complaints and noise and whatever and that is still there. >> i think place in the stairway and elevator on the south side lessens the amount of shadow impact on the army itself which was a big concern. -- on the armory itself, which is a big concern. what kind of community benefit, housing requirement comes into play? >> the affordable requirement is 17% so this would probably be around one unit and it would be subject to the impact fees which could be roughly six to $8 a

square foot. this is kind of like playing strategic something or other here. if we deny the project, the developer could come back and submit a plan which would then be subject to a slightly lower density and subject to the community benefits packages and it would then come into play. at that point, anyone could appeal the that or not a pill but could take discretionary review. that discretionary review comes to the planning commission and we would have a hearing like this. the difference between the discretionary review and the conditional use is that the commission must find the project

desirable and compatible. under the discretionary review, it will have the onus switching to the people who brought the discretionary review because we have to find that the impacts are extraordinary and exceptional. this is kind of the reverse. they can appeal to the board of appeals. the board of appeals would have to vote 5-4 to uphold your appeal. my only other concern is that even though people have said that 1880 missions or whatever

it is called, you will have six stories. you probably have 20 units facing even a longer stretch of your activity area since it goes from mission to the alley. there are units facing knew all along the entire elevation. i would think the potential from complaints coming from that development are greater than coming from this development but i could be wrong. an equal or greater concern should be directed and a fortune the something is already being built. the why should we penalize this developer? >> i think that you are

analyzing it a very very well. these discussions, arguments reminded me that over a number of years i mentioned earlier that i live about a block away. this was owned until maybe two years ago. fritz was someone who vehemently opposed residential in the neighborhood. this was a major condo project. it was going to put every at a business. this is still there. this is doing very very well. in fact, they even make scotches.

the condos are there and they are doing very well. one other residential development in the interim head until it can work out, it should work out. >> my tune has not changed. this has been the same kind of argument i don't think that they have been unfounded and history has proven me right in many instances sadly but i think true. again, maybe there would be some impact but we have affordability on site and i think that there is something that comes with negotiating with the community providing community benefits.

this really provides no community benefits. there are no fees that are required to pay under the new rules. there is no affordability on site. there is nothing for the community. we were always hyper vigilant about projects that we saw in the mission trying to make sure that they were compatible in design or in terms of benefits that the community could have. i don't see this as being a win- win situation. >> i know the answer to this. we cannot impose any community benefit fee based on eastern neighborhoods, can we? >> no. >> in some way, following what commissioner antonini said, in the community or in the eastern

neighborhoods planning process, there was a decision made to include the pipeline projects and we knew going into it that those were going to provide community benefits and other things that were subsequently approved. that is all i wanted to say. >> that is why some of us were opposed to the idea because of projects like this. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with the modification that the project be flipped and the units go on the other side closer to the drill as opposed to -- >> and they continue to work with the neighborhood. >> the budget sponsor and his team will continue to work with the community. >> can i interrupt? >> i will make a motion to

continue. i will make a motion to continue because this particular motion will fail and we are missing two commissioners and i don't know how they feel about it. i don't know, the other commissioners might agree and give the community more time to talk to this project sponsor. i don't know if that will lead to anything. anyway, i will make that motion. >> it would have to be january 19th. >> the public hearing will remain closed. >> and lester is new material

introduced, we will keep this closed. >> this opens the public hearing. >> on the motion for continuance to january 26th. >> this item is continue to january 26th. the public hearing is closed. >> sorry. >> commissioners, you are now on item -- we need a 10-minute recess. >> the commission is taking a 10-minute recess.

>> good afternoon, president and the rest of the planning commission. this item before you is a request for discretionary review to change the use of an existing small service restaurant to a full-service restaurant. the restaurant space was approximately 950 square feet in floor area. that is approximately a 49-

person service area. they want to convert from a self service type of restaurant to a full-service type of restaurant. the restaurant specializes in eastern european cuisine, they can serve beer and wine and has been in operation since 2009. the current hours of operation are until 10:00 p.m. thursday through wednesday. the discretionary review was filed by tang and the residents directly to the east and west. there is a concern that bistro gambrinus is a high-volume sports bar. high volume of traffic constantly box the driveway of neighbors. during late night, patrons at

constantly smoking on the sidewalk. they encourage smokers el loiterers to congregate on the sidewalk. the proposal to turn the hours of operations to reduce noise and night and to change the signs to keep patrons indoors. the project sponsors are represented by victor marquez, and they will provide a response. under the sun in code, the full- service restaurant is on the first floor. this establishment is operating within the permit hours of operation. although the eating and drinking establishment has a service area, the bar area is considered a full-service restaurant. it serves beer and/or wine.from

the department of a alcoholic beverage control -- the planning department recommends that the planning commission and take discretionary review. this concludes our presentation. we will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. d.r. requestors. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 1831 fall in the street immediately adjacent to bistro gambrinus. it is not a self-service restaurant or a full-service restaurant. it is a sports bar that draws people from throughout the bay area.

it lets patrons lose on to our neighborhood after they become drunk and unruly. the evidence proves this point. the name gambrinos is the patron saint of beer and beer making. 1.3 pages of different types of beer. only two-thirds of a page of food. the patrons are frequently drunk. may i have the overhead, please? on august 26, my neighbor and i were attacked by patrons of gambrinos. i am convinced that the attacks were coordinated by the owner to

take our cameras, with which we were photographing numerous violations. we were a photograph ingot drunk people assembling on the sidewalks after 10:00 p.m. the police was called. the employees told police that they can be opened 24 hours a day. the decor is that of a sports bar. since these pictures were taken, they have added another big screen tv, making it clear, its intent to continue being a sports bar. boys level and patronage on game nights are extremely high. it is a nuisance to the neighborhood. with regards to petitions, natalia and i submit the letter

signed by 47 residents within the area. these are the same neighbors that were notified for this hearing. they are true neighbors. if i offered beers to signatories, i would easily have 1000 signatures or if i included family and friends. only five signatures of people in the same area. 1 of the 5 signed twice. another person in this room has interest in gambrinos. there are no more than three signatures from our neighbors. the rest are from all over the bay area. this supports our claim that bistro gambrinus is a high-

volume sports bar drawing undesirables from all over. it has become a nuisance and a threat to the neighborhood. prior to sergei buying reestablishment it was a coffee shop that occasionally served a glass of wine or a bowl of soup. since last fall, bistro gambrinus extended its hours of operation under questionable circumstances without notifying neighbors. it is creating a nuisance and making the neighborhood on saved. blocked driveways, and graffiti, and people urinating in public are frequent. we request that the commission do not grant the petition to change to a full-service restaurant. gambrino's is not a full-service

restaurant, it is a sports bar. at least require the establishment to close earlier to modify its architecture, to keep its patrons from flowing out to the sidewalk and to make the building soundproof. thank you for your consideration. >> speakers in support of the d.r. requestor. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is natalia. it is right next door to bistro gambrinus. i lived here 12 years. i lived there with my daughter.

ever since bistro gambrinus opened its doors, my apartment has become practically unliva ble. it is extremely loud and the neighborhood has become unsafe. my daughter is a graduate student. she could not stand the loud yelling and screaming. that is the reason why i move my daughter out. our neighborhood has become very unsafe. on august 26 that i was badly beaten by customers of the bar. it happened after midnight. when they were outside on the streets and i was trying to take pictures, i was attacked by

gambrinus customers. i know who was behind this, the owner. they attacked us. they beat us. they wanted to destroy evidence of what was going on in this area. i am very sorry. because of my work schedule, i have to do my laundry at night. it was very convenient to me. i frequently seek customers drunk and smoking. one time i saw the drunk couple having sex. drug customers that were smoking

in front of the laundromat were blocking my way and were making jokes about me in russian. i could not understand what they were saying. they harassed me by yelling at me not to report this to the police. another day, i walked around the neighborhood. sergei followed me taking pictures with his camera. a large number of our neighbors -- >> thank you, ma'am. are there any additional speakers in support of the d.r. request third? seeing none, a project sponsore?

>> victor on behalf of bistro gambrinus. the permits seeks to change from a small service restaurant to a full-service restaurant of the eastern european cuisine and beer and wine. there is something i across the street from my place that is not that different. i enjoy a nice meal. it is very appropriate that this is coming after the mirkarimi legislation earlier today. it is in line with that type of small, international cuisine. it was smart -- started by a young immigrant couple from eastern europe. i have been there a number of times.

it is clean, well lit, entered generational in terms of clientele. i have seen families, i have seen students, i have seen a diversity amount of people. this is not a motley crew. this is an intergenerational family pressure not that happens to serve beer and wine to go along with meals. there is no hard liquor being served. the owners do not have any intent of pursuing a full liquor license. the d.r. applicants make representations as sympathetic as i am to some of the allegations they are making, it is not within the purview of these allegations. we disagree with those allegations. i will address a couple of those

in response to the allegations. you look at the photo that was submitted. it was someone saying, please do not take a photo of me. it showed the individual taking the photographs being the aggressor, not the individuals being the aggressors. i did it asked my client to take photos of the area. as he was taking photos, one of the neighbors did come out. he thought that maybe he was pursuing her. he was following my instruction to take photographs. it is a 950-square-foot establishment. there is nowhere to grow. the only sign that is there on the premises within the square footage of the restaurant. they are adding to the safety of the neighborhood. this is a very diverse

intersection. and has a liquor store, and has a bus stop, folks congregate there. there are a lot of delivery trucks that go in and out of the liquor store. my clients have tailored their delivery to one day a week for about 15-20 minutes. i am going to pause. they have limited their delivery hours to accommodate the neighbors. neighbors from the hague wandered down. it is a very busy intersection. that being said, ever since the allegations of this incident,

they have installed two cameras. they have a security person in the evening. it during the night hours, somebody is designated to take security. they have literally hundreds of supporters. you are going to hear from the neighbor that lives in the same building. you also have over 125 letters of support, both from the local neighborhood as well as from patrons around the city. it is a destination because it serves a unique menu. a contributing member of our business community that provide seven full-time jobs. it is an immigrant business that has been very successful. we are happy with the staff recommendation of the conditions

that are being proposed. they are normal for any other restaurant. we appreciate your support and for the d.r. application to be denied. >> we have several speaker cards. we would ask if people would rather stand up to support the project sponsor, that is acceptable. >> i wanted to ask, we do have a lot of speakers. i wanted to ask if the speakers could stand up so that you could have all of the supporters of the restaurant. if you could try to limit your comments to one minute. i know you have more than one minute, but try to be brief. >> at this point, i will say that anyone who would like to make a public comment can start coming up to the mic at this time.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a patron. mark. and i know the owners. they started this business in 2009 at the depth of the recession when businesses and restaurants were going out of business all over town. they put their hearts and souls into this business. the neighbor who has bought the building next door in new that he was buying next to a restaurant. knew full well. and probably was able to buy at a lesser price, knowing it was next to a restaurant as opposed to next to a house. now that he has his discount, he has cause significant hardship on ready to not only the patrons

and the owners, but to the city. i would like you to confirm that he has filed three complaints to the health department, one to the fire department, five complaints to the abc, 3 to the planning commission, and three or four to the police. every single complaint has been unfounded and abated. it is a sham. it is a sham on the city, spending your resources for unsubstantiated claims. then he goes on and talks about people urinating in front and throwing up in front. if you are in a restaurant and you have to use a restroom, are you going to go out front and pee or use the restroom? if you have to throw up, where you go outside or will you use the restroom? it is