here, this very undersized small building in the rear yard would be a demolition issue, and we would move forward with approving the appropriate building for the needs of the family. at this moment i really cannot at all support something which would indeed invite just by necessity, invite to have two placeses of cooking, particularly when the layout of the space leaves clearly where the kitchen needs to be backed up against the utility and all you have to do is hook into that and you've got your kitchen. i just cannot in good conscience do that. we have spent a lot of time with other units where we had a situation where a garage and a build out basement had people do certain kinds of things in order to foreclose that there is a second unit in the property. so, i cannot really move forward with this, but encourage the different kind of

application as many developed to deliver a building on this lot. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm not clear on the issue of the loss of a unit because you really end up with the same number of units. if the kitchen is the requirement of there being a unit, you still have one unit with a kitchen in it. it would be the new unit. and then the cottage would be accessory. >> it's more dwelling unit removal, not loss of a dwelling unit. >> well, i don't really -- it's a relocation. we have a lot of situations where we might have a merger and they merge the units and they take the kitchen out, but this is not what we're doing here. we're just redistributing it to another place. i mean, that's kind of my -- i don't know. i understand it's a difficult situation. but the logical thing is to put the kitchen where most of the family is going to be most of the time. and, you know, then the smaller

number of occupants would proceed from the cottage to the kitchen when it was dinner time. bring everyone, all those children into the back cottage to have dinner. so, it seems kind of backwards. >> commissioner wu. >> well, is there a world in which we can -- [laughter] >> where we can say it doesn't trigger mandatory dr, we are we can circumvent the fact -- >> yes, we can just make a finding. >> well, i think [speaker not understood], i'm not sure. without scott here, i'm not sure. what i would suggest maybe it sounds like you're supportive of the project if the kitchen is in the front. >> yes. so, maybe make a finding that you would prefer that solution and ask staff to -- and ask the za to look for a solution that allows that to happen. ~ because the way the current

situation -- we have been advised on the current situation the removal of the kitchen in the rear unit constitutes a demolition and therefore a mandatory dr which means coming back to you for another dr. so, obviously everyone wants to avoid that. so, if there is -- so, maybe you could take dr, ask that the kitchen be moved to the front and ask us to figure out a solution to make that happen. >> this particular finding would be associated with the mandatory dr that we would have to evaluate and that's what would trigger that process. >> can i ask the project sponsor what he thinks about that possibility? if i were given or allow today relocate the kitchen to the front building without going through the expensive process of doing the neighborhood notification, loss of dwelling unit and all the other requirements needed for that, i would be willing to do

that. and from my discussion with the rear neighbor, they were supportive of my project if the kitchen was located in the front building. >> among the possibility -- a required change in the plan, but would require the two -- excuse me, the plate, is that the two buildings were connected. i mean, i don't know if that's the possibility. it would require some change in plans and some physical enclosed space connecting the two. it would require a variance. that's another hearing, but it's not a dr. >> i would rather -- i make a motion to take dr and i think instruct the zoning administrator to find a way so that the project sponsor can move the kitchen to the front building without mandatory dr, without it being considered the loss of a -- what was it, the

loss of a dwelling unit removal. >> second. [multiple voices] >> wait. >> one second. >> can i make a suggestion that maybe you take a motion of intent to allow findings to come back to you that may satisfy the mandatory discretionary review findings? >> yes. >> that way the action you take will be a discretionary review and you will be adopting findings that are specific to a mandatory -- [multiple voices] >> we'd have to have another hearing. the matter could be placed under consent to adopt the findings of the dr action. >> the public hearing is closed. >> okay, thank you. ~ for the suggestion. i believe that is a motion of intent to take dr given the circumstances i outlined earlier. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> mr. hillis, did you want to -- >> no, i'm done. >> okay.

i just wanted to add to the motion -- not add to the motion, but i think that the commission's feeling is that there really isn't a dwelling unit removal in the sense that there is still going to be a dwelling unit. there is going to be the smaller cottage in the back and there is going to be a brand-new building in the front and in essence i think you can say that there is no removal. we're just moving one component of the cottage to the new building in the front. and, so, i think the technicality of the way the legal language may be written doesn't apply in this case because it's a special situation. and we really aren't removing a dwelling unit per se. so, if the za can get his mind around that, then i think that's the intent of the

commission. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask staff perhaps to also work a little with the applicant as you are now figuring out exactly how to package it. instead of putting on these plans that there will be a subsequent permit for the cottage, i would like to have the department give the applicant a little bit more guidance of one, the removal of the kitchen requires, but also when remodeling, this does not all of a sudden become a foreign object, but that it follows your guidance in terms of what he can and can't do. it is really important because the way it's currently drawn, and that's why i called you, is we have a thing there where no plans shown, we'll have a future kind of [speaker not understood] application for improvements, but we are not dealing about two houses in this kind of zoning district.

that's where my concern come in. i i'd like to see a little bit more guidance at least in kind for them so there is no future disasters. >> commissioners, i'm sorry, i didn't catch who seconded that motion. >> i did. >> commissioner antonini, thank you. so, commissioners, on the motion of intent to take dr and approve the project with the kitchen being moved to the front of the building and continued to next week or -- >> it would have to be two weeks. >> which would have to be april 4th because the 28th is -- >> continued to april 4th to adopt findings that would satisfy the criteria for dwelling unit removal. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? i'm sorry. commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i just want to clarify the public hearing is closed? >> yes. >> aye. >> well, it will be an agendized item. we have to take public comment if someone chooses, but we'll be placing it under consent.

>> we'll change that in the rules. >> i don't think you can unless you can change the sunshine ordinance. >> the board of appeals does president do that. >> that was aye, commissioner sugaya? thank you. commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this evening? if not, commissioner moore, you had -- >> the dr applicant was trying to add a comment when i talked about the rear cottage. they had an agreement [speaker not understood]. perhaps that could be communicated to mr. smith so that it is indeed properly put to record. >> okay. >> thank you. >> seeing no public comment, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned]

>> if you haven't had a chance to see the stadium and the wonderful progress so far. it's absolutely breathtaking. also as a great symbol of hope on

the regionalism that we all hope that we can be engaged for event for the future. today we talk about solidarity around the super bowl. there is no greater place to have it here than in this valley. we have the very best weather and we have the very best people and company's to support the event. i know that anyone that comes to santa clara will be excited and everyone will have a wonderful time. between golden gate and silicone valley, we can't be beat. i'm thrilled to have you here today. i would like to turn it to our partner, the mayor of san francisco. >> thank you for bringing us altogether. thank you for your leadership, thank you for your leadership. i'm down here to

join the other mayor's and other officials, not just our city, but all the city and officials in the peninsula and bay area so we can announce our joint collaborative effort for the super bowl bid. it's an incredible opportunity. i'm glad to see this going as well as it is because it's really a commitment to the economy of the whole region as to this particular project. having said that, the super bowl bid is an incredible thing and the strength of our bid is a collaboration of this whole region. this is how we think we will win this bid. this is not for any one particular city, it's us working together. not only on transportation issues,

not only on cites, but all the hospitality that we have set. i want to thank all the regionals for working together. we want that super bowl xv very badly. we think we have the greatest opportunity to work for it and not only to win that bid, but to get ourselves in an incredible rotation for other super bowl hosting. we look at this long-term and it's the reasonable approach that will give us the strengths for the nfl to take into consideration. i want to be thankful for all the regions mayor's for joining us and the 49er organization. they brought us together at this time. it's going to be a

great thing for san francisco. thank you. >> thank you for coming out. this is an amazing site. there are a thousand people working on this project today. those thousand people have come from all over the area for regional benefit. we are along the border from san jose. it stands to benefit wah as well as the region. we have the most important economies in the world. this building, this facility and this team and this team are a regional asset to the economy. to bring the super bowl here would be a regional effort with regional benefits. we are excited about it and happy to participate and looking forward to our hotels, restaurants, facilities for people who are visiting san francisco and santa clara and

other cities around the area. super bowl 50, i don't care, we'll take either one. we have a great team put together to make that happen. it will take a lot of collaboration and we in san jose as well as san francisco and santa clara are committed to making it happen. [ applause ] so i'm daniel to committee chair, thank you mayor lee, he approached me and said we have to shine a light on san francisco and the entire bay area. the next call were to mayor matthews, mayor read, we

also have officials from oakland. this is going to take a unified approach. we are up against a very tough competitors and south florida. miami has hosted. they know how to do it, but we are excited to show off our region, the innovation and also the compassion that we have here in this community. my job, my day job is running tipping points from the community and focusing on fighting poverty in the region and every community project that we have approached, are excited that we are not only talking about one game, but we are talking about bringing all the people together and shining a light on our entire region and helping our whole community embrace them. i want to thank jed,

mayor matthew and lee forgiving me this opportunity to present this. on may 21st we present to the owners in boston and that will be the big day. so this is a great testament to the regions unified vision and i will turn it over to jed. thank you. [ applause ] >> it's a pleasure to the working with so many great people to bring the biggest sporting event in the world in northern california . we are working together and it's going to take a lot of work. we are a little bit different than other folks. we have a community minded process and looking at a long lasting legacy. when you look at what california means

and what is northern california, you are talking about the state of ability, technology, the cutting edge. we are standing in what is going to be the first certified stadium. we are not sure what the certification is going to be, we hope it's gold. we are not sure until it's up and running, but what we do know is we have enough solar panels to be powered by the sun. that's something that nobody else can say in the world in sporting events. when you talk about bringing the bowl to the bay. we haven't had a super bowl since 1985. we hope to get another super bowl here and have a golden anniversary in the golden state where we had it in los angeles back in years we are going to host. i'm very

excited to work with all the the host here, mayor reed, everybody in san jose, this is a place where you have police, construction workers, hotels, everything, it's not just from san francisco to san jose, you are talking about from napa and all places from around the world. i hope it's a future for many events to come. we thank you for coming out and hope to bring back the super bowl. thank you. [ applause ]

>> in this fabulously beautiful persidio national park and near golden gate and running like a scar is this ugly highway. that was built in 1936 at the same time as the bridge and at that time the presidio was an army and they didn't want civilians on their turf. and the road was built high. >> we need access and you have a 70 year-old facility that's inadequate for today's transportation needs. and in addition to that, you

have the problem that it wasn't for site extenders. >> the rating for the high viaduct is a higher rating than that collapsed. and it was sapped quite a while before used and it was rusty before installed. >> a state highway through a federal national park connecting an independently managed bridge to city streets. this is a prescription for complication. >> it became clear unless there was one catalyst organization that took it on as a challenge, it wouldn't happen and we did that and for people to advocate.

and the project has a structural rating of 2 out of 100. >> you can see the rusting reinforcing in the concrete when you look at the edges now. the deck has steel reinforcing that's corroded and lost 2/3's of its strength. >> this was accelerated in 1989 when the earthquake hit and cal came in and strengthened but can't bring to standards. to fix this road will cost more than to replace. and for the last 18 years, we have been working on a design to replace the road way, but to do in a way that makes it appropriate to be in a national park and not army post.

>> i would say it's one of the most ugly structure, and it's a barrier between the mar sh and presidio. and this is a place and i brought my dogs and grandchildren and had a picnic lunch and it was memorable to use them when we come here. what would it look like when the design and development is completed. and we are not sure we want an eight lane highway going through this town. and it's a beautiful area in a national seaport area on the planet. >> the road is going to be so different. it's really a park way, and

it's a parkway through the national park. and they make the road disapeer to the national park. >> and the road is about 20 feet lower, normally midday, you go through it in two minutes. looking back from the golden gate bridge to presidio, you are more aware of the park land and less of the roads. and the viaduct will parallel the existing one and to the south and can be built while the existing one remains in operation. and the two bridges there with open space between them and your views constantly change and not aware of the traffic in the opposite direction and

notice the views more. and the lanes of course are a foot wider than they are today. and they will be shoulders and if your car is disabled, you can pull off to the edge. and the next area, the tunnel portal will have a view centered on the palace of fine arts and as you come out, you can see alkatrez island and bay. and the next area is about 1,000 feet long. and when you come into one, you can see through the other end. it's almost like driving through a building than through a tunnel. and noise from the roadway will be sheltered. and the traffic will be out of view. >> when you come out of the last sort tunnel and as you look forward, you see the

golden dome of the palace of fine arts and what more perfect way to come to san francisco through that gateway. >> it will be an amazing transformation. now you read it as one section, the road is a major barrier and then a wonderful strip along the water. all of those things are going to mesh together. >> right now the road really cuts off this area from public access. and with the new road, we will be able to open up the opportunity in a new way. >> this bunker that we see now is out of access for the general public. we are excited to completely rework this side and to open up

the magnificent views. and what we want to do is add to this wonderful amenity and restore this coastal bluff area and respect its military history and the doyle drive project is allowing us to do that recorrection. and this area is not splintered off. >> and we can see how dramatic a change it will be when doyle drive is suppressd and you have a cover that connects the cemetery to this project. it's historic on the statewide and national basis, but you could rush the project or put thought and time to create something of lasting public benefit. >> we really want this, for everyone to feel like it's a

win situation. whether you are a neighbor that lives nearby or a commuter or user of the park. that everyone will experience a much better situation than they currently have. >> the human interest to me is how people could work out so many challenging differences to come to a design that we believe will give us a jewel. landmark of a place. >> i am sure it will have refining effect like embark did. and there were people about that and no one would think of that today. and when you look at growth and transformation of the embark, the same with doyle. it will be a cherished part of the city and a worthy addition to what is there. >> it will be a safe and

beautiful entrance to a spectacular beautiful city. it will be the entry to golden gate that san francisco deserves.