addressed the idea -- not the idea, the seating, this does not have a rear yard, i'm creating a dark pit of a deck here for open space, and i started out seeking a rear yard modification variance that stepped the building down and filled that space in and left it as a side yard but that would involve a whole variance, the neighbors could appeal it, we already went down that route and that's something that changed the plans in response to the neighbors. and it was sort of a preventive attempt to address that concern. so, i don't know. i do have a screen at the street that was also in response o -- to the noise from the deck, it's 8 feet high, maybe that becomes more semi-solid, which from the street at least would create

that stepping. the other thing is, the photos, if you look at the other corner lots that do not step -- there's that 7 storey building at lexington that shoots out, it's a historic -- >> maybe commissioner antonini has an idea. >> well, thank you, i don't know, i'm very sensitive to what project sponsor's gone through and as was mentioned frequently, we have almost no buildings that were built between 5 and 9 units in the last five years and this is a 12 unit but it's getting close to where it isn't going to make any pencil out if we're going to have to take units, it sounds easy enough to add a floor off on the unit level and take a floor off, i'm not sure if it works out to have the 8 -- 2 bedroom unit and is the 4-1 bedroom units ts, i believe that's what we're looking at, we start losing one of our two

bedroom units or something, i would be hesitant to do that even though it seems to make sense. i would probably make a motion just to approve the project with -- as designed right now with working with staff to try to incorporate some of the things that the commission has talked about with the treatment of the bay issue in the front and also with -- the project sponsor would have to agree to -- it's not a condition, to work with the marsh to try to remedy sound issues and provide some sort of relief from the loss of property line windows. that would be my motion, although that does -- other parts are not conditions. >> just a question, can we add as a condition that they work with the marsh and come up with a construction plan that, you know, at the least limits construction times to, you know, earlier than 3:30 and no

construction on weekends? >> if you want, you could put conditions on the construction hours and/or encourage the sponsor to work with -- there's continuation measures, you can require it on the project sponsor's building but you can encourage to work with the skylight or more soundproofing on the marsh building but only as an encouragement. >> i would like to limit construction times beyond what's in the code to what's being suggested by the marsh because i think that could be a big impact. >> what hours? >> construction goes on for a long time i think if you start to chop off too many hours. >> and you have labor hours by which a construction worker needs to work an extra amount of hours, i think it's very

hard to control that. >> i'm sensitive to their performances in the evenings. >> right. >> i don't know, 5:30? 3:30 is a pretty early performance. >> there's youth classes. >> summertime only. >> commissioner moore? >> [inaudible]. >> i say until 5:30, no construction on weekend. >> i think that standard hours of construction would be 7 days a week or five days a week. >> 7. >> okay, well, project sponsor, is that going to work if you cut off weekends, it's going to be really hard? >> i have no problem at all, nobody's going to be working until 8:00 at niekt, 5:00, and

mostly everybody's going to be out of there by 4, and on the weekends, no work on sunday, and saturday, i mean, once again, we explained them, you come over, you have some special thing going on, come and tell us and give us a little bit of advance notice and no problem, so i mean, 5:00, 4:30 is fine with us for a cut off. >> i accept the friendly amendment, you can start as early as you want in the morning, probably 7 o'clock in the morning is earliest you can do, 7:00 to 5:00 is realistic six day as week, that would be fine. six days that don't include sunday. >> i think the marsh does do saturday shows that begin at

2:00, saturday and sunday, the marsh does 600 performances a year at that site, so we have two to three shows a day there because we have an upstairs space and a downstairs space so having any construction on saturday afternoon honestly would be a very significant financial hit. i think one thing, speaking for the marsh is that we want to be assured of a liaison, someone we know we can always talk to that will always give us a schedule for the week that we have a regular check-in, i think our fears are they can say what they want at this moment but if we don't have an assigned liaison and that's a requirement of the project, and after the project is built, we'll need to continue to work as a liaison, there has to be a

concrete liaison setup, not just call us whenever we want, we need to know who and we would like to have a weekly meeting during construction. >> one of the conditions, there would be a liaison that would be provided. >> that's important to us. >> and with the permission of the other commissioners, if we go 7 to 6 during the week and 7 to 1 on saturdays,. >> that would probably work for us except for special events. >> our call time is 5:30 during the week for 7:00 performances and then for regularly, it's 3:30 on saturdays. >> i think take what you got. you want to restate the motion >> okay, the motion is to approve the project working with staff for design, concerns particularly in regards to the bay and the front of the building at the corner of valencia and hill, and secondly,

continue, the project sponsor will work with the marsh in terms of providing a liaison for communication purposes. >> j*u one point of information, this is a dr so you should take dr and do these thing and is the community liaison thing is not in here because it's not a conditional use, it's a dr, so anything like that has to be in the language of our dr. >> we are taking dr to do this, that's true, and also to address sound attenuation and possible sky lights to mitigate for -- these are not conditions. >> encourage improvements to the building. >> along those lines. and that hours of construction would be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. -- i did a compromise to give them saturday afternoons, 7:00 to 6 p*k monday through friday and 7

a.m. to 1 p.m. on saturdays. >> is there a second to that? >> second. >> i want to add something though, and i still have a concern about the step down on -- toward the historic district. commissioner antonini only included the bay consideration at the corner. i don't particularly like the design that is dated august 28th or whatever the heck it is, and kind of prefer the other one frankly, and i think other commissioners have stated that. i understand that there's some issue with the corner bay, but, you know -- >> yes, there are issues with all the bay windows because they are too close tokt, we can work around the bay windows, otherwise, it's a variance.

i think there's a way to modify the bay windows to make them code complying. >> just in terms of my last piece, just in terms of a fear of having to go to a variance which i understand can be appealed, i mean, this can be appealed too, right, i mean, this can go to the board of appeals, then if they don't like it, they can appeal your building permit, right, so in any case, there are going to be appeals no matter what, so for my way of thinking, if it requires a variance to get a better project, i would go that route. i said if it takes a variance to get a better project and to -- what seems to be to satisfy the direction of the commission, then i would encourage you to take that on. >> okay. >> regarding the step down if i may, on the top floor, if you

just eliminated that one bedroom in the rear, you would get a step in at 11 feet, that's somewhat significant if you are okay with that. >> but then that means you convert one-two bedroom. -- >> that's the tradeoff. >> they're already doing two affordable units on site, i don't know how the sponsor feels about that. >> i think there are possibilities but i think we're trying not to lose units if possible, that's why the variance route might work. >> commissioners, you want to try this? >> i think you should just incorporate what he said. >> my understanding is the motion is to take the project with some modifications, one is

to address the hours of construction, 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. mondays through fridays, 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on saturdays, they would provide a liaison so they know who they can contact during construction and i'm assuming even after the building is built, on the design to address the bay issue in the front of the corner of valencia and hill and to continue to work on design with the step down on the side -- on the hill street side, that they will continue to work with the marsh on the other issues such as drainage, ventilation, light and sound attenuation. >> that sound good. we're encouraging them to work with staff as far as that step down issue, we're not saying they have to change it but if there's a way that that can be done, that would be nice but they're approved for the 12

units, 8-2's and 4-1's, i believe. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> thank you, that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you're now at general public comment. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.

good morning, welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services. i'm shawn ellsberg, joined by christina olague. could you reese item one? >> hearing to consider

issuance of type 40 license to the roxy at 3117, 16th street. >> thank you, mr. clerk. we are joined by inspector lazar. >> good morning, supervisors. >> your report. >> the applicant has filed for an application with the abc, seeking an original type 40 on the sale of beer for 33131716th street on the south side of 16th between albian and valencia streets. for the purposes of this hearing, the california department of alcoholic beverage control, abc, seeks a determination with the board of supervisors as to the approval or denial of this license. police calls for service for august 2011 to august 2012, 29 calls for service. police reports during that same time period, no record. this promise is in lot 413.

the high crime area is defined as 215 or more reported incidents in a plot. this plot has 472 reported incidents recorded for 2010. this is over the high crime area definition by 257. the applicant premises is located in a high crime area. this premises located in the census track 202. on sal license authorized by census track is 22. active on sale licenses, 37. the applicant premises is located in an undue concentration area. letters of protest, no record with the abc. letters of support, no record with the abc. no opposition from mission station. the police department alu

recommends approval. the following conditions have been recommended to the abc. number one, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 a.m. daily. two, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted only on days the theater has a bona fide theater performance or movie. three, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only to the lobby area, as depicted in the abc257. four, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be made only from stationary bar or waiter-waitress services and shall not be sold to customers by individual ambulatory vendors. five, the petitioner shall

post signs measure nothing less than 12 inches with lettering no smaller than two inches in height that read, no alcoholic beverages beyond this point at all permitted exits and entrances to the theater seating area, as depicted on the abc257. six, any employee or security guard shall be assigned the responsibility of ensuring all alcoholic beverages stay inside the permitted lobby area whenever the privileges of the abc license are exercised. seven, the sale of alcoholic beverage for consumption off premises is strictly prohibited. eight, beer shall be dispensed, sold and served only in containers being no larger than 16 ounce capacity. these containers shall bear distinctive markings, making them easily discernible from other non-alcoholic beverages provided by the licensee.

nine, no person may be served and/or shoulder more than two containers. ten, the petitioner shall remain responsible free of litter the area adjacent to premises they have control, as depicted on abc 257. 11, loitering. that is defined as standing idly by, linger without lawful business. is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premise under the control of the licensee, as depicted on the abc 257. 12, no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee, as defined by the abc 257. 13, the exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate to show

conduct on all premises. lighting should not disturb normal privacy and use of neighboring residence. 14, inther your lighting maintained shall be sufficient to make discernible appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons in that portion of premises where alcoholic beverages are sold, served, delivered or consumed. thank you. >> thank you, inspector. the project sponsor is here. any comments? don't need to if you don't want to. no objection to the conditions. okay. no objection to the conditions. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. gibner, could i ask you to explain briefly the -- if this is a new method or how you suggest we move forward? typically we would just say we will adopt the recommendation but your suggestion now would be to do what?

>> don gifford, deputy city attorney. the department of alcoholic beverage control recently sent alert to the clerk's office informing us that going -- the board essentially under state law has the authority to make a finding that the license would serve the public convenience and necessity or would not serve public convenience and necessity. up or down or yes/no decision but the board does not have the authority to make a yes decision with conditions. yes, we will make a pcn finding if -- that doesn't mean that the department won't listen to the board's suggestions, but the department has indicated they will take them only as suggestions. so going forward we would recommend that the board either adopt -- include that the license will serve

public convenience and necessity or not serve public convenience and necessity. if you find yes. yes will it serve public condition convenience and necessity and want to attach conditions, you adopt those as recommendations as opposed to conditions on your yes vote. >> and mr. clerk, you understand that as you draft the motion that will be in front of the full board? >> yes, sir. >> seeing no public comment, public comment being closed. is there a motion? >> i will make the motion this does serve the public convenience and provide recommendations as articulated by our department and to send the item forward. >> we can do that with recommendations. seeing no objection, that will be the order. mr. clerk, are there any other items in front of the committee? >> no more items. >> the committee is adjourned.