>> the product would replace the acupuncture facility and replace them with tree their rooms at 325-329 kearny st. between thein

and bush streets. within the downtown office district. the planning commission authorize the establishment in march of 2010. since that time, it has operated without incident or complaints from the police or health departments. his proposal does not include any of exterior alterations to the building. the project complies with all planning code criteria for use. the department has contacted the department of public health and the police department and neither agency has concerns about the applicant proposed for massages use. the applicant proposes an expansion of the massager use within an existing establishment as it exists. it meets all of the planning code. i would be happy to answer any questions that we have. president olague: progress sponsor?

-- project sponsor? >> good evening. we believe the motion in our application speaks very clearly so i will keep my comments brief. this business is a money-losing operation. they are not able to meet projected revenues due to the current allowed allocated use. the floor space available is allocated for demands that do not exist. where demand exists, there is not enough for space. this application will allow them to adjust and meet market demand, and prevent the loss of a small business, prevent layoffs, and create future job opportunities. i am happy to have any -- i am happy to answer any questions you may have. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice president miguel: i move to

approve this condition. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i would like to put on the record that the company that i work for is within a small distance of this establishment. around the corner on bush street. since i am a less than 10% owner, i do not think there are any conflict issues here. president olague: thank you. there is a motion on the floor for approval as the pros -- as proposed. >> i am sorry. i was out of the room. i did not hear the presentation. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. supervisor mar: aye. vice president miguel: aye. aye.

-- president olague: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. you are now on item 10a. >> this is a 309 request for determination of compliance to convert this into a mixed use 67 residential units, eight off- street parking spaces, and a 210-square-foot ground-floor commercial space. this project has been modified in response to concerns raised at the september hearing. the changes to the project include reduced number of dwelling units from 67 to 62. expanded the interior courtyards to reduce the number of dwelling units that require an exposure

variants from 40 to 24. decrease the number of studio units from 48 to 43 and maintain the number of 1-bedroom units at 19. ex granted the commercial space to 535 square feet. a dedicated space in the garage for car share parking. rearrange the bicycle parking by moving its bases closer to the residential entrances and exits. modify in the exterior design by replacing the proposed windows with those featuring ray mutton pattern similar to those on the building. placing glass awnings on the grounds for commercial and residential entrances. the department has not received any public comment on the project and recommends approval with conditions that the proposal provides 62 new drilling units, including nine on-site affordable units and

provides a new commercial space. the product meets all applicable requirements of the planning code, except for one, for which a variance has been requested. in it meets the policies of the general claim. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the sponsor. we have tried to address the comments to the commission that were made one month ago when we were here. the main issue at the time was the light and air exposure of the dwelling. we have reduced the number of units by five. gone down from 67 to 62.

as i show here on the floor plan, the yellow represents expansions of these courtyards. the size of the one courtyard has been doubled. the other one has been substantially increased. the commercial space -- or a number of comments about making that larger. we have doubled the size. up to 535. in the last iteration, hit only 38% of the dwelling units met the exposure requirements. we have increased that up to 64%. those are the primary changes. i have prepared a day -- i have prepared a transparency to compare the two.

it is going to be too small for you to read it, but i have packets that i will pass out. there will be 2 pages. the first page, it shows the breakdown by square footage of each type of unit, studio, 1- bedroom, 1-bedroom and a loft, and so forth. the new project is a total of 22,000 square feet down from 23,900.

in the main difference is the number of units that meets the dwelling unit exposure requirement, which is up to 64%. a substantial increase in the courtyard is the main change. also, the remaining units, other than the ones that are now getting exposure through the courtyard are larger than they were in the last iteration. we will be happy to answer any questions. drake is also happy to answer questions that you may have. thank you. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, a public comment is closed. commissioner miguel. vice president miguel: i have a question for the project sponsor. i am trying to figure out from the plans, particularly on the

30 studio and lost units in the newly designed project, what is the loft for? >> what is the loft for? vice president miguel: yes. it is a 300-square-foot unit, what are you using the logic for? >> it could be used for sleeping. it is not counted in the floor area because the ceiling height is too short. technically, it is a storage area. vice president miguel: my problem is exactly what you said. i was trying to figure out how it could possibly be used for a sleeping area and you hit your nose on the ceiling. just about. obviously, it would not conform

to any building codes in that regard. i am trying to determine from the drawings where you are going to live and put a bed. in this type of unit. >> i think we had that discussion the last time. we are trying to keep the density high and the price low so it meets a segment of the population that could not otherwise afford to live and that part of the city. there will be a segment of the population that finds that adequate. that is the segment of the market we are going for. vice president miguel: i may have more to question later. commissioner moore: i want to go through some other technical issues just to clarify of what this project is trying to set up to do.

i found commissioner miguel's observations precise, because in many types, it speaks about a sleeping loft. that is what the drawing says. the code is very clear that you cannot -- the minimum height above the loft level has to be 7 feet. aloft at stevenson is only four feet, using a line drawing and not a working drawing. it is enough to say it is not 7 feet. the maximum area of the loft is limited to no more than one- third of the area of where it is located. all of the lawsuits appear to exceed that amount. in order to fulfil the function of being a bedroom. it raises a number of questions.

the furniture templates used in this drawing are accurate to the amount of space you need for a sofa, a credenza, a tv, a chair, etc. it is the limitations of this building where you could potentially design a smaller unit. but the dimensions do not say enough to make it happen. commissioner miguel asked how you get a bed in here. it does not really allow for a bed. unless you have collapsible furniture in which to put in front of your door. i am being sarcastic, but it speaks particularly on the smaller units where are you -- or if you are in these houses, you are asking people to take a sleeping bag and roll it up and live with this new constrained

condition that is not legal. that is one aspect. i do not have anything against the building. i want to be upfront about that. i appreciate the effort you made to explain the voskhod -- explain the facade. there is an effort to show how you can do it. there is another building that is completely missing the point. i want to make another comment so that we can say figuring out whether or not this building would require redesign. it is something we do not know. i want to use an area which we are always really on top of. ada and fire safety requirements. the access to the elevators in

both parts of the building, stephenson and gentry, does not meet building code requirements because the elevator doors are not to open into an exit passageway. the way that is normally solved is that you, in multi-unit low- rise buildings, you have to provide a way to outsource the swinging door, in case of fire, which closes in front of the elevators so that elevators do not become smokestacks. in this particular case, because the corridor is so narrow, you need 1.5 times the weight in order for people to have free passage when the door closes. you do not have that here. do you follow what i'm saying?