the revitalization and they have gone beyond the call of duty in working with the community organizations, not just by applying for the permit, but they have been working in troubled areas, like the broadway corridor, with respect to noise and crowd control, and trying to find ways to mitigate this -- and those who attended this meeting, have seen what came out of these meetings. we are here to support these applications. this is a way of mitigating crowns and noise, and i remember when working for the corporation in the '70s, i travelled around the united states, they would give the permits to mitigate crowd noise.

i am here to support this application for the extended hours. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. i am the owner and managing partner at the supper club of san francisco. we have the after hours permit and this has been a great thing. i think that -- for the monarchs, this would be a great step for the business model to succeed. the patrons will have more time to listen and dance to world class music. it would allow for increased time to go out and relax before they go out into the community. i believe this will greatly affect the neighborhood in positive ways. this has been a very big thing

for the neighborhood. with our extended use, we do not have 300 people exiting the building at the same time. there is also less traffic and less congestion, and trying to get a cab at 1:45 can be a disaster. 30 or 40 people are out there, and i think that the biggest bang is a fact that there will be increased security. they have done an amazing job with nine cameras on the street, and now want to patronize some of those great restaurants on that street. tulon and the new burger shop. i hope that you move forward with this and thank you for your time. this will be a great addition to the sixth street corridor.

>> ok. good afternoon. i am michael malty, the executive director for better district 6, dealing with land use concern since 1999. several community stakeholders approached us about monarchs and their business practices, and the request for a conditional use. we contacted the planning staff and others, to begin mitigating -- with all parties concerned. because there were concerns. after holding several stakeholder meetings, to mitigate -- and gather further information, we co-sponsored a community meeting on june 12 to allow everyone interested to find out more information about

mark in their operations. -- monarch and their operations. we had a video for those not able to attend the meeting to be able to hear about their plans. open government, like you do here. so, the executive committee mediated with stakeholders, and binding settlement on june 20, to move forward an agreement that works for all parties, which you have in your packet. we're happy to see that they have complied with our concerns, and have improved their community relations, in this process. we asked the commissioners to review the minutes, that are enclosed in your consider it --

executive summary. we wish to commend everyone involved, especially the monarch's owners. if you have any questions i will be happy to talk. >> is there additional public comment? the public comment portion is closed. >> i am familiar with this corridor, and i am member of the -- there is the theater that you have -- if you have never been there, you must go there. supervisor kim got her start doing productions there. they helped make this happen very much in the corner of march and sixth. the station is opening up there. i looked into monarch.

it is a beuatiful space. i didn't get to go in. they were not open. they have contributed positively to that neighborhood, which can be challenging. we had a street walk, two blocks of art a few months back. we do this every fall. even with all the patrons on the street, there was an element that felt a bit unsafe. i think businesses like monarch can contribute. i think it is important to stagger people leaving. when gravity would let out -- if i was awake for some reason, the noise was unbearable, the number of people trying to get taxis.

it was like they were outside my window. it makes a lot of sense and i think it provides more ice for the street to create safety in that neighborhood. with people and not just law enforcement, which is important. i would move to approve this condition. and go along with the request to grant the permit. >> seconded. >> i agree. i think that is all of those things that were said that seem to be the case, with the benefit of having the extended hours would have the additional security on the street. i would just clarify the motion that would allow the zoning administrator to come back -- and make the approval automatically, with the informational report to the planning commission. we would not have the director

or someone to give the report -- we would not have to have a separate it -- a separate hearing. commissioner moore: i appreciate commissioner antonini having that comment. just for the equitable order -- this is the right step. i heard the applicant say they would like to have this automatically. i think we need to pass the motion. >> there is a motion and a second. >> obviously, nothing is automatic. there would have to be a decision, anyway. >> the way the condition is written right now, this is not an actual public hearing. this could be with the

directors' report. antonini says this is -- >> he did not. >> did you want the informational report but not a hearing? >> the way that this is drafted, this would not require a hearing. >> this would just have a report. >> they can make this go to the zoning administrator. that would look at the track record, -- >> based upon the track record, the zoning have been straighter would have the decision. >> i think this is fine with the project monitor. they wanted to avoid another planning commission hearing. >> commissioner? commissioner sugaya: just so everyone understands the motion, we say that this is approved but this thing we have

been talking about stance -- and after nine months, there will be as zoning administrator consideration of whether to extend the hours or not. we do not say this is automatically extended. the district attorney -- they have the decision. >> correct. >> on the motion to approve with conditions as amended, as modified to allow the extended hours, seven days after nine months without incident, -- >> this is 4 days. >> this is for additional days. >> it is currently four days. >> and want have the extra day. >> in nine months. >> as it is written, this is for

days now. seven days and nine months. >> ok. on that motion? >> moore? >> aye. >> sugaya? >> aye. wu? >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> you are now on item 9-a and b for 2012 .27 d. and 0739 d on natoma, mandatory reviews. >> before we get started, this proposal is near where i live, and the project sponsor developed the building i live in. for the record, i want you to know i had no involvement in the review or planning, no

discussions with staff. the first time i saw the plans was when they came to my apartment. for the purpose of the meeting, i will step out. >> britney bendix, with a mentor discretion review for the demolition of an extinct -- an existing two-story family dwelling. within an urban mix used zoning district. the project began as a pipeline project, however, this is now in general conformity with the requirements of the urban mixed use district. the structure will have three units, each with three bedrooms, and a three-car garage. with the amount of onside open space with the roof stack. they will pay the impact fee of

roughly $8 for -- per square foot, and that revenue will be added to the eastern neighborhood public benefit fund. since the issue of the case report, the department received three letters in support of the project. i will pass these out to you now. the letters in opposition to the project request that the commission eliminate one story, and the parking, reducing the number of dwelling units. and a less contemporary design. they support the project as proposed because it will be an increase of two units and seven bedrooms, which enables greater density. and this will incentivize the

developers to provide two or three bedrooms to increase the number of family-sized units. the department finds the building is compatible, given the absence of a prevailing neighborhood context. this does not meet the threshold of exceptional and extraordinary, and we recommend that the committee not take review -- and accept this as proposed. i am available for questions. >> the project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i am year to recommend -- represent the project sponsor. we began this process in 2007, for a five story building with 40 dwelling units. we patiently waited and listened, and watched the zoning

process. we convert the pipeline project to a confined project that respects the new zoning controls, dropping the building height to 40 feet. we held a three neighborhood meetings, and the first was on october 2011. after this meeting, then made a few constructive suggestions and we responded. we made important modifications to reduce the mass, of the penthouse -- and we brought the light well all the way down to the ground floor to match that of the building directly to the north. to soften the building we inc. the sighting of the bay windows. we presented these changes on november 2011. we recently held a third meeting on june 18 at the request of a neighbor. the property was zoned to see

heavy commercial on the mixed- character block that is predominantly residential. this building has not been occupied as a residential dwelling unit for nearly 20 years and has been vacant for several years. nobody will be displaced as a result. we pay the impact fee and the project will create three family size units. and -- i would like to conclude by saying that we worked closely and although this project was not required to be reviewed by the residential design team, we went back and forth with your staff, and modify the treatment of the ground floor, which was acceptable to the residential design team. on behalf of my clients i would request that you not give discretionary review and new -- in support the project as proposed.

we are available for any questions. >> calling out for public comment, i have three speaker cards. joe sharillaho, vitria merrow, syrian scallan -- thank you. >> i am happy to be here today. i am a resident at 1358, and i have been a resident for four years and working at a community-based organization for seven years. i love the feel of the community between the neighbors, a very open and people are very friendly. there is a lot of solidarity but as finances come to be known in the neighborhood a lot of us have serious concerns. we have gathered at 34 signatures within the past two

days, from residents and landlords and homeowners and businesses who are all concerned with the negative impact from this project. some of the concerns that they have are about the aesthetics of the project and the designs that you have before you. the parking in the affordability. i would like to present this petition the current plans -- for the rebuild of 1340 net, -- 13540 natoma. we have concerns with the demolition of net,, and the rebuilt with the contemporary condominium building. we believe this is out of keeping with the neighborhood in terms of design and tight and we ask the planning commission to reject the current plan and called for new design that

better reflects the character of the neighborhood. we look forward to working with all parties involved to a better development. we hope to move forward with this but with more community can send. i will leave this petition here. we have copies as well. thank you again. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 1359 natoma and i am opposed to the current construction plan. i strongly disagree with the discretionary unit -- which is out of touch with the community and out of date. my first objection is about the design of the building. and the current high and mass of the building. one reason i chose to live here

is the combination and affordability, and the charm of the street. you see street with buildings with an accordion design, 1340 is one building. if you look at the property at the present state, you can see this as a building with an eduardian build. the current plans for the new property for modern buildings retain some of the character of the original building, and with its removal around the buildings -- a stohr survey that was given stresses the importance of individual buildings contributing to the overall significance of the neighborhood. an individual house cannot have much significance on its own but in the context of a neighboring properties -- this is important

to preserve the historical significance of this potential district. when we, as homeowners, try to make changes to our properties we are expected to take this into consideration. we expect to put these in with wooden windows, we are expected to respect these properties. this does not seem to be the case in this neighborhood. to tear down an existing building and put something in that is out of character with the construction is already present. i believe a compromise building that retains the features could be done, and it would benefit the neighborhood greatly. if we look over to the building that is parallel -- i am will

say i am sorry, this building is out of scale. with 1350 was developed, the commission expected the neighborhood -- for a 40-foot height limit, which was at 48 by the time the roof was there to be considered. that is the plan of this current development. thank you very much. >> vitria? and other any other speakers on this item? >> come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 1349 -- across the

street from this project. we have had meetings and seen the plans of these buildings and the only thing i have -- is basically a consideration to redesign the front of the facade so it will blend in with the street. >> thank you. >> i am joshua macdonald, and i am concern about the footprint of this building. there is a ground level building depth of 80 feet, over 25 feet in setbacks. as the owner of the property on the same block -- which stands to the north of the subject profited, i have been granting building permit 2018 -- which will reduce my building depth

and i am doing this not because this is a requirement of because i appreciate open space. if these plans are approved, this will be lost and there is little on the block. this will be traded on my project begins demolition next month. i would not like to see this diminished. i am able to stand on the roof of my existing building, 1340 natoma. plants grow there. i suggest maintaining a setback. this is a transit-friendly location, and perhaps they'd like this place for gardening instead of parking cars. >> is there additional public comment?

>> i am beatrice merrow, at 1326 natoma street. my mother owned the home for 47 years. five years ago, there was a fire. we had to follow the guidelines. we couldn't add vinyl windows, and had to spend $1200 on weather windows. one building was added, very modern. it stands out. 30 buildings are on that block. three or four are businesses, but they are edwardian. i know i came to a meeting a few months ago. there was a building on 15th

street. they want to put in a modern building. there is mention that this really stood out, in the duardiaedwardian buildings. the same thing is happening in a group that is edwardian. something modern would be awkward. we had a meeting last week. we asked somebody from the city department to show up. i think we asked for them to support us, but they were lopsided and there was a planner. i didn't hear the comment, but it was sort of like -- the planning commission wants new buildings with 2012 standards. that is wrong to say to neighbors or residents in san

francisco. the beauty of san francisco is we are edwardian. do we really want to change everything in san francisco. do you really want to change san francisco? i find it strange said someone would say a comment like that. >> and is there any additional public comment? there may be questions for you. >> there will be a two-minute rebuttal. >> this is mandatory. >> we will ask you.

the public portion is closed, commissioner miguel? >commissioner miguel: i patronice san francisco and am there from time to time. they have not been occupied. not for 20 years or so. i have no problem with the demolition of something used for many of those last 20 years as an office. this was a disgrace and a fire hazard with no mid-block open space. in the manner in which the homes are build. t.

i do not want to see buildings in 2012 looking like 1907. i want to see something built in the 21st century. i know that -- the more modern or contemporary term, that style -- this does not please everybody. i look at some edwardian and victorian, with the 18 colors, and it clashes with my eyeballs, also. that's what the people want, they won thown the house. i have no problem with it. i say to not take the eir and approve the demolition.