we believe that the store fronts at california meet the intent of that code section, but since the liberal requirement

incorporates a community/exercise room on the ground floor of 17th avenue, we are slightly deficient from the code requirement but we believe is sufficient for a corner commercial building and residential street. we don't believe these pose any negative impacts to the adjacent properties. the neighbor directly to the south on 17th avenue would be most affected by the variances and application and fully supports the project. we have a hand written a letter from him. we held an informational neighborhood meeting on october 21, 2010 at the subject property. eight members attended with questions associated with construction time once, off street parking, the studio, and the light well. we have communicated effectively with the logistic neighbors and addressed the light well. in conclusion, it allows appropriate separation and preservation of the resource and creates family sized units,

housing opportunities encouraged above the ground floor zoning district. it encourages the quality construction of family house and it established residential and neighborhood commercial districts. everybody was happy to hear that ms. tilly will be returning to a customized dance studio and we respectfully request you approve the project. thank you. president olague: thank you. i have a couple of speaker cards. >> good afternoon. looks like i am outnumbered. i am here to protest the size of this building and to comment on the proposed parking allotment. this proposes four living units

in addition to existing commercial space. the number of bedrooms in the proposal is 10, and the number of parking spaces is four. i don't really understand whya one-bedroom unit requires a parking space, five bedroom unit requires the same solitary space -- parking space, that is. it to me, that does not seem right. in spite of that, the commercial space alone it engenders the continued flow of traffic with cars double parked or parking illegally in a jason driveways, -- in adjacent driveways, and i know that because i own one of those driveways. furthermore, buyout preoccupation is with the size of the structure and parking -- my preoccupation is with the

size of the structure and parking. there will be additional cars on the street. the street has recently changed to a two-hour permit parking. the existing situation is already difficult, and although there are amenities is within walking distance, residents have to used cars. i-- residents have to used cars. existing older buildings to not have sufficient parking for their occupants. many were built and the horse and buggy days. the proposed size of the building will further change the character of the neighborhood. while increased density may be good for builders and the city tax base, i believe the quality of life for residents, we have already seen many single-family homes taken down and replaced with multiple units, all around california, 16th avenue, 17th avenue of.

this drives families with children out of the neighborhood, which also impacts the schools, neighborhood schools. to make this matter even worse, the plan redesign, when that starts, there will be a huge transfer of trafficke to california street and people will be killing one another for parking space. i urge the planning department to take all the of life into consideration and slow the modernization of this part of the city. the attraction of this neighborhood is its relatively low density compared with other parts of the city. please keep it that way as much as possible. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you, -- president olague: thanks you, butmama'am.

>> good afternoon. some of my concerns that go the last speaker. ms. tilly's ballet school, what it attracts a lot of traffic, there is a lot of drop off and pick up for each transaction. i know that it is dozens when the school is running at full tilt, and this causes the aforementioned double parking situation but that goes down 17th and around california. on the other hand, when you look at the drawings, i am impressed. it is a good looking structure, or structures, and i would not be opposed on the face of it. try to be a reasonable person, i am a neighbor down the street. i own the five-unit apartment building. if there would be some kind of consideration, i am fairly

certain right now there is no green zone in front of the ballet school facilities, but i know across the street at the coffee shop, it probably does not generate the same amount of car traffic. i understand that business owner pays quite a decent amount of money to the city for the privilege of having a green zone and rotating the cars through. so that somebody cannot park a car there for eight hours and their bills passed to double park. i guess i would just like to have that consideration added in. probably the first thing people ask me when i want to rent a place for me is, how was the parking? is there parking and is there a washing machine, something like that. we already have a situation where it is tight. i see adding housing units as

making it slightly tighter. so this would be a chance to bring the situation into compliance. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here because i live on the street. i am not here for this project, but i have some questions in regards to policy. 1 california street, it is n.c. district, and the adjacent properties on 17th avenue is r.r. -- r.h. i asked mr. starr, the planner, if this had gone through review. he told me no because this was at this district.

i don't think that was a good or appropriate answer, because it is adjacent, it abuts, and even if it is a n.c. district, it should go through that review. looking at the building, it looks like they took some consideration into the project because they set back the fourth floor, front and back, but i don't know what the policy is in such a matter where two buildings may be different zoned, so i hope that you might provide an answer in that regard. because there might be similar situations where this might occur. president olague: thank you.

is there additional project -- is there additional -- >> good afternoon. i am ms. tilly, the subject of the ballet school on the corner, and i must say that it will impact me more than anyone else i can think of, but i have come to be in full support of the redevelopment. they have been very cooperative and they have made me feel comfortable. of course, there will be the interim or have to move out and find something to currie, but that should be no longer than a year's time -- or have to move out and find something temporary. i am eager to get on with the project and have all the wonderful improvements. president olague: thank you. is there additional public

comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: knowing the richmond district, as i do, most people know ms. tilly, and i appreciate you coming here because i knew there would have been the question as to how the business would have been approached. since the lot has been, in effect, separated, i am questioning why there has to be ground-floor on 17th avenue piece of property. that is a subdivide at what. to me, that variants, even though they have agreed to put an end a community or exercise room, i don't even think it is

necessary because, as a separate lot, it is not, to my mind, part of the n.c.d. however, if they have agreed to do that, so be it. that is fine with me. i think the treatment of the commercial property itself on california street was handled very well. judging from the various iterations of the development that i have seen, occur at one works, works well from the street, and it does not interfere with what ever historic properties there may be on the original corner building itself. i think the rest of everything fits in very well. i fully understand the parking. the parking is just as difficult and the majority of the richmond district, that area of the richmond district, particularly

near neighborhood commercial districts. it is one to one, totally to code. there is no parking variance asked for in this. when you get into rear yard situations, and properties that are adjacent to n.c. districts, you often have a problem because the main n.c. streets are allowed to go full lot coverage and the adjacent properties have problems raising it up d and putting up decks in. i think that is an excellent solution and still allows open space, and i would move. we go ahead with this project with conditions. president olague: commissioner moore commissioner moore: i am coming

from a slightly different perspective, perhaps not fully represented the experience of living in the neighborhood, but one which observes the building and observes a change which will put a major spin to reinterpreting what has been identified as a resource. let me start with the california side, with the smaller commercial buildings. that building on its own is unusual enough to remind you of a paris influence garden architecture, which has its own sherm -- which has its own charm. it speaks to something unusual. the use behind it is an expression of the building. with the subdivision of the lot and subsequent design which is in front of us, it is really starting to put a top hat on this building.

i have a hard time with that. i think the design itself does not meet the challenge of the quarter situation, including straddling what this requires us to do. i find this is designe simplistic. it speaks to residential design on the corner without taking the challenge on 17th avenue. we have a very simple residential expression on 17th avenue, and i believe this building needs to do something else in order for me to support it. what i'd like to qualify is i am not as much concerned about the subdivision as a lot, but i think the architectural challenge and the urban design challenge is much larger. i did not want to carry the residential expression