photographs of the existing structure as it is today, and we have included images of the work of david ireland, and then we will get into some renderings of this proposal. primarily, we are doing the rehabilitation of the existing structure, and we're adding the existing structure for the caretakers residents. i want to show you this view, the before and after. and i want to talk about the proposed new structure. the rear structure faces the street, and we have tried to respect the historic building by moving the new building as far away as possible. the project is against all the adjacent property, and this is also -- you can see the neighboring buildings also occupies the rear yard of their

parcel. and we have tried to not block the windows of that property. i am available to answer any questions but wanted to bring up carly williams to talk briefly about this project. >> i am the current owner of the property and i am also the founding director of the capp street foundation. i would like to do that the property once the legal matters have taken care of, for the foundation to oversee this property. i wanted to give you a very brief history of how i got here. i have been on the board for a number of years, and it in late 2007 i was in the commission's meeting when the curator presented a sculpture by artist,

david ireland. it had been traded at of a bottle of -- a matter of material that he found when he first came to this place in 1975. he wanted to incorporate this into his work. putting this in the context of the committee, she gave a brief background of the house, and at that time mr. island had moved away because of his health reasons and house was going to be on the open market. i was at the california college of arts, and i had a conversation with anne hatch. she was a very close friend of david and had been working with them for a number of years. she said that the house is going to go on the open market. i think that this was tuesday evening. and thursday of that week i met her and gilbert, representing the dealer.

i had never seen the house. i was familiar with his work, and i showed up at the house, and by walked in, this was an extraordinary experience. exploring this their unique space. this is a work of art. and i turned around and i was just amazed at what i saw. upon leaving, they gave me a catalog with a retrospective of the museum. i said that we cannot let this go on the open market. i purchased the house, but i did not know what was going to happen. i assembled a group of people and we all sat down and decided the best way to honor this man's legacy and the community where he was living is to have an artist in residence program.

he was very generous with other artists and many were inspired by his work. we thought that this would be an appropriate usage. and also to hold on to his papers. his estate has assured me that i will receive copies of all of his papers and this will become something of a study center for his work. lastly, we wanted to make this open to the public. he has been very generous with the opening his home, and giving to force. we have decided -- >> please continue. >> we will have a series of open houses, throughout the course of the year, open to anyone who wants to come through. university groups and schools, educational groups that may want to take a look at the house. this is where we are right now. this is for the first year and half now.

we have come up with the level design. >> i have three speaker cards, elizabeth sweet, merkel, gilbert. >> some people may have left. is there any further public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. i would just like to say that i missed the opportunity to be a guest at the house, once, and i have regretted this ever since. this is the kind of artist to only lives in san francisco, who has worked it is respected internationally, and the concept, as to what you are planning to do in the artist in residence -- in residence, is

totally in keeping with the art history of san francisco. >> commissioner olague? commissioner moore qlogicolaguet in the northeast mission, killing to the arts communities, and this was fascinating, the things that are going on. all of the treated and artistic work that is going on in the communities. i really appreciate this project. and those grammar schools, they would probably appreciate having some access to the opportunities that may be provided through this. and i believe that this is a wonderful project. i say that we should approve

this. >> i just wanted to repeat what the commissioner was saying. we're just so lucky. he had a vision that was similar, and the city ability -- philadelphia basically stole his collection, living this from the original residents, from his studio. i just want to thank you. >> commissioner? >> i was wondering if you are taking applications for the caretaker? [laughter] >> there is a motion to approve with conditions. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes 6-0.

>> with that action, we close public comment. i would grant the requested variance subject to the conditions outlined in this report. it is a shorter lot than normal, rather than the typical 100. there is no pattern of open space and an existing structure being replaced and enlarged. if anybody has questions, it is not final until the letter is issued. the only way to find out is to leave a copy and there is a 10- day appeal letter. >> we will extend an invitation to come see the house. >> that will take us to item three. case 2007-1117 for 1731

powell street. >> the reason for me taking this off of consent was not because of the project. i had a question with the respect to the relationship between the ability to choose the kind of options and how --, this was incorporated into the conditional use. i could not remember on the other issues -- if we have issued the housing conditions that were made as part of this conditional use itself. this is not about the project, directly. this is about the relationship between the housing requirements and the fact that in this case, this to become a requirement, to

build housing rather than to pay for this and i understand that this is because -- in other cases, this is just up to the developer to make this choice at some time. that is most of my question. in weather to see you as the only way that this will get incorporated. >> the department staff -- if the commission wishes, i can answer this question and we do not have to deal with the rest of this. this is a fairly old project, and this is subject to the standard conditions of the approval, that the department used a number of years ago. one of the boilerplate conditions was a fall in whenever affordable housing requirement was agreed upon with

the mayor's office of housing. because this has been modified, that is why this is before you today. under the existing interim controls with the affordable housing program, the project sponsor may determine what other options that they will choose to comply with the housing program. up until the issuance of the building permits, the project sponsor may decide to pay for this feat, and to be honest, constructing the offside housing is a fairly rare option, that is chosen. and based on the components of this, we have to bring this to you just so you can understand that this is the view that has been modified. >> in the future, can we incorporate the inclusion in housing choice into these conditions? or has this been precluded?

>> the code actually stipulates that the developer must make that decision before the entitlement is issued and that is why this is part of the conditions of approval for the planning commission. previously, they allowed the developer to change their mind or make the decision at the time of the building permit application being issued. but there was some confusion and frustration associated with that. >> the microphone is not working. >> i am the deputy city attorney and under the current revision for the affordable housing program, the practice of

recording the choice of the developers is still carried through, and under limited circumstances, the developer can change up until the issuing of the building permit. but this is under more limited circumstances. >> i was going to move to approve of this. >> i agree. >> there is a motion and this is seconded, to approve. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved. that will take us to item 4, case 2010 for 3223 taraval

street. >> this is for "relaxed feet massage" to operate in the parkside neighborhood. this is a vacant tenant space previously occupied by a medical service. there are additional criteria for massage establishments. is this is open for transparency and is there is writing during -- lighting during the times of operation and if there is public access. as the tell on pages 5 and 6, the project complies with all this criteria. we have contact with the department of public health and

the vice provision, and the the department was concerned. the department of health said that this is a good operator throughout the city. we have received neighbors comments saying there are many massage businesses in the area. they have for other businesses offering this in the 20 blocks. only one of them has this as a principal use and the others have a very limited capacity to offer this. we find a conditional use to be unbalanced, consistent with the general planning code. thank you. >> the project sponsor?

the project sponsor is not here. >> i live in this neighborhood and i am concerned about this because in my neighborhood, there is a lot of this already. there is too much that is here, and this may affect our children and our teenagers, because every morning they will pass by this, and there is something very interesting about this. there is something very interesting about this because it looks like this industry is

very popular. i am concerned about this and this is still open. i am concern for my children and my teenager. thank you very much. >> is there any further public comment? the public comment is closed. >> i was going to move to approve. did we look at the issue about the oversaturation? >> under the previous ordnance that existed, there was a thousand ft proximity factor that went into play about the location. the principal use establishments, when this is the primary use of the facility. and there is also the excess reuse to be located without the thousand ft proximity. the ordinance was cut in half in

last july, eliminating the thousand ft proximity and also the ability to seek the excess reuse provision. as i mentioned, several of them have accessory usage which is nonconforming. they cannot expand and no -- none of the new ones can operate. >> this clarifies what you have already said -- >> i have a couple of questions. if we have them here from the medical office for the other accessory is, does this mean that this will never be revoked? this establishment would not succeed, but there is other medical office that is wanting to be just right in this location? >> if this business was going to fail, at the medical provider was wanting to move into the

space, this is permitted at the ground floor. there would not even be notification to neighbors. >> this is a good answer. this operator already has several additional establishments of this kind. when will we move into forming the region? >> 11. >> so we will have a number of these. thank you very much. >> i had a couple of more questions. you were talking about foot massage, but this is also hands and back. is this all of them? >> the business plan is focused on foot massage, and a small so -- this may also include the hands and the back. they do not have the private rooms that are found in other establishments. the planning code does not differentiate between this

establishment and other establishments which is why they're here. that is what is being authorized. >> we see quite a few of these. is there any reason for the popularity? there is a market for this. instead of going across the street, they can relax in a different way. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: he was asking if there was a distinction between the regular massage and a foot massage. they could turn around and just turn this into a regular establishment? >> i am looking through the conditions of approval and there may be a way to focus the approval, if they were to become the full establishment that

would have to come back to this but there are some implementations and some concerns about this because we do not regulate this. this is not considered changing use. >> and they'll have to get a health department permit? >> i have already applied for this and this is part of what they have to do under the ordinance. i do not know about the scope of their practice. >> as far as the person who made the public comments regarding children, my children and grandchildren receive foot massages in san francisco and in one instance, basically an infant, there is nothing wrong with minors being massaged, i assure you.

>> we have the motion and the second to approve, with conditions. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes, 6-0. this puts us back, now, on the regular calendar. this is as designed. this is item number 12. >> please excuse the interruption. on item number 10 and 11, you continued this to december 2nd. there was a misunderstanding about the preferred date. the preferred date was next week. so, i would request that what

we'd have to do is let the people who attended the hearing know about this change. you would have to take a new action. >> the attorney says we can do that under one motion. >> we will continue to november 4. >> does the maker have to do that or can anyone? >> i think it was me. >> i think you were, also. >> item 10 was commissioner antonini. what we will do, november 4. i am going to move to rescend the continuance of items 10 and 11. this is to december 2nd and continue them to november 4th. >> seconded.

>> and is there an agreement? >> the seconder of that motion was commissioner sugaya. >> that's me. >> i have a question. >> do we know if supervisor chu has set up a meeting. >> there is one on monday. >> just one other comment, if we need to continue this, we could. this may be ok. i just -- without the partys being present, we will go with that. >> there is a motion and a second to rescend this from the 2nd to november 4th. commissioners? >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. and now this is item 12, 2006 at 350 mission street. draft environmental impact report. comments will be allowed until 5:30 on december 10. >> i am brett bollinger. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft of cir impact report, the mission street project. there is the demolition of an existing retail building and construction of a new 370 ft

high office building with retell usage, 64 parking spaces. the staff is not here to answer your comments today, comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. we will respond to all verbal and written comments that we receive, and we will make provisions as appropriate. the hearing for approval or disapproval continue after this. that should be connected to the accuracy of the eir. please speak clearly so we can have an accurate transcript. and please state your name so that you can be adequately identified and you can be sent a copy of the comments for this

document. after hearing the comments of the general public we will take any comments by the planning commission. the public comment period began september 15 until november 2, 2010. this concludes my presentation on this matter. and unless the commission has any questions i would ask that the public hearing be open. >> >> my comment card is for lee molten. you are right. is there any public comment on this item, the draft eir? in that case, public comment is closed. as you have heard, the comment period is open until november 1. this is monday. >> november 2nd.

>> november 1st is on the draft eir. >> that was because the project was continued. >> i don't have a problem. tuesday. very good. antonini? commissioner antonini: this was well done and compliant with planning. it goes on to present other alternatives. that seems to be quite good. the co-complying without exemption, and the others that deal with certain parts of the project. the e.i.

r. is happy with this. >> the eir was complete and adequate. i look forward to the project coming before us. >> that will put us on item 13. case 2010.0470c. this is a conditional use authorization. >> i am putra of the department staff. this is for a change of use from retell coffee stored to a self- service restaurant on 2301 market street in the commercial district. they are doing business through power up cafe with