and. this concludes my presentation. i could show you the design controls that we are also thinking about. we are also including that in the second condition as well. president olague: project sponsor? >> the afternoon, president olague. we pretty much agree with what the planning department has done. our only contention is based on the situation.

it is a need based plea we are making here. obviously, the gentleman. it was actually three units. the entire floor area is 1100 square feet. they pulled back the building so the home they would not have an imposing aura over the other buildings in the neighborhood. what we're saying is, to build within that area, not going any further than the existing building, they can provide a

two-bedroom units for this family. and obviously, we have a 1100 square feet. what they are proposing and what the planning department wants to do, 325 feet. for only two bedrooms, the family members, we want to end up with 700 and something. we are ready for any design review. but to do this will be punishing these families. they can't wait to come in there. they are arranging a one-bedroom apartment. let me show you.

this is the area they want to remove. if they removed and feet from the rear, this is from the front. and it does not interfere with of the corridor at all. it is not any further than the rear wall. they are completely gone. they're trying to squeeze them into the very narrow and very small building. what we are asking the commission, which are ready to do anything they ask. the families of the same size in this neighborhood and who will allow them to have this building. think you very much. president olague: i like to open

it up for public comment at this time. we may have questions afterwards. public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i asked the zoning and administrator to listen to my understanding of this case. the residential care facility was approved as a use. that in itself is appropriate to the density and intensity. however, adding an additional residential units is an intensification of use. the difference is that change in use. i would think that for a zoning, as this is proposed to us today, we cannot really approved it unless the unit itself becomes a more integral parts of the facility, which it is not at

the moment. it functions as an independent unit with a care facility in the unit enter at opposite ends of the building, it modifies the existing care facility to accommodate independent access. that is an intensification of use and make it at any point in the future, should it change. and in a bid bloc situation, i find it very difficult. it would require a notification because you are zoning. i am getting a little bit out of my territory. >> i would agree with you that this is a change, and

intensification which is why we are bringing it back to the commission ultimately for your decision. it is within your discretion to approve, deny, or approve with modifications. that is within your capabilities here. if you feel is an appropriate use, you can deny it out right. you can also request much more along the lines you specified. and commissioner moore: perhaps the complication of the layered zoning is not properly described. i had to make a call because i thought it was kind of unusual. as an intensification, we are continuously vigilant that if it is done, it is done in a different way. it is really more the consistency in how these things

are being brought forward rather than picking on this project. this project has not been properly presented to us. the design solution does not address if there is, indeed, a requirement to operate the shortcomings of the facility. >> if i may, commissioner, this you cannot do too independent units. it does allow you to do what is proposed here today. the coats specifically doesn't allow you to do this. there is a unit with the residential care facility. the commission could, as a condition, if the residential care facility should go away in the future, this parcel could only be used for one unit.

as michael said, it would only allow that unit. but if you want to reinforce that, you could add such a condition. >> the conversation for a moment, the building as such in the design team has very well responded to that. the building as was proposed far exceeded what the departments themselves were approved. i may not fully agree with them, but that is what we are discussing. i am concerned that this is not channeled with that kind of mission of talking about the care facility because that is the first approval of the previous commission made in 2000. something we all support.

this is coming through the back door for me. it was not as clear to me as what we intended. the way it is presented is really what i am prepared to approve. commissioner antonini: my understanding is that we already have the ability in the code to allow for the caretaker unit to be connected with a residential care facility. we are not behaving in a new ground here, basically. it is something that already exists. >> out there is an allowance for conditional used to allow this year that along with residential care. >> that answers my question because he has referred to prove this, my understanding would be that this was a permit use district. you either have a single family

residence or the care facilities. they are adding, it is allowed by conditional use, a caretaker unit. i want to make sure that it can be used with the districts in the future to allow for this kind of thing to happen in a common manner. it sounds like it is already in the code. this particular one might be fine with me, but i would be in favor of adding a condition to make it very clear. if, for any reason, the care facility was to go out of business, it will no longer be viable. this unit would have to be compared. >> let me clarify that the residential care facility is

still considered an institutional use. and you are allowed to have multiple uses on one of property. you can't have a density that exceeds a dwelling unit. i hear concerns from commissioner moore about the connection between the two. as i understand it, the owner of the property, it won't necessarily be a strictly before the unit. that there was independence there is my understanding. it does allow for a separate uses on the property. what we have here is the institutional use of the residential care facility combined with the residential

use. it sounds like commissioner moore has concerns about the connection between the two. commissioner sugaya: there is a basis for recommendation in the project that it adds affordable housing to the city's affordable housing stock. >> we have no conditions about affordable housing or anything in the conditions or the motion. >> it is not recognized as affordable housing, but it is a smaller dwelling unit that is generally more affordable. commissioner sugaya: and i am not comfortable as having it as a reason for approving it. commissioner moore: there is somewhat of a contradiction for me here. what is the request for a

conditional use authorization, it means that adding another use his request for an authorization and it is not automatically imply. the next one is a request for a variance. this is not as clear-cut as we are allowed to leave. i don't want to make it complicated, but i think this is not as easy a thing to do as saying, okay, let's add this unit. it has operated for 12 years and was approved in 2000. i am not sure when it was completed. given the type of patients being taken care of, it has already the provision for a caretaker to be there because this is 24 hour care. i have to assume that the addition of this residential

unit is perhaps a very well placed in tents. there are very altruistic motives. it would be so, the unit itself would be totally integrated into the design of the care community. the residential use in the care facility would be going up the stairs and the doctor or the registered nurse or what ever lives upstairs. i personally can't do this. i just can't. commissioner antonini: i have to agree with commissioner moore. on the second part, there was a basis for recommendation.

we are actually establishing a separate residence in addition to the care facility that we approved a couple of years ago. the other thing of is that the zoning administrator would perhaps grant variants to the parking and pretty much the district will have the requirement of a parking place with the unit. you can grant a variance, and i do want to create some kind of precedence. i am not quite sure why we would not want parts that would be required by this. >> on the variance issue, i share the skepticism about what is the hardship here exactly. it is a level that they have maxed out the development potential. to me, looking at it was the

issue of, if they can add a separate parking space that will reduce the square footage available, they have 12 people that live there. the parking requirement kickstand at 9. if they were to increase the amount of parking the reduce the capability to care for people, there would be parking spaces where it only required 1. it was a bit of a balance, a bit of a trade-off. that is a bit of what i was thinking about. commissioner miguel: i agree with commissioner moore's logic on this one. i have had experience with this type of care unit over many years. if it was actually a dwelling

unit for someone that was going to, one member of a family that was going to provide the care, it is incorrectly constructed because you would want access and not have to walk all the way around a lot to get in. if it is not, then it is an intensification of use. in either case, it is wrong. >president olague: i believe thy came in the originally to ask for an intensification of use. for an institutional use in a residential neighborhood, i have to assume that most of the hall -- they're mostly residential units around the institutional use. you basically have single-family dwellings that are in the midst of an institutional use.

i concede granting -- i see granting an intensification of use. but to tread compound that it has no real association with the care or the residents in the facility right below it. initially, they were asking for a size that would go beyond the scope of the neighborhood character is what i am hearing. it is asking for too much, actually. i am happy to see it remain at an institutional use caring for those residents. but i can't support intensifying the use anymore. even with the caveat of what the commissioner had sort of

provided us with, a return to a single-family dwelling even with that. commissioner moore: a motion to disapprove and deny her the conditional use. president olague: what we have to have intended to disapprove? >> second. commissioner sugaya: isn't one of the reasons why institutional uses such as this are permitted a matter of state law? >> depending on the size of the institution, there may be six persons -- a 6% threshold. commissioner sugaya: are there

state requirements for what goes into an institutional use? does it require a caretaker unit? >> i am not aware of the requirements under state law. we can research is. commissioner moore: you would hope that they had been operating to full capacity for the last 12 years. >> that is not the direction of my question. the state law could allow other things to take place which may conflict with what we're trying to do here. >> they have 24 hour care but that doesn't mean they have somebody living on sites. they just have three shifts. just to be clear, i totally hear what the commission is saying.

but the code allows uses. commissioner borden: it would be useful to know, this units. the owner is also the owner of the care facility? are these separate -- >> the other families. >> just to clarify, we want this to be part of the care facility. dakota, those permits, a single family dwelling.

this is not new. commissioner borden: i am trying to understand the relationship. it was not going to be a revenue source for the center, just for the family to live there. i have asked my question. i was just trying to determine whether or not there was an economic value through them that it would help subsidize the facility. that would make something may be more desirable. if there was an economic rationale. >> there is a motion and a second with intent to disapprove. on that motion -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners.

it passes unanimously. >> we don't want to go beyond a couple of weeks, let me go to the calendar. may 19 i don't think it's doable. let's place it on the may 26 calendar. having two separate hearings, i don't think it is something. it is quick though. let's go with the nineteenth. is that enough time to draft its? would that be ok with you? 19. >> we need a motion and a second.

president olague: we're just setting the date. it's a motion of intent. the motion has been made but we decided to place on the calendar for the sake of staff in the project's sponsors said they know we will be bringing it back. >> if you continue to main 19. -- may 19. [roll call vote] a queue, commissioners.

so moved. and on the matter of the variance, we would be inclined to deny the request of variants has stated previously. we would also adopt the findings that i think the commission had very clearly detailed the reasons for not granting conditional use. and the decision is appealable within 10 days of the issue. so the project sponsor will get a copy of that letter. >> commissioners, you're on item 13. a request for a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

before you is a request to convert the ground for a commercial unit for an existing residential building. the project also proposes a 330 square foot rear yard addition to disclose a maintenance. the storefront has been vacant for approximately 10 years. the planning commission approved a conditional use authorization for the new establishment but the project was never completed. since they were distributed on april 28, received an e-mail and support of the project and the staff received a petition from the senior housing building. they have concerns regarding noise and parking. the proposed project meets in the applicable requirements of the planning cut.

it supports the intention of the neighborhood zoning districts. the proposed project would revitalize a vacant storefront along the corridor. given the findings discussed, i am available for questioning. president olague: project sponsor. >> my name is charles thompson, and the architect, designer for the proposed plan. the owners have prepared a power point that i would like to go through. it is basically just to get to know us. it is a restaurant company that has been in business for quite a

few years. almost 15 years. the most recent one in san francisco. it is not a restaurant chain. it is a homegrown bay area restaurants company. it is anchored on ethnic indian food and hospitality. that is a very key point to this concept. the way it is run his with great food. the mission neighborhood is reviving new businesses and restaurants. it is very much on a growth curve. we are extraordinarily sensitive to the fact that it is a busy place. and we want of the impact to be friendly and congenial with of the neighborhood, part of the neighborhood. it is basically cannot just

blend in, but contribute to the neighborhood. it is a simple concept in the sense that it is not a fancy, high and place. the interior design is very much commensurate with the neighborhood and a few if not many of the other food and beverage businesses in the neighborhood. again, we have seen in the bar and lounge. the emphasis within this company has always been the great food. moderately priced for local neighborhoods, the impact of the neighborhood restaurant will provide jobs to local and neighboring communities. that is the precise intent of this group of restaurateurs.