allow full entertainment permits. lastly, i really like us to look at the examples of the valencia which does allow entertainment for the full entertainment permit with a conditional use. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stefano costeloto and this is the city of live music and also a city for influgs, not exclusion. and i would like to see this ordinance adopted citywide. i want to thank supervisor mirkarimi for having the vision and foresight to fill a void in which the definition of entertainment in san francisco for a long time is a broad definition. and what happened there is there was no tier that filled the void at the bottom where we have a lot of cafes, restaurants, art

galleries that either were discouraged from offering music because they couldn't afford it for the permit process and to go through the process and then we had some calf fays -- cafes that felt they were taking a chance and now we have a level field where everybody can participate and contribute to the city. the other aspect is when the city had the dot com we lost a lot of the musicians to the east bay. now what's happening is unfortunate thing with that is we lost a lot of our soul. many of those musicians had to reside in east bay and now we have an opportunity for more work, frequency of work, and businesses now that can offer a better experience, more value, and to be more competitive. people are looking for an experience and may want a

coffee, but they also want to be entertained. i would support the legislation and am very grateful to the small business commission and everybody that participated in bringing it to this fomc. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fong. commissioner fong: thank you. i am fully supportive of this legislation. and san francisco has a rich history of music and poetry and musicians and maybe just want to become a standup comic some day and perform many a cafe. i am also the uncle of someone who started out performing in these small little cafes and just finished a national tour sand on a budding career and i think it is the starting grounds for a lot of folks. i want to hear from other commissioners prior to making a motion to the group. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i also think this is overdue. we have seen cases about smaller, less impactful type of music and it was ironic that

others legendary for poetry readings couldn't legally do it amplified in a lot of venues throughout the town where they used to be when they were around. it is long overdue. i do think both mr. ki kuiper a mr. wormer brought up an interesting question and making the music not visible from the street and the window thing. i think that is right. i think it shouldn't be a requirement that it can't be visible. to have it more open would make a lot more sense because there is something appealing about seeing a guitarist playing somewhere and deciding to walk in. you think about other cities in new orleans and places like that and think about music waiving from a restaurant and -- wafting from a restaurant and in terms of windows, i didn't see anything about windows, but particularly during hours where music -- where a noise ordinance

is more liberal, you should haven't to close the windows on a warm day to keep your entertainment noise in. i don't know if anybody wanted to comment further on that. >> thank you, commissioners. supervisor mirkarimi. i quite agree and i think there is a little bit of a gray interpretation of whether there would be a requirement of having closed windows or not. that was borrowed from old legislation that the deputy city attorney had put into our law and questioned the necessity of that. but that is something that we have also spotlighted and i would go ahead and correct that to make sure that indeed would be mandated. >> great. and would you also upgrade it vizable from the seat that seems feasible. >> absolutely. i think we are just looking for that sweet spot of making sure we are sensitive to the surrounding residents in the area and staying in accordance with all the laws that protect their particular interest, but

at the same time we don't want to overregulate where it subverts the very intent of the law. commissioner borden: absolutely. and this is great. and such a lack of a lot of cafes being able to have a full schedule of poetry readings or whatever. and we feel like we see that a lot now. and not as much in san francisco and because of the lack of affordability of these permits. it is kind of ridiculous that you would have to get a full entertainment permit which is kind of ridiculous to coming to the planning commission and smoe months and hours time. and i would move to approve and with the staff modifications and add the additional modification that we strike -- recommend they strike the lack of visibility from the street and also make sure that language related to the windows be that as long as it is within the permitted noise hours and the proposal of the noise ordinance, that windows

could be open. it shouldn't be that people are suffocating ip side the venues. president olague: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: i would like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for this legislation. unfortunately or fortunately, commissioner borden brought me back too many years. i was actually there when ginsburg and cariwack were reciting poetry to the accompaniment of music. it was san francisco. and aside from that, i have really only one question. and i was confused -- i understood but am confused on the 200 square feet bit. i am thinking of a strolling guitar. the old fancy restaurants that had a strolling violinist.

the opera singer that doesn't necessarily stand in one place and that part of it, i think i understood why there is a limiting concept but i am not sure it is. any comment? >> it is a gray area. commissioner miguel: i have a problem with it. >> sophie hayward, we, too, were conflicted about how to approach the limitation of square footage. the intent was to highlight that it was a limited live performance and thought about the ideas such as having the area permitted for entertainment travel with the performer. commissioner miguel: i'll go

with that. >> i think the intent is when the permit comes through to the entertainment commission, at least the primary area devoted to the performance would be highlighted on some sort of plan so we can confirm that this is not going to take over the entire space. and i agree this was a little bit of a puzzle as well. commissioner miguel: i fully support the resolution but recommend that the wording reflect the possibility of someone moving around the room because otherwise it's not just seeming logical. >> and something that is well spotlighted. >> i am also very supportive and in the 60's and 70's where you

go in north beach and with entertainment in a lot of places that were not there and this is good legislation. my understanding is staff modification opens it up to the areas named and all of those areas are permitted as accessory uses, correct? there is no more c.p.u. process and the c.u. were principally permitted accessory use. >> if the ordinance passes. commissioner antonini: that is good. very supportive and need a little more activity in some of the places and it will help them to be more competitive as some of the restaurants and establishments. >> i appreciate you saying that. we had vetted this quite a bit with folks out there who seem to be some few advocates in keeping

the way to prohibit this legislation's reach, but once they heard, once others had heard that, expotentiallily more people came out of the woodwork to say we absolutely want this antonini: thank you very much.ini: thank you president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i will take myself out. i have something to ask ms. hayward, but not in public. olague i support it also. i remember in the 80's -- even in the 80's and this is just -- i guess i am really dating myself now. but you could go anywhere and listen to live music and chris isaac would play for $5 at the night break was the name of the club. you would go to 11th street and listen to bands at that corner

-- the paradise lounge. and people upstairs reading poetry and acoustic music on another floor and something else going on on the other floor. sometimes it's been the clash between some of the newer residents and some of the newer residential uses and the existing uses and is the awesome place to get your bike fixed, coffee, and all the other places and sometimes it hasn't always been a confidentable, what do you call it, coexistence between the different types of uses when there is a shift that wasn't necessarily planned for.

i am hoping we have these conversations around what happened around harper street and is not acceptable at all on some levels. this is business operating for 20 years and one person harps and is so vociferous and shouts the place down at the extense of people's jobs and entertainment and so there are ways to raise this issue again and commissioner fong mentioning his nephew getting a start in a place like this. >> commissioners, on the motion to approve with the modification as amended to lift window and visibility restrictions, take the roll.

president olague: we have been here since noon and i apologize to others. we're going to take a 15 to 20 minute break because we need >> no outbursts of any kidn. we are on -- at 1710 diamond street, mandatory discretionary reviews. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is a mandatory discretionary review, for the single story, single family dwelling on 1710 diamond

street. the subject building is on the west side of diamond street, and i'll put an image of an aerial view on the overhead projector. >> the subject lot, is residential, low density. and i wanted to point out that all of the surrounding areas to the north and east of the subject lot are zoned for single-family homes. the subject lot represents a transition from a higher density neighborhoods to the lower density neighborhoods, and you can see that on this image here.

the property is a large single lot, with 120 feet of frontage along diamond street, and this is about 70 feet, 6 inches. this includes a single car garage. this is said that approximately 23 feet from the proper line. there are large setbacks and yards that the proximate 8 feet in length. this was provided with for single-family homes, with a non tandem parking spaces. this would range to 4100 square feet. it also removed the south end of the subject lot and debt for new cuts to the subject lot. the department's recommendation is to approve the proposed

demolition and the new construction with modifications. the recommendation of the department is that the unit can be increased from four units to six units, and remember that this is a mandatory discretionary review, and the neighborhood modification has gone out and the subject of the case has gone out. no comment has been removed by staff at this time. the department recommendations that the density be increased from four units to six units would result in the affordable market rate. i know that another project sponsor would do this as well. >> the project sponsor.

>> good afternoon. >> when we started this project in 2006, i had a vision to occupy one of the homes that would be built on this project. i think that as a good project, this would add to the housing stock of single-family homes, and we have a shortage of this. referring back to the drawing, as we see, other than these --

the section highlighted in blue, part of the redevelopment project, this was done in the 50's. everything else is a single family home as noted in yellow. this is actually city land, i believe. everything else is single-family homes. that is what the proposal has been for single-family homes. in 2004, this home was built -- actually was part of the larger property that we're requesting to subdivide now and this was in 2004. and in 2008, this property which is about three lots north of us got approved for a single

family home and the property next to that just recently got built as a single family home as well. so i think that our project fits nicely with the neighborhood in terms of look and size, the lot width, and a denser multiunit building would not be in character with the neighborhood. it also -- actually, i also want to point out that since 2006 when we started with the preproject applications and 2007, february, when we actually did the formal application, there was never any indication the department wanted anything higher density than what we proposed and it wasn't until july 2009, over two years later, that, you know, the planning department mentioned they wanted a higher

density. and even then in our discussions with r.d.t., i was not convinced there was an overwhelming staff support for the six units. and i think at the time r.d.t. had some strong personalities which i believe are no longer there. also, i'd like to point out we held two neighborhood meetings for the project, and there was no opposition from the neighbors, and in the presentation that we made to them, it was always presented as a four-unit project and now to go back and say that we have to put six units when the neighbors are opposed to nothing being done and going from four to six is probably going to be a difficult thing to pass through to the

neighbors. also, increasing density will also make the size of the building smaller -- or the unit smaller, sorry. and that will make it less family friendly and will probably require that we take out the elevators from the buildings that we're proposing because, you know, there won't be enough size, or enough space to be included and by not having the elevators would be less family friendly and maybe senior friendly as well. and so just to point out again that the size of the -- the density of the project is more in line with the rest of diamond street as we proposed. so i would request that you support my project and approve it. >> thank you. is there any public comment on

this item? >> good afternoon, president olague and the commissioners. my name is eugene cho and representing dabring associates, the architect for this project. i would like to emphasize this proposed project, we're proposing the four new single family house. they are a modest size. it's ranging from 2,700 to 3,000 square feet in living area, and they're all three bedrooms, three bathrooms with an elevator to accommodate extended families with seniors, which i think the city greatly promotes the families to live in the cities and why we decided this approach. and in terms of the general building designs, as you can see here, we have taken

contemporary style to reflect the design character of this era. and after several times of revisions we have streamlined and articulate the building elevations. we have expressed the proposed elevation with proportional base and windows and all the windows are aluminum frame with deep recess. in terms of the materials, we're going to use high quality stuccos and also the wood sidings which is very common in these residential neighborhood. in terms of the form and scale, i'm going to show you along the diamond streets on the side of the subject lot on the west side of diamond street, they're all at least three story in height. and there are two reasons the

buildings our project sponsor has shown you. they're all four story in height. this is the most recently built building, 1636 diamond and this is 700 diamond. they're all four story in height. a proposed building is also four story in height with nine feet, 11 feet front setback which i think is compatible in terms of scale with the neighborhoods. and after receiving comments from our neighbor, especially mr. mcgrath at 1700 diamond, we've made adjustment to setbacks in the front and the back. and also changed the elevation design to address his concerns. so i think we are -- in terms of the design, we are compatible with the neighborhood. and in the end, in conclusion, i'd like to also emphasize we think developing a four single family dwelling would respect the neighborhood dwelling in the neighborhood and that

concludes my presentation and i'm graduate to answer any questions, thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i agree with the project sponsor for a few reasons. i did a little math. what you come up with with the four structures on 121 foot frontage is about 33 feet which gives you the latitude to really make nice living spaces. i mean, victorians and other city parcels are often 25-foot frontages but it really limits what you can do and you're into a design, interior design that is -- especially with multifloors, and this would actually bring us to a 20-foot frontage for each of these if i did the math right which is extremely small. and thrls is a really big demand for larger, new homes in

san francisco. i've talked to a lot of realtors and of course it's not going to be cheap but there are people who afford to pay for this and they would rather live in san francisco than somewhere on the peninsula or outside san francisco and marin but there isn't a big stock of these homes and buying an older home is a lot more expensive proposition because you buy the older home and have to pay a lot for that and put a lot of money into upgrading a 1925 openly which oftentimes has not been, you know, brought up to date so they're looking for this type of product. and i would agree with staff we need some design changes. this is really knowy valley and know it's on the border with diamond heights but clearly is with nowie valley and it was changed a few years ago and gold mine comes down in a culdesac from diamond heights. but should reflect the style in

nowie valley and looked at the stuff that's been built more recently and the ones built in the 1990's wasn't too bad but the single family home built in 2011, maybe it's a bad picture of it, but i don't think it's very good, maybe it's better in darker light. you have to have a stronger cornice and molding around the window and fit it in but i know the architect has done some really good things and i've seen the work done by the architect on the richmond district and we approved something on 22nd avenue that was really nice and they went back and reworked it and the end product was extremely contech churl. and what we need to do with this. but i am supportive of the four homes. i think that's going to produce four really nice homes and am

supportive of the 2-1 parking because there are people who have families and want to have parking for both their cars and would rather not have them on the spree to be burglarized and would like to put them in a garage and we have to provide housing for those people, too. president olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i'm pretty much in agreement with commissioner antonini. i disagree with the department as to six unions. i think four is proper here. i think it fits in directly with the rest of the neighborhood. it gives actual family units. i understand the expense of building on these types of slopes and appreciate the fact that you are putting in elevators because i think it's needed in a home like this.

and i would move to not take discretionary review as to a and b and approve the project as submitted with the recommendation as commissioner antonini mentioned of further working with the department as to exterior features. >> second. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, i'll vote for the motion but would like to say, i think, as we saw maybe two weeks ago, a design could be produced that has six units that would work quite well i believe and not necessarily have to take the traditional approach of dividing the length of the property into six smal