commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i don't want to beat a dead horse but, you see, i don't think these are mistakes we're trying to correct. i think they were deliberately done. if you read the building department's own reports, i mean, they kind of reinforce the fact plans were changed and et cetera, and you know, i don't know for a fact they were done deliberately but from what d.b.i. says, it appears to be that way. in any case, yeah, it's the process, so the process now stops here. and the problem i'm having -- mr. iona, maybe you can answer this question, if the commission takes the continuance and goes ahead with the motion that the project sponsor's architect will redesign the project to meet the

1998 plans, guess this is a city attorney question, if we take that motion, does that mean that they are forced into doing exactly what those plans depict? >> well, at what point can they then come back and reapply for a permit that shows the current building? just for clarity, that's why i got up and asked for clarity about what the commission was directing. but what i am hearing is that the motion is to continue in order for the project sponsor to revise their project to -- to redesign their building to comply with the '98 condition that was approved in 1998. i am also hearing in the meantime until september 22, if there is an alteration that is somewhere in the middle that can be achieved that the d.r. requester is satisfied with and the d.r. is withdrawn, that it

doesn't need to come back here. that's what i'm hearing. commissioner sugaya: if that's part of the motion -- >> it's not part of the motion but what would happen if it occurred. >> if the d.r. is withdrawn, you wouldn't have any jurisdiction. >> that's why i'm not going to vote for the continueance. >> you take the d.v. and take the plans and get that or choose this process and they can do whatever they want. unless somebody files a d.r. commissioner sugaya: that's what i mean. it doesn't work for me. >> we have a motion before us and we will vote on it. >> but your motion was to take d.r. and have two alternatives? >> no, my motion -- i said initially i either would support take d.r. and require that the project be built to 1998 or a continueance to allow that work -- the plan to come back for us to see it and do all of that

sort of stuff. it seemed like people were more in favor of a continueance than to take d.r. and require that. but the only way to really get the 1998 plans is take d.r. and make that requirement because that's a decision that we have jurisdiction over. if we don't do that, if we do continue it like we're planning to do, yes, if the d.r. requester pulls their d.r. and nobody files a new d.r., it wouldn't come back to us. that wasn't my intent. my intent was to find a way to solve it today. so if people have an interest to see the plans built out and want 100% certainty on that fact, the best approach would be to take d.r. and require that and then we would be done with it today. i'm fine with that. i withdraw the motion if people want to do that because my goal really was to see this get resolved today. >> commissioner sugaya?

commissioner sugaya: that would be the direction i would like to go. >> nobody made that motion initially. that's why i brought up the two options, take d.r. of the 1998 plans or take d.r. -- or continue rather. i'm fine to withdraw the continuance motion if my seconder doesn't mind, if somebody wants to make a new motion on the floor to take d.r. >> commissioners, if you withdraw the motion to continue and take d.r. deny the project is on the floor. >> well, i will withdraw it or change it. >> i will withdraw the continuance motion. >> the motion to continue has been withdrawn. and motion to approve is withdrawn? >> yes. >> we have no motion on the floor? >> the motion is to take d.r. and revert to the 1998 plans. >> second. >> well, this is even worse. i was going to vote against a

continuance because our job is to take d.r. if there are unusual and extraordinary impacts. there are no impacts. what we're doing is punitive, which should not be our place to do. we should be deciding whether the d.r. is warranted. i don't think it is. present plans are extremely well done. we have spent a lot of the city's time to get this design the right way. this is one reason why people get frustrated because this is a very frustrating process that i'm sure happens elsewhere but it certainly happens here often. so i would urge other commissioners to vote against why revert back to the early plans? this is a situation where we had a sinkhole where things happen that no one could anticipate and what you have is ultimately a much better and more contextual building that has been worked out between the staff and the project sponsor with no impacts that i can see to the d.r. requester.

so we're wasting a lot of time on this. i would not support the motion. >> commissioner miguel? commissioner moore: start over again because i'm going to move to continue. i will explain why and hope to get a second. i'm -- >> second. >> i'm not necessarily satisfied with the original plan. i'm not saying the present plans are the improvement to happen. i think waiting until september and having the parties forced to work together knowing the tenor as a commission as it is, is probably the way to go. my biggest problem is this, is someone who is in the field basically altering plans after

their approved. i mean, that just wrangles me no amount and i don't know how to punish that because that is one of the worst violations that can possibly be revealed in front of this commission. so i'm not worried about the time delay the least. what i'm worried about is whether or not this building which is so prominent, which is one of the seven entrances to the presidio, in a major area of san francisco, appears correctly. and that's the important thing, as far as i'm concerned. i'm going to move to continue, appreciate the second, in order

to get what we should get. i don't know any other way to get it. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i have two questions. if we go the way commissioner miguel is suggesting, this was not even the architect from 1998. there's a big hole there. i'm prepared to go back to the 1998 overall envelope description with whoever's architect designing it what needs to be. i don't care. but something will have to probably change between that 1998 -- >> is that to the project sponsor or architect, you're giving that instruction? >> yes. and i would still think that the repeat of this commission in september is warranted because we're going down a very siply slope given the history of this project. i would like a present of all of us to support what we still, as commissioner miguel just

summarized quite well, is unacceptable to us. we're here to support it under certain conditions. and those are go back to '98 overall envelope description, the architect take it's wherever he needs to take it and we will look at it one more time and send it on its merry way. >> commissioner sugaya? >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for continuance until september 22. i did not hear the maker of the motion give instructions on what you're expecting? >> i'm expecting a new project to emerge. >> with a new project emerging. on that motion, commissioner ant nene? >> commissioner ant nene: no. >> commissioner borden:? >> aye. >> commissioner fong:? >> that's kind of a broad direction but aye.

>> commissioner moore:? >> aye. commissioner sugaya: no. >> thank you, that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners ant teeny and sugaya voting against. the item is continued until september 22 with a new project emerging. on the variance -- >> yes, we will continue the variance of the same case. >> madam president,/we can take a short recess. president o'brien: we need -- president owe laying: we will take a ten-minute recess. >> we will ask you not to take the next item next. >> that's correct. >> the commission has taken a ten-minute recess.

when we come back, >> or any electronic device that's may sound off during the proceedings. we're going to jump ahead and take case 2001.21c for 1765 waller street. >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the planning commission. sharon young, department staff. the item before you is request for authorization under section 121.2 and 303 of planning code to allow a use that exceeds 399 square feet on the floor area of two floors at 1755 waller street within the haight street u.s.d. and haight street district. this will also involve residential off-street parking space, converted to retail space used in conjunction with

authorized space at the rear of the ground floor. the expanded commercial space contains 2,800 feet of commercial floor area. currently the space is utilized by silkscreen store, the printing production doing business as free go washington t will -- wash. the property owner anticipates converting the retail commercial space back into residential offchute parking space some time in the future. the original proposal had included a request for initial use authorization from the planning commission under section 161-j to legalize elimination of the residential off-chute parking space. recently the board of supervisors passed ordinance 8510 effective may 7 which amended sections 161-j and added sections 307-i to allow the zoning administrator to administratively reduce the off-chute parking requirements

in the n.c. and r.c. districts. planning code section 161-j for the project is no longer required. zoning administrator reviewed criteria under planning code section 303-i and determined proposed project meets the criteria for elimination of the parking space on the project side. to date, the department received correspondence from a representative of the adjacent property at 1757 waller street is representing the san francisco child abuse prevention center who had indicated that the project was -- should include conditions or approval that would address potential problems of chemical orders emitted from the wash silkscreening business. the project was continued from march 10 to today's date to allow the project sponsor and the adjacent property owner to work out a private agreement to address these concerns. the project sponsor also submitted a brief containing letters in support of the project. the planning department's

recommendation is approval of conditions. this concludes the presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good quaff noon, president olague and commission. i represent both the project sponsor and tenant on the ground floor. miss young's report was fairly complete, and you have our brief in front of you in the packets. i just want to highlight about two things here that i think are particularly important about this case. one is that free go wash is exactly the type of business the haight street business hopes to tract. locally owned, small business artisan effort and well received and well supported in the neighborhood as the letters in support would indicate. the second thing i want to point out is there may be a little confusion about the agreement wreached with the san francisco child abuse prevention center.

that goes back a couple of years, what started this entire case going was there was notice of violation because of some odors they were detecting on the adjacent property. roughly 12, 14, 16 months ago, my client switched chemicals to green chemicals are that completely green and redesigned the interior of the silkscreening area so it's in a separate room that's well ventilated. there have been no complaints we're aware of since that time. in fact the neighbors have a very good working relationship together. i want to point out we reached that agreement. i want to get on the record to get them comfort we do intend if the condition of use authorization is approved to go ahead and record that notice. we're just waiting for them to present us with executed copies. they actually drafted it. we executed it. they had their board meeting

yesterday. we're waiting to get that back. my client is here. if you have any questions about the business i'm here, or if you have any further questions about the case. thank you. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commission are board en? commissioner borden: move to approve. >> second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: no comment. president olague: i visited the project two years ago and spoke about the odors and some of the complaints and i got the whole dour. i think it's an excellent use for that site. i trust we will get the written agreement. that was like two years ago, you were working with project -- the nonprofit next door. commissioner sugaya?

commissioner sugaya: sorry i'm late. i'm quite familiar with this. i do know the property. i do know the executive director of the child abuse center. and one question that i have with respect to condition number 12, staff. on odor control, my understanding is that the issue with the child abuse center was triggered by smells but in fact is not so much a smell issue as toxic chemical issue into their establishment. and i understand there's a settlement of some kind between the two parties involved. but i think this condition depends on your being able to smell something. and is it possible that there would be chemicals used in printing process or whatever that would have -- that would be

odor also but still be -- odorless but still be toxic? in that case, this wouldn't apply, i don't think. but i don't know how to craft a condition that would take care of a situation where that might occur. >> i don't even know -- >> yeshes perhaps a project sponsor could inform us. i'm not sure we would be aware of that. >> if you can't understand the direction i'm going in, my understanding of the odor control is it really is intended more for restaurants and where you actually can smell cooking and kind of thing coming across. where as here we have a slightly different situation. >> indeed. i think i grasp where you're going with this commissioner. just so you know, i have a finalized copy of the agreement

but it has not been executed. so cannot give it to you until it has been. to let you know there are conditions in our agreement. i know these would not necessarily have to be in the conditional use authorization but there are terms in here which require us to not only have approval of the department of public health and air quality management board, which we have approval from both of those entities at this point but also require us every three years to check back in and reobtain approval if that makes sense. >> if that can just be noted in the record then, i think that, you know, people are put on notice. so thank you for that. i'm satisfied then. president olague: great. commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with conditions and added note to include the agreement has been reached between the two parties.

commissioner antonini? >> aye >> commission are borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that item passed unanimously. we're going to 12 now. commissioners, we will continue on with item number 12. case number 2010.1028-c for 2141 mission street. just leave them there. i will get them. thank you. >> good afternoon, president olague. members of the planning commission. department staff presents the condition use application for proposed massage use at 4124 mission street, within the nc-2

zoning district. currently the subject commercial space is on the ground floor. it is a vacant commercial store front. contains about approximately 760 square feet and it is one open space, according to the proposed plan. there are no partitions proposed within the space except the bathroom. and the proposed massage would provide foot and body massage services. upon the steps, side visit and also the evaluation of the project against -- against sections 711.54 and the 303, specifically 790.60, the department believes the application, the project would satisfy all of the sections and

that the main reasons for our recommendation to approve the project with conditions, would include the project if an independently owned business serving the surrounding neighborhood and is not a formula regular use, the project meets criteria under section 790.60, you cannot make vitality of the neighborhood by allowing a new small business to occupy a currently vacant store front, property will not displace any other use and project would be consistent with the district. finally, planning department contacted the department of public health and police department. at this time, neither agency have concerns about the proposed massage establishment on the

project sponsor -- i'm sorry, requesting the conditional use. therefore, we recommend approval with condition. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. my name is yong fen, and i have the application for 4124 mission street. first, i would like to share information about myself. i used to play professional basketball in my home country china in the city of sjeng high, part of my routine i used to receive a massage before and after my game. so that's what spoke me interest

in massage. after a few years i became a volleyball coach and the taught student how to play volleyball. every time my student got hurt, i got a chance to practice massage and help them release the pain. later i went to a chinese medical school to learn the traditional massage. it helped me to improve my massage skills. when i immigrate to the united states in 1995, i worked very hard. i worked different kind of job like cleaning house, working in a factory, in a restaurant. in 1996 i start to do massage. i rent booth on the strip at the city festival. also, i went booth at the free market giving massage on the

weekends. i provide my massage service to my client at the business and the home, which i continue to this day. i opened a massage in the shopping mall. but due to the economy and the initial cost of the travel -- having traveled to idaho several times a year, also the rent is very high, so i decide to give up my business in idaho. but the one is in central high is still in business. so i wanted to pursue opportunity close to my home so i want to open a business in here. that's why i'm here today. so we provide a service called

acupressure and foot massage. the function of those techniques are relax tension of the stress. acupressure and massage penetrates deep into the tissue of the body. this is taking massage and heat wisely, to help the body's own natural relieving process to relieve pain. this helps many people obtain pain-free lifestyle. right now the store we're going to open is 700 square feet. we will utilize four massage chairs and two massage tables in open setting. in front of the store we have a big, glass window. if people pass by the store,

they can watch from the outside. our clients are not required to take their clothes off and we don't use oil when we are massaging for the client. so i'm really excited because i'm one step closer to starting massage service with my family and in the community in which i live. i hope our service can help people have a stress free and productive life. i want to this you for consideration in my business. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. i will open it up for public comment. >> commissioners, madam president, commissioners, steve courier, from the residents association. i want to preface this by saying

that the -- that omra was not going to take a position on this issue but what transcribed in the last few days, namely a week and a half, is that there was a meeting at the excelsior action group a week ago monday where the project owner was to speak to some members of the community. what i found out was this was not a normal massage studio, that it was going to be a foot-only massage. i didn't think anything of it. i figured, well, that's fine. i heard some concerns from members of the community that were opposed to it for whatever reason. but last night one of my board members sent me what i'm passing around to you a website from citrus heights regarding this massage parlor. i decided to contact my board

and my board oked me to write you a letter. unfortunately, commissioner sugaya, you're the only name i misspelled for all issues i would have to come in front of you on. when i saw this particular website, i was really angry because i don't think that, you know, an erotic massage is a good place in our neighborhood and there are two massage parlors in our neighborhood who have both been cited by vice or acts of prostitution. so one of the things i wanted to tell you -- or ask you, is that i would like to have further conversation with the project owner. i asked this through mr. wang and asked the owner if he would continue for a two-week continuance regarding this hearing so we can get to the bottom of what this website is and what the actual business is