sequence where commissioner moore went with this project. >> as far as the number of units? vice president olague: sure, and the zoning. >> and it is zoned primarily rh2, and that is where we are. feel like i know the neighborhood very well and probably 60 or 70 percent of the homes that are single family and it is a little block by block, case by case we do the analysis. we did take into consideration that this specific block is so consistent in single family and character. having said that, we recognize to commissioner antonini's comments that this is a new architectural style for this side of the block and represents a modern character that's not currently present although it is present across the street. there is a mix of style and scale in this block.

but the determination in the end is it was appropriate to replace a single family with another single family. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: in some ways some people don't want to be landlords if i were in a situation that would involve demolition and even if it was an rh2, i wouldn't be interested in being a london lord and wouldn't particular add a unit just because the zoning allowed me to. and i know that's city policy is to try to increase the number of units if possible, so it is a bit conflicting here, but i do have some design issues with what's been presented.

it's okay. president miguel: i also looked at the rh2 situation, but considering that it was sort of a blanket zoning more the area and considering the difference in each side of the particular block, i did not pursue that idea any further. i know the design breaks up the tradition there of the side of the block, but i personally don't think it's that drastic. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: this is an important point on this and that i think noee valley shows us a situation where over the last 30 or 40 years we have found many families who have

moved into this area and found what are now single family homes or that are zoned rh2 and it's a refuge for people because there aren't a lot ofs choice on the east side of san francisco that are anywhere near affordable, so the choice is if you want to stay on the east side, you either have to find a place that's going to be appropriate and that is an important thing because it's more important to allow places where families will be able to live and raise their children than it is to have an additional unit. increased density is not always the appropriate thing in all neighborhood. i think this is totally okay with me and it's actually desirable that we are carving out areas where people can still have single family homes. i would -- i see commissioner moore has comments. i would make a motion to not approve, but ask that project sponsor work with staff to try to perhaps do some design

changes to emulate some of the things that the commissioners have suggested on the design. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: as we are saddled with the responsibility of looking at equitable densification throughout the city, i do believe the rh-2 zoning in noe valley needs to closely be look at and specifically at this resident and a megamansion in a small rh2 and you go from one car to two car. i think we are completely defeating any larger policy decision with which we are trying to sell everybody else. i cannot participate in supporting that project unless that particular issue has been looked at where we have other neighborhoods we are very strict in what we are enforcing and what we expect when a home gets as large as this one. i cannot support this project

not because i don't want this family to have a home, but in this situation the issue is framed the wrong way. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? >> we're never going to rezone the entire noe valley back to rh-1, so that's out of the question and the situation will exist anyway the next time around and the next time around. i'll second the motion. i had something else, but i can't remember what it is.other considerations, there is this setback calculation that staff did and perhaps one additional thing would be to bring it all the way to the front like some of the others. i don't know if that's possible or not. >> on that issue since i am acting d.a. for this project, the reason is the bay window that comes, i believe, within two feet.

most of it only set back 5 feet. and the variance states 2 because the bay window comes out for that 3 feet. so it's pretty close. >> the desire for a bay was an attempt to provide that traditional element onto the front of the building. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i like to ask the zoning administrator as a planning director and i like to have a policy discussion with you of how we bridge the guidelines and consideration for market octavia with densification and real control on parking per unit with this particular precedent setting decision. >> i think there is a couple of things to consider here. one is the pattern of the neighborhood. and that is what we often will bring housing and there are as many places in the city where the zoning does not reflect the prevailing pattern of the neighborhood. the other issue with respect to

parking is the availability of transit nearby. in market octavia is on the city's busiest transit corridor. and which is why we requested and why you have approved a reduction in parking requirements in that area. this area is not nearly as well served by transit. and for all those reasons, we look at these things individually and believe this is consistent with the prevailing pattern in that part of the city, recognizing that the zoning does not reflect that prevailing pattern, but that is true in much of the city. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i think in this instance it's much like some of the times looking at unit merger case and we have the various criteria and we look at and as you know, certainly owner occupied is one of the criteria and functionality is another. and then we look at both the zoning in the area and the predominant situation as to whether it's, in fact, in compliance or not and we kind of

weigh those two often as one of the five criteria. and it seems to satisfy all the criteria, although the criteria are a little different, but analogous for this situation. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i remembered what i was going to say. the current design of the house doesn't preclude using the bottom for another unit, i don't think. it's currently configured with a fairly enclosed stairway, a den i believe it's call and there is a bathroom down there and another additional bedroom. so it could be, i suppose, the only issue would be how you access it, but that can be probably worked out in the future if the situation arises that a second unit is allowable and it can be, i believe, accommodated in the bottom floor if it ever came to that. some future owner, for example, wanted to convert it.

secretary avery: the motion on the floor is to have the project continue to work with staff to incorporate the design features that the commission has offered. on that motion, commissioner apt ant. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> no. >> commissioner miguel. >> yes. >> that motion fails on the 3-2 vote with commissioners moore and olague voting against. >> we understand -- >> commissioners, and directors, in the absence of the successful substitute motion, this project is approved as proposed.

>> thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 8. that is also pulled from the consent calendar. 2010.0607c for 445-447 suter street. >> i'm rick crawford of department staff and i have a brief presentation prepared to make, but in the ability to move things along more quickly, i would ask commissioner moore to question and address that satisfactory. >> i received a letter about three weeks ago of a particular individual, i don't have his name in front of me, stating there was a previous application for a similar use that turned out to be a very controversial and very disruptive use for tenants in the building with the implication that there were

activities which are not permissible activities under the current zone without being specific. >> i am not aware of any previous massages being approved in this building through the current process. they do meet all the criteria for massage use that have been fairly recently put into the planning code. i really can't speak to what happened with a previous use there. commissioner moore: if you don't have any record of it, i received a letter, so perhaps that was a misdirected letter to me. i don't have any idea. it implied there were prostitution on that floor disrupting people at night. and i would assume that you would be the first one receiving such a letter. >> right. i did not receive anything. commissioner moore: i consider the letter i received as of no consequence. >> just to clarify, there has

been no record, as you know, the police record on this -- >> no police record on this. >> the police department had no issues with this. commissioner moore: then we're good. i don't understand where the letter comes from and if everybody else gets it and waiting to hear somebody comment and if you wrote the letter to me, i can not accept the letter as part of the public regard because it is not. president miguel: i received a copy of it also but was never contacted otherwise. i presume there is a question that they would be here. commissioner moore: that is correct. thank you. we'll leave that as it is. president miguel: commissioner olague? >> move to approve. president miguel: i need public xhept. is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners

i am the project sponsor for the massage establishment to include massage therapy within an existing street above an office on the eighth floor. the project would establish one 229 square foot massage treatment room in the medical office suite. no alteration would be done to the building externally. this project will provide massage service to the chiroprater's office. president miguel: thank you. is there further public comment?

>> it is my office suites that are that will be used. i am in support of this. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i think i would be supportive of this and maybe the doctor could answer a question. is it customary in chiropractic practices to have auxiliary massage facilities? is that often done? >> no t massage can occur under my supervision. but i wish for the patient to be able to access the massage directly. that is why i allowed the separate business to happen. commissioner antonini: this is a separate business. >> but in connection with your practice. >> inside of my practice. commissioner antonini: i was curious and it made a lot of sense and in that type of a

practice that part of the therapy might involve massage. view vi >> it does, yes. commissioner antonini: a little unusual and people could access the massage without being patients of your practice. >> yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> i have a motion -- >> second. president miguel: motion and a second. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval as proposeed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> thank you, commissioners. that passed unanimously. president miguel: why don't we take a short break. 10 minutes. secretary avery: commissioners are taking a 10-minute recess.

easier ways of moving as it relates to working with neighborhood groups and trying to work towards certain goals and the greater good for the city and none of us have an agenda other than to try to live in a more livable city. to the extent that we can work together on some of the other orphan blocks and ceqa reform and if we could work on it together, then great. so thank you. thank you for all your work on this. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions and concerns. anmarie, i have a question for you, please.

thanks. part of many of the things that are in here, i think everyone agrees with. but there are a couple of things that the division of dwelling units. i think we talked about that and what happened was on market octavia, there was a hybrid that applies from the safeway west, i guess, and where they don't have the open ability to create unlimited number of units within the framework. in other words, they need to abide more by the particular zoning and that being rh-2 or rh-3 or whatever it is. am i correct about that? >> yes. commissioner antonini: that is what we're saying is going to be in here is the consensus has been we don't want that unlimited -- it's not unlimited, but more or much less restrictive ability to chop into smaller and smaller units in the area. >> the larger market octavia plan has a two bedroom

requirement and certain areas that are closer to the block that we're talking about with this legislation that impose additional controls on dwelling units and in addition to what you discussed also, this area adjacent to the block is a rear yard requirement that starts at the first floor of the dwelling unit. first floor with with the dwelling unit. commissioner antonini: thank you. i think that's very important to show that we do have different hybrid situations or at least some within the market octavia plan. and i think we probably should have had some others because i have heard from quite a few members of the public that would have preferred to have had a little different situation in particular subpartses of market octavia, mission delores and people from the triangle and others will come up and say, well, on certain aspects we would have liked to have been separate and not have the one size fits all, especially on the

parking. that is my biggest concern here is that right now the parking is 1:1 requirement, but no one really wants that to continue. but i think you need some flexibility. in fact, i understand as was mentioned the castro merchants have not yet weighed in on this or are in the process of having a meeting. so an initiation might be okay, but i would be a lot more comfortable with the language if it said eliminate the 1:1 parking requirement and analyze the appropriate maximum of parking desirable for this block. i think you're going to lock yourself into a situation where there may be a three-unit situation and somebody may want to build totally compliant with all the other things and in order to make a go of it economically, they'd have to have 1:1 parking and that can happen. and i think you're going to -- it may be too restrictive to have there or should be a matter

of discussion. i would pref prefer as we move through an initiation that we initiate things but leave that as an open question. and i think that's an important part of it. and also i might point out on the market octavia, this commission passed a different type plan that was approved after the supervisors modified it. we voted, i forget the exact vote, but obviously a majority, on a parking situation that allow allowed up to 1:1 parking and as a right .75. and i might be mistaken and some to do with two bedroom or one bedroom but it was quite different than what came out in the final product from the supervisors. and we went through years of hearings with all these different groups talking about different areas and different desires they have on this question. we tried to reach a comprise which i think we did.

so to take that same and apply this to the block even though it's only one more block, i would like to hear from all the decision makers and i am just weighing in on what's before us on this. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to express my strong support for this and to be initiated and also strongly support it as an addendum to the market octavia plan including the variations approved by the board of supervisors which is implied but to keep it as an addendum is the only way to streamline it as a process rather than opening up every aspect of it again. i actually participated in the department's deliberations with the applicants and believe that the neighborhoods, plural expression here, were well represented, well prepared, and i don't believe that they left any page unturned to come with a strong support for what they are

trying to do. i do believe it is in our own interest as a commission not to get bogged down with endless discussions on projectses which are coming in because i have to assume that the owner of these projects are very much in support of streamlining the process. president miguel: i also had the pleasure of participating in the department's hearings and i was pleased to see the large representation of the neighborhood both in numbers and the groups that they represented. i believe the neighborhood in undertaking the outreach did a superb job of dealing with the residents and the businesses in the neighborhood and i know they're continuing with the businesses. and it was a bit of a continuation of the years of the market octavia plan that were very acrimonious