saturday and discussed mobile retail at the meeting that you have reported. that is it. thank you. >> thank you, outreach committee. >> item 9, outreach committee? >> most of our meeting was revolving around the recycling issue and since we have already heard that, there is nothing more. >> and that is a tough one. so thank you. >> it was interesting. >> next item. >> commissioners, item 10 president's report? >> i would like first to talk about small business week. we are ahead of your fundraising goal from last year. can i talk about that? >> in general terms. >> so we are reaching our fundraising goals, which is going to allow us to do other things this year. we still plan on having flavors on monday night and we still plan on having the

workshops on wednesday afternoons or wednesday all-day. with the board of supervisors recognition on tuesday and the other addition is having a separate awards ceremony on thursday morning, so we're not doing it all-in-one day and get more elected officials to our events that week. and then also i would like to talk about small business saturday. he was out and about and shopping on small business saturday purposely and i would like to thank regina. we had involvement from sf travel and the chamber of commerce, and a lot of people come to san francisco to shop and this is where san francisco travel did really well with hotel rooms and brochures and from the merchants that i talked to, that went over very well and with the years to come

we'll be partnered with the chamber of commerce and sf travel. that is it. >> commissioners, item 11, vice president's report? >> no report this month. >> commissioners item 12, commissioner reports >> any commissioner reports? >> i have one. i was invited by the chinese radio station am1400 to talk sbac bac and office of small business and thank you to the director for providing me the information that i needed over the weekend, because the show was on monday. so a quick study and i think it will air tomorrow. at 5:00. >> great. >> am1400 in chinese. >> are you speaking in chinese? >> yes. >> good for you. >> it's a chinese radio station. >> that is good. i they that -- i think that is important. >> a lot of people don't know about the center and there is also confusion about the sbac

and the office of small business, so we did a little clarification about that. >> next item. >> item 13, general public comment. >> do we have any member of public who would like to comment on any future item for this commission? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> commissioners, item 14 new business. >> are we going to -- i would like to bring up something and i know we talked about this at the last commission meeting about the mobile food trucks. the one thing i would like to do is mobile retailers. >> we can provide a presentation on that and update. >> i know you have been doing some stuff and it's funny, since the mobile food trucks have been out, i have been hear

more about mobile retailers. i saw something on tv and it wasn't in san francisco, but it's in other cities and my gut feeling was a few years ago when mobile food trucks came out, oh, that won't affect us here, but guess what, that is affecting us here. you are starting to see them pop up. there was the rubber person selling the rubber stuffer out the truck and they vanished and i haven't seen them around. i have seen a small truck with clothes in the commission and i'm okay, it's going to start to happen. if we could take about that at one of the meetings because that is going to happen sooner or later. >> i have seen women's clothing trucks at levi plaza. >> so yes, commissioners, that is starting to be a standing

agenda with the policy committee, but we have beening to doing work and staff member christin murdock is staffing the work on this and we'll proficient you with a more detailed update at the general meeting. x any other items? >> next item. >> item 15, adjournment. >> motion. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> commissioners the meeting is adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

>> >> >> frantic shoppers around you may be in need of a break from the festivities and have no fear i will count down the places that will add fun to the madness. if you're in good of a good laugh stop by for free comedy night and food and drink speciallies. come laugh the night away at 8:00 p.m. sharp. after that get your skate grove on in your finest black and white duds. join the godfather of skate and his party crew

this thursday at the skate night. skate to the funk and rolear disco and say the words "i love skating" and get a discount at the door. maybe the star party is your cup of tea and socialize and get tips about the night sky and from san francisco's picturesque land's end and the skies the limit. that's the skies the limit. that's the shortly. >> the clerk: regular hearing for thursday, december 13-rbgs 2012.

the commission does not tolerate outburst or disruption of any kind. if you'd like to speak on an agendized item please fill out a speaker form. and when speaking before the commission, please speak directly into the microphone and state your name for the record. i'd also ask that you turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. i'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here.

first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's

office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu,

aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear

gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that passes unanimously. commissioners, we are going to call items 9(a) and b out of order. at 4 i 22 vincente street. >> ask the commission to recuse myself as we prepared materials for the project sponsor.

>> move to recuse commissioner sugaya. >> second. >> on the motion to recuse, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, commissioner wu, aye, commissioner fong, aye. so moved. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the planning commission, staff tom wang, discretionary review case. this is discretionary review involving demolition in a new building. the proposal is to demolish an existing two story vacant single family dwelling with a non-functional garage and

replace it with a new single family dwelling, two story over garage. the report provided by the project sponsor, the department believes the -- demonstrated the existing structure is unsound. and then the project also meets the majority of the 16 criteria on the residential demolition. therefore we would recommend the approval of the -- of this demolition. for the proposed new building, this is two-story over garage, the department does have some concerns and the reason said although the -- the design of the new building meets all the applicable provisions of the planning code, however it is not fully consistent with the residential design guidelines. in the staff report, there are

three areas. we would recommend to be modified. first, set the third story back fully 15 feet from the main front building wall in order to limit its visibility from the street. currently around the subject -- the majority -- or even the houses along the subject -- there are two story tall and the proposal is for a three-story building. therefore residential design guidelines calls for a setback of 15 feet from the main front building wall. second, reduce the width of the garage door from 12 feet to 10 feet and the reason is that -- is to prevent the replacement of dwelling to garage entrance from becoming a dominant facade feature. also, again, current houses -- surrounding houses on the subject about-face, they all

have narrower garage doors such as 10 feet wide. at the last reduce the building mass of the third story either by setting it -- its rear wall back eight feet to be -- an advantage between the depth of the rear building walls of the two adjacent buildings, or by creating a 204 square feet notch on the third floor, measuring from the third floor northeast corner 17 feet around the north side wall and 12 feet along the east side wall. staff has a little -- to demonstrate this number three modification.

this is what the project sponsor proposed for the third story. there's a small notch that's three feet wide and 15 feet deep and the department does not believe it's enough to address the existing -- open space, as well as the concerns raised by adjacent property owner at 414 vincente street. there are two options. option a, this -- it is in proportion to this map here, to set the rear building wall back eight feet towards front, and the -- area, that means the building mass would have been reduced. or option b, is to create a

larger building notch over the northeast corner, and with the respective dimensions. and these three modifications, the department would recommend. however, the project sponsor declined to take any modifications based upon the department's recommendation. over all, the department would recommend approval of the demolition and the new building with modification and the over all reason the project will replace unsound family -- and no -- parking with single family dwelling containing four bedrooms and off street parking. no tenants will be displaced as a result of the project because

the building -- the dwelling currently is vacant. and, next, given the scale of the project there will be no significant impact on the exist capacity of the street or muni services. and finally although the existing structure is more than 50 years old, a review of the historic resource evaluation resulted in determination that the existing building is not an historical resource. this would conclude our presentation and i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the commission. scott -- on behalf of the project sponsor. what the owners want to do here is take a building that has been vacant for over six years, this is a view of the building, and finally be able to replace it

with a single family home that looks like this. it's been six years that the demolition permit and this rebuild permit have been -- the planning staff. in fact there was an earlier demolition permit eight years ago for this property. when the current owners bought the property it was marketed as a teardown. they came in and promptly tried to do just that to get a betterblbetterbuilding for theme neighborhood. since they took a do it yourself approach they weren't able to comply with the requirements quickly and because the project went through the hands of four different planners with differing requirements it took this long to get to this point. on the demolition you have a report in front of you showing no significance, you have a soundness report showing it is well above the 50% threshold for

demolition. the more significant issue in front of you is the new construction. again that permit has been out there for six years. and i must disagree with what mr. wang told you about the owner not accepting modifications. in fact the owner has made many modifications since it first proposed this building to try to address the concerns both of the neighbors and of the staff. at the front originally this building was proposed with a ten foot setback. the staff asked that they move the front back, and they did just that, they moved it back 15 feet on one side, and 12 feet on the other side. and the staff has asked that it be moved 15 feet all the way. the reason for the set back is to make it in compliance with the residential guideline supposedly but if you look at the residential design guidelines that shows an illustration, which is almost identical to the building that

is being proposed. a setback of the top floor to take it away from a street view, and there is no building on the street that has a 15 foot across the board setback so we don't think it's reasonable to ask us to move it from 10 to now the hybrid of 12 and 15 all the way to 15 and take i way living space. second, the staff has asked for there to be a further concession on the side setback in the rear. the project sponsor did originally had no side -- well, there are side setback on the property in general that aren't required that project sponsor came in to begin with then they wanted setback on the rear right and project sponsor did agree to a three foot carve-out. now we've tried to be sensitive to the concerns of the immediately adjacent neighbor and if of course the setback on the right was necessary to

preserve light and air for the adjacent neighbor and not unduly shadow their property we would have done so but shadow analysis shows because of the topography of the site there is no need for additional site set back showing no shadow on the neighboring home except for one small period of time during one part of the year when there's a little bit of shadow on the rear wall. again the project sponsor has made concessions, even though they want a large house for a large family of three generations, they've cut back at the front and they've cut back at the side. the downslope is what i think -- well first, while we're talking about the rear setback, if you look at the other properties on the block face, you'll see that where we're proposing to go back to this level is no deeper than

this building, this building, and this building. in fact the only property that doesn't go as far back as we're proposing right here was the immediately adjacent building which we've done the shadow analysis to show lack of impact. i'd like to -- to respect your time, we have many supporters here for this project. i'm not going to have all of them come up and give comments but i would like them to stand, the supporters of the project so you can see the support that this has garnered. i want to conclude by saying we have done the historic resource evaluation that has been asked for. the project sponsor has completed the soundness report, complied with the planning code. we think it completely complies with the residential guidelines so we don't think discretionary review is warranted. thank you. >> president fong: open it up to public comment. i have speaker cards when i call your name line up on this side of the room.

jennifer ma, jill astralia sustof, daniel mccarthy, john wellpachuck, scott bureau and -- >> hi. my name is jennifer ma, i live adjacent to this property since 2003, same time has the houses went on sale and i've been living there since then. what you don't see is pictures of the mess in front of my house that we constantly have to clean. i've lived there since 2003 and have not seen any of the people standing back there and i have neighbors that would be supportive of that. i want to state that clearly right now. so i live in the city most of my life, raised my kids in the house we live in now. we bought the house. we enjoyed the the look and feel of the neighborhood and want to

continue to do that. we know the neighbors, my daughter is at preschool, we're vested in living in this area and we're engaged in the area, look out for each other and look forward to spending many more years living there. recently the lease has arranged a meeting to discuss the new house before this meeting. they conducted the shadow study after we requested it. the concern of life was never addressed. so, yes, the shadow does not appear to have direct impact, but the fact that we have light throughout the day does remain a concern for us. as we look outside of our house right now, the back of our house is -- does already have some darkness. when i look back and imagine a house right next to me that's much longer and taller than what we have right now, i stare at complete darkness. that's what we're faced with if this house is proposed next door to our house right now. that's our bedroom. so our kids won't have light in

the bedroom, and we won't, if this gets approved. i understand tom shares the same concerns we have. i represent my family, my husband and i and the kids. james, my husband has met with the planner, reviewed the recommendations and are supportive of the two options proposed. so consider that you -- consider i recommend you consider the recommendations proposed. in that ultimately you will lead to more natural sunlight to our house we won't feel boxed in and our bedrooms will have a natural openness of the air quality and light that we have right now. last week, commissioner antonini had stated when you add something, you want to take it back. i thought that was a well-spoken remark and that should be applied to this particular new appraisal. also i know that we talked about the building of this home but i also think that we're concerned about the bottom of the hill. we have a foundation that right adjacent to the -- if that's

demolished i think there should be some consideration to the demolishment and soundness of the concrete next to our home. thank you for listening to my concerns. >> president fong: thank you. next speaker please. >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is jill artolla, and i side at 4008, my husband and i are native san franciscans and have owned our home for more than 30 years. we look forward to living there for a long time as well. i do not recognize many of the people that stood as our neighbors either. i am outside, gardening very often. we are concerned about the loss of light and view of open space after this large home is built. we would like to encourage you to reduce its size to preserve the light and open space that we now have. as you know, this neighborhood is prone to fog, and overcast

days. there are few if any shadows on those days, only light. my garden and rear bedrooms also depend on the light. jennifer and james will be sandwiched between our home and the lees and that will create a problem for them. we want to state when you add something, you take something else away. that is key here. our homes are typical modest west twin peak parkside homes. this replacement home is very large at 5500 square feet. my home and my hope is that by reducing the size of the second floor, loss of light will be minimized. if the garage level height is lessened, the overall building height would be less as well. please reduce the size of this home and keep as much of the light and open space for the mas and ourselves. we ur