2004, this home was built -- actually was part of the larger property that we're requesting to subdivide now and this was in 2004. and in 2008, this property which is about three lots north of us got approved for a single family home and the property next to that just recently got built as a single family home as well. so i think that our project fits nicely with the neighborhood in terms of look and size, the lot width, and a denser multiunit building would not be in character with the neighborhood. it also -- actually, i also want to point out that since 2006 when we started with the preproject applications and

2007, february, when we actually did the formal application, there was never any indication the department wanted anything higher density than what we proposed and it wasn't until july 2009, over two years later, that, you know, the planning department mentioned they wanted a higher density. and even then in our discussions with r.d.t., i was not convinced there was an overwhelming staff support for the six units. and i think at the time r.d.t. had some strong personalities which i believe are no longer there. also, i'd like to point out we held two neighborhood meetings for the project, and there was no opposition from the neighbors, and in the presentation that we made to

them, it was always presented as a four-unit project and now to go back and say that we have to put six units when the neighbors are opposed to nothing being done and going from four to six is probably going to be a difficult thing to pass through to the neighbors. also, increasing density will also make the size of the building smaller -- or the unit smaller, sorry. and that will make it less family friendly and will probably require that we take out the elevators from the buildings that we're proposing because, you know, there won't be enough size, or enough space to be included and by not having the elevators would be less family friendly and maybe senior friendly as well. and so just to point out again

that the size of the -- the density of the project is more in line with the rest of diamond street as we proposed. so i would request that you support my project and approve it. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, president olague and the commissioners. my name is eugene cho and representing dabring associates, the architect for this project. i would like to emphasize this proposed project, we're proposing the four new single family house. they are a modest size. it's ranging from 2,700 to 3,000 square feet in living area, and they're all three

bedrooms, three bathrooms with an elevator to accommodate extended families with seniors, which i think the city greatly promotes the families to live in the cities and why we decided this approach. and in terms of the general building designs, as you can see here, we have taken contemporary style to reflect the design character of this era. and after several times of revisions we have streamlined and articulate the building elevations. we have expressed the proposed elevation with proportional base and windows and all the windows are aluminum frame with deep recess. in terms of the materials, we're going to use high quality stuccos and also the wood sidings which is very common in

these residential neighborhood. in terms of the form and scale, i'm going to show you along the diamond streets on the side of the subject lot on the west side of diamond street, they're all at least three story in height. and there are two reasons the buildings our project sponsor has shown you. they're all four story in height. this is the most recently built building, 1636 diamond and this is 700 diamond. they're all four story in height. a proposed building is also four story in height with nine feet, 11 feet front setback which i think is compatible in terms of scale with the neighborhoods. and after receiving comments from our neighbor, especially mr. mcgrath at 1700 diamond, we've made adjustment to setbacks in the front and the back. and also changed the elevation

design to address his concerns. so i think we are -- in terms of the design, we are compatible with the neighborhood. and in the end, in conclusion, i'd like to also emphasize we think developing a four single family dwelling would respect the neighborhood dwelling in the neighborhood and that concludes my presentation and i'm graduate to answer any questions, thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i agree with the project sponsor for a few reasons. i did a little math. what you come up with with the four structures on 121 foot frontage is about 33 feet which gives you the latitude to really make nice living spaces. i mean, victorians and other city parcels are often 25-foot frontages but it really limits what you can do and you're into a design, interior design that

is -- especially with multifloors, and this would actually bring us to a 20-foot frontage for each of these if i did the math right which is extremely small. and thrls is a really big demand for larger, new homes in san francisco. i've talked to a lot of realtors and of course it's not going to be cheap but there are people who afford to pay for this and they would rather live in san francisco than somewhere on the peninsula or outside san francisco and marin but there isn't a big stock of these homes and buying an older home is a lot more expensive proposition because you buy the older home and have to pay a lot for that and put a lot of money into upgrading a 1925 openly which oftentimes has not been, you know, brought up to date so they're looking for this type of product. and i would agree with staff we

need some design changes. this is really knowy valley and know it's on the border with diamond heights but clearly is with nowie valley and it was changed a few years ago and gold mine comes down in a culdesac from diamond heights. but should reflect the style in nowie valley and looked at the stuff that's been built more recently and the ones built in the 1990's wasn't too bad but the single family home built in 2011, maybe it's a bad picture of it, but i don't think it's very good, maybe it's better in darker light. you have to have a stronger cornice and molding around the window and fit it in but i know the architect has done some really good things and i've seen the work done by the

architect on the richmond district and we approved something on 22nd avenue that was really nice and they went back and reworked it and the end product was extremely contech churl. and what we need to do with this. but i am supportive of the four homes. i think that's going to produce four really nice homes and am supportive of the 2-1 parking because there are people who have families and want to have parking for both their cars and would rather not have them on the spree to be burglarized and would like to put them in a garage and we have to provide housing for those people, too. president olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i'm pretty much in agreement with commissioner antonini. i disagree with the department as to six unions. i think four is proper here.

i think it fits in directly with the rest of the neighborhood. it gives actual family units. i understand the expense of building on these types of slopes and appreciate the fact that you are putting in elevators because i think it's needed in a home like this. and i would move to not take discretionary review as to a and b and approve the project as submitted with the recommendation as commissioner antonini mentioned of further working with the department as to exterior features. >> second. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, i'll vote for the motion but would

like to say, i think, as we saw maybe two weeks ago, a design could be produced that has six units that would work quite well i believe and not necessarily have to take the traditional approach of dividing the length of the property into six small units versus four. there could be in the other project we approved, they didn't spread the units out across the street, frontage, they sent it back and took advantage of the lot in a different approach than the design of three units in that case. and think we shouldn't just dismiss six units on this lot because i think they could be designed such that it could

accommodate what the program has and more. i'm not real enamored with two-car parking and would like to voice my objection to that. in public and also i think if staff is going to be continuing to work, they should include whatever standards we're looking at for obscure glass that are going to be used for balcony railings. president olague: i wanted to comment and applaud the staff for having the courage to make this type of recommendation because that seems to be the direction at least i hear the city sort of encouraging which is densifying, you know, what they call it, density equity is the buzzword that everyone should be doing their fair share to increase density

throughout the city. so i really think that what i see here -- it's really an overparked project, two parking spaces for each single family home which i think is excessive amounts of parking, it's two to one given -- before with was a one to one parking i think was a single family home with one parking, so we'll see an increase in that here, and yet, you know, we're supposed to be a transit city, looking at sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions and all the above, and yet we don't necessarily see staff making recommendations that line up with that view. that i think the city seems to be taking. i applaud new your courage to make this recommendation. the only concern i have is that is sounds like the project sponsor was a little down the

road and there were changes in advice he was given. that's why the main reason why i'm sympathizing somewhat with the project sponsor because sometimes there's always a disconnect, too, sometimes we hear a lot that project sponsor had certain expectations and then the expectations were changed midstream. so it's the process that i have problems with. but i really appreciate the recommendation of staff because i think it is forward thinking and it's appropriate for this site. so i think in principle, it's an excellent recommendation, actually. but my only concern is because the project sponsor had already been working on this project and whatever. somewhat along in their planning and outreach and

whatnot and discussion with neighbors that i'm not sure how that plays out here. but that's kind of -- i think it's overparked. i think other than that, it's good to see four units as opposed to one single family dwelling that would be sizable for families. but that's my conflict i have is the process rather than the recommendation because i think it's an excellent recommendation. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i think this is a good project for the west side and we talked about the west side doing their part and this is a good use of some space that was very underutilized. and one other thing in regards to the project around the corner on gold mine was a deeper lot. you were able to flip those around. this is a pretty shallow lot. there's a big grade change and you have to allow so much space between the houses in the back so you really don't have that luxury here i don't think. it would be very difficult to

try to design them in facing the other direction. and as far as the parking thing, i think at the price point that these are going to be, these are people who are going to have at least two cars, i would think, you know. and they're going to have the cars anyway. it's just whether we allow them to put their cars in a garage or whether we have to put them on the street. and we're competing for the market for people who might choose to buy outside of the city where they can get as far as the parking an other things and need the citizens there because they contribute to san francisco and we need that market, too. i think it's a good project and years ago we would have built maybe one very large home on this lot with a lot of exterior space so i think we are making it denser even with the four units. president olague: and finally, i want to say i think it is

overparked and i'm going to reluctantly support project sponsor only because -- based on the comments i made earlier and i do really hope that staff uses this for further recommendation because i think a lot of thought and analysis went into this and i appreciate ms. hayward's work on this. and you know, i know you'll work with staff and come up with a perfect design. >> we'll work to improve the design. president olague: i think you'll end up with a nice product. >> thank you. >> commissioners, a motion and second to not take discretionary review, approve the project as proposed with the project sponsor to continue working with staff as to the exterior details.

commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> and president olague? >> aye. >> it passes unanimous, 6-0 and now on item 11, 10.o 1028-c for 2424 mission street, request for conditional use authorization. on may 19, 2011 following public testimony, the commission continued this item to july 7, 2011, to allow continued conversations with the community. public hearing remains open. >> good afternoon, president olague, members of the commission, tom wem, planning staff, reporting the proposeed exception at 2124 mission street. the reason for the continuing this from may 19 was because a member from outer mission merchants and the residents

association expressed some concerns to the project because they alluded to an independent, erotic massage website that advertised another massage franchise operated by the project sponsor in citrus heights, california. and after the initial hearing, the project sponsor made their due diligence and contacted the aforementioned website and requested a clarification about such business advertisement without their knowledge. the website only responded to the project sponsor that the massage franchise in citrus heights is reporting as nonerotic on its website and there was no other responses to the project sponsor. project sponsor presented this information during a recent outer mission merchants and

resident association meeting and project sponsor also reported that website to citrus heights police department. and also based upon the discussion between staff and a member from outer mission m&r association, there had been communication between engleside police department in the city which is in charge of the project area. and citrus heights police department and the citrus heights police department reported that after their inspection, they found no -- they were not aware or found anything illicit at that franchise in citrus heights. and that's what happened after they had the first meeting. and otherwise staff still believe this is current proposal, proposed massage

establishment at mission street meets all the applicable provisions of the planning code and also the general plan provisions and therefore we would recommend approval with conditions. last thing is that according to outer mission m&r association, they would like to request that they be named as the community liaison under the conditions of approval number eight. so in other words, should there be any issues or concerns expressed from the neighborhood, then they could, you know, deal with the issue and deal with the neighbors and project sponsor. that's the only change they would request, otherwise that concludes the presentation and will answer questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. and after the first hearing on may 19 here, and after careful review of all the information to ensure everything was complete and up to standards, on june 7, the associate action group leader by allen demesia conducted a neighborhood meeting to talk about my proposed business. the meeting went fairly well. with most attending in favor to allow me to set up in this. and a few days later, attendee from the june meeting did search and found one of my business in such a sight was a listing on the erotic website.

but i have to say, in this situation, i really don't know of the information listed on those kind of websites because i provide my information to the neighborhood. if i did anything bad, i won't provide my information. so after the website owner was contacted, she said the website -- [inaudible] has a way to solicit membership. she also contact my current business at such time and received only positive information and feedback. you can see the document attached on letter j.

i in turn send three email and the one registered letter to the website owner asking question about when it was posted and who posted it without my permission. i also asked whether or not it was free to post or if someone paid to post and all i can go about removing my business listing from the website. but the only response i received from the website observer -- owner was your massage was on your website. so i filed a report with the police department on june 6 asking them to how the website

operates. i did not approve listing my place of business on any website. so i have attached three reports, pictures of my previous and current business letter of the recommendation, email in the supporting document for you to review. those information has been credited as approved and evidence that my business in good standing. please check this account as concern my conditional application. thank you. president olague: thank you. i have one speaker card. steven currier. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first of all, i want to say thank you for the commission allowing us to have a little

bit more conversation. i must say that i feel very comfortable about removing the opposition in lieu of beefing up one of the conditions. as i said in my letter, we did that with your recommendation as another business in the outer mission at that time it worked well. we have a problem now that we're going to be dealing with. but when our police captain contacted the chief of police of citrus heights, said there was nothing under the radar regarding the miracle massage establishment. and with all the documentation i received from planning and the attachment, i can say that i am pleased that we will support his business. and it's up to you, commission, on the length of time that we are the liaison. and one of the things we did the last time was the project

sponsor owner would come to our monthly meetings and if there were any complaints or issues and whatnot, they could be filled in through us. in and at the end of that whatever how many months, you know, we'll report back to mr. wang in a report to him and to you. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya [ commissioner sugaya: i move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> does that include the conditions in the motion? >> that probably should be added. >> make sure we add language around the outer mission residents liaison merchants. >> yeah, right. president olague: i wanted to ask the project sponsor quickly, are you ok with going to the monthly meetings and

checking in for a few months at least. >> six months. president olague: yeah. and if you want to go beyond that, of course, that would be your choice. great. >> on that motion to approve with conditions, adding the community liaison requirement, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. you're now on item 12 for case number 2011.o 0208-c at 273021st street, request for conditional use authorization.

>> not me? president olague: he went to check, look for staff. >> take the next one. president olague: erica jackson. which are we taking out of order? >> we'll be jumping to item 15 because i don't see any of the other staff members here. president olague: the other staff member is not here. >> commissioners, given the circumstance, we're going to jump to item 15 and take that out of order for case number 2011.0326-c at 50 otis street, request for additional -- conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, rich sucre, department staff. the project for you is a conditional usth