of soundproofing kabuki does have because i believe there is soundproofing between the theaters there. obviously if you were there first it doesn't really matter as much if you had the soundproofing or not. i do find it really frustrating because we did instruct the project sponsor to do certain things which [speaker not understood] has done, but it's really regrettable that yet another violation happened after our last hearing and it's hard to -- it is hard to, you know, support someone when there is continually bad actions taking place. i don't have anything of record for the may 8th violation. we've heard that there was an issue of may 8th. that would be concerning because we've had the soundproofing happened in april and then now we have another violation. maybe somebody can produce the violation if there is some documentation for it, but the project sponsor did do the salter report which we requested.

you know, for us it's a very, it's a very frustrating situation to be in because ultimately we'd like to support our locally independent business and we want to support the japantown community standing behind kabuki. unfortunately the behavior along the way hasn't always created a situation where it's easy to put that support behind the project sponsor. so, you know, i'm interested in talking to other commissioners around. this limiter sounds very interesting. sadly, we can't -- we're not much of an enforcement arm ourselves. you know, we've had project sponsors come back to us, you know, for certain amount of times, three months or six months. unfortunately, a little bit concerning, we would probably have to do this every three months or so. but, you know, if there were some way that we had assurances that this would not be a problem, obviously that's our goal, to see this continue. it's a great space. a lot of money has been

invested into it. obviously to be an amenity in the community. but the other problem is there is a breakdown and lack of trust between the project sponsor and the community at large and that does concern me going forward in all manners because it's hard to work together when the trust has been breached. >> him. commissioner hillis. >> i would agree with the prior commissioners ~. we were hoping people would come back and found a sound level that works, everybody is abiding by it, but it doesn't seem to be the case. i mean, the kabuki theaters are critical to japantown. i mean it's great that [speaker not understood] opened the business and we heard a lot of great testimony the last time we were here about it. but i think the bigger issue is the theater is critical to bring peep to japantown, to bring people to go to the restaurant there. and we've heard that from the neighbor -- from the community. and, so, want to make sure that works. so, i think it's a difficult

position for us to be in to ask to expand the use that doesn't seem to be working well with the theater. i guess my question to staff is the limited performance permit that they have now, if we don't grant the cu, does that continue? >> yes, that would continue. >> so, they're able to kind of continue to work with the neighbors and, you know, they'd have to stop music at 10:00, but could come back if this were denied and apply for a different cu with some history that it's actually working? they could continue to operate under -- >> they could continue to operate under the llp under those conditions. that's the time limb advertising as well as the decibel limitation. >> okay. and it seems like a good use, but it's difficult for me to expand on the llp, to broaden it if we don't have agreement on how that's working at this point. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with the other

commissioners. you'd think third time would be the charm because we've had hearings in december and february and now it's june 6th and we're not really getting any closer. you know, it's a very respected group of leaders in the japanese community and also the actual ownership of the japantown itself are objecting. so, that's fairly significant for me. so, i'm inclined not to support. i would hope that this could be worked out in the future, as someone said, and perhaps a year from now if some of the issues are resolved with the limited entertainment, then they might be able to go to the full night club use and everybody is on board. >> commissioner moore. >> i would fully support what the other commissioners are observing. [speaker not understood] i regret after this length of time and the support we have tried to inject into making this work that it just doesn't

seem to be coming together as of this moment. so, i cannot indeed support the cu at this moment. however, in the future should there not changes and work closely side by side, we will be able to revisit that issue. it is ape closed door at this moment, but it does not mean it's forever. >> i had a couple thoughts. i share some of the same comments. i think it's not really for a lack of effort of the operators trying. i think you have, but i think it really is -- it's an internal building land rr lease issue in that they tried to put the goldfish bowl next to where the cat lives and the door couldn't be [speaker not understood] there is going to be conflict no matter what you do. it's proven. we've done this three times. you've pep a lot of money which i feel bad about and tried to mitigate. but euronext to a spa and a movie theater. so, i put some fatv at the landlord for trying to squeeze too many uses into shared common walls.

~ fault commissioner wu. >> so, it sounds like there is some consensus emerging on the commission, but i have a couple of thoughts about maybe moving forward and maybe looking at compromise. i think i'm really hopeful that both businesses can remain the theater and the lounge restaurant. so, you know, we've gone through this process now of getting the sound report from salter and, so, there are these db levels that have been set. so, i really encourage -- it sounds like you have the two limiters now, to see if that continues to work. and if we can get a period of time in which there's no violations or no citations. i think the specific issue really is the theater that's closest to the lounge, right. so, there's a smaller theater i believe that's close to -- that abuts the lounge. so, i don't know if for the future there can be some sort of carrot and stick system where if there are complaints from that theater in particular, maybe the [speaker not understood] pays for the

refunds of those tickets, i'm not proposing that for today, but i think if we can move forward, if we can continue to coke this for sometime, there can be a very directed compromise that's about what the problem itself is, or where the noise -- you know, what the noise conflict actually is. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, following up on commissioner hillis' question about continuing limited entertainment or whatever the definition is [speaker not understood], so, under the entertainment commission's approved permit, they can continue to use the space for -- can you sort of describe what they can do and what they can't do if we don't grant the cu? >> you mean under the limited live performance permit? >> yes. >> well, if you don't grant the limited cu they can continue the live performance. they can play music up to 10:00

p.m. they can only use 200 square feet of that area for music use and it would be limited to the noise level that was agreed on when the permit was issued. >> all right. so, they could continue to have -- again, using the word very limited entertainment, which would still entail -- which would still allow the use of both pre-recorded and also live music? >> correct. >> all right, thank you. just to clarify that. and also the april 8th issue is the letter that staff mentioned. it's a letter from the san francisco international film festival. they were screening something in the auditorium 2. beginning around 9:00 p.m. when we were showing a particularly quiet film, they notified kabuki staff of a noise bleed

and they went next door to ask them to turn down the music. apparently the music continued and bothered the film festival well past 10 o'clock, at least that's what the e-mail says. and, so, that's just for the record. and then lastly, the cu does go with the property. so, that means that if we grant it, another owner can come in -- >> that is correct. >> -- and continue the use and we don't know what that situation will be. >> correct. they would need to get a new place of entertainment permit or a limited live performance permit. but you're correct, the condition would be on the property, the conditional use. >> i'll go ahead and make a motion to deny the conditional use permit. >> second. >> i think it has to be an intent -- >> meg of intent to deny. >> commissioner borden. >> i just want to say just for

the denial, it's only one year that you have to wait -- [speaker not understood]. >> unfortunately that's not how it works, but in an ideal world it's everything, if we could work together in a year, maybe we could come back here and it would be a different conversation. i think everybody wanted to support this project. i don't think there was any lack of desire for that happening. it's actually very disappointing. >> project sponsor. my name is james chang and i just want to clarify something here before you make a decision. i think this whole thing is really unfair for us. for a small businesslike us against the big corporation spactionv corporation sun dance and with all those japantown organization, okay. and they're always saying sun dance is more important. without sun dance, japantown may go down. you know, it sounds like they

try to dominate my business, okay. and first thing i want to clarify is they kept on saying make many police complaints, police citation. there is none. we've been operating over a year already. we didn't even get one police incident about any trouble at all. even our alcohol license, we don't even have any complaint from abc, okay. and also the last time they say we got a violation, the violation is not regarding noise. it is only about 30 minutes past 10 o'clock, and that was my daughter's birthday, 25th birthday. that's what she celebrate and they request for a couple more songs from the band and that's it. and then the violation is only $200 and we pay for it. and actually so far we only got

one violation for sound issue only, the past whole year. if we do the math, from the last hearing to today, and almost i would say approximately three months, we only got one complaint from the sun dance. 90 days, three months, we only got one little tiny complaint. think about cherry blossom or whatever the japantown, the [speaker not understood] fair or film [speaker not understood], they got fair going on. at least half a dozen times a year. they make those loud, loud, loud noise, okay. we could hear and also the [speaker not understood], hear it real clearly. how come nobody say anything? nobody complain. if you do the math, we're talking about from the last hearing to now, it's only one small incident. and i'm not dispute with the incident either, okay. they say, okay, we make noise. okay, we make noise, okay. but they say we refuse to turn down the music. that is bull. and we did turn down the music,

okay. and also they kept on saying we are full blown night club. come on, if you look at our website yourself, you know, what we're doing every night like tonight, we got [speaker not understood], we got every thursday, and we got so many [speaker not understood] birthday party, that's what the whole party, paena mean party, get together. [speaker not understood], i don't understand that? >> thank you. thank you. oh, just give me one more minute. okay. i really want to cooperate with the neighbor and everything. you know what? they kept on saying our noise from the drum because the drum, i don't mind to be a condition say no drum over there because we do a lot of [speaker not understood] hawaiian music. we have all kind of [speaker not understood] show, everything. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> there is a motion, there is a second. could you call the question, please? >> yes.

on the motion of an intent to deny, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> regrettably aye. >> and that motion passes. >> next item, please. >> commissioners, we'll be moving on to item number 16. this is case no. 2012.1131dd, 861 corbett avenue. this is a request for discretionary review. and as such, we will have a slightly different comment procedure during this hearing. there will be first a presentation from staff. following that there will be a five-minute presentation by the d-r requestor, and then public testimony for those who would support the d-r requestor. after that time there will be an opportunity for the project

sponsor to have five minutes, and then public comment in support of the project sponsor for three minutes per person. we'll start with the staff presentation. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. i'm rick crawford of department staff. this project would construct vertical and horizontal additions to add a second dwelling unit to the existing single-family dwelling. the new front wall of the building will be at the average setback of the adjacent buildings to the sides. the proposed fourth floor will be setback 15 feet from the front wall of the lower stories and the top of the third floor will align with the roof of the adjacent three-story building to the south. it's within an rm-1 district and 40-x height and bulk district. the project will remove much of the existing building and is considered tantamount to demolition. the current project a revision of the original proposal that moved the front wall of the building back further to provide for parking while preserving more of the existing building. that version of the project was not tantamount to demolition, but was rejected by the

residential design team because the project did not align with the average front setback of the adjacent buildings. the department considers the current design which was subject to a second 311 notice to comply with the residential design guidelines. the project is subject to a d-r request from a neighbor across the street who is concerned that the height of the proposed addition is out of character with the neighborhood. the requester feels that the project will cast shadows on his residence across the street and that residence of the upper story of the project building will be able to look into the windows of the occupants of the building at 850 corbett avenue. the requester would like to see an addition that does not change the height of the subject building. the location of the project across corbett avenue and east of the requester's property should be sufficient to protect light and air of the requester's dwelling and protect privacy. since the subject property lies between the requester's dwelling and the sweeping view of castro neighborhood, the department suspects that the requester may be trying to

protect his view. other than the d-r request, the department has received no public comment regarding this project. the department recommends that the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as revised as the project is could be sis tent objectives and policies of the general plan, complies with the planning code, and the residential design guidelines. i am happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> d-r requestor. >> okay. so, just to be clear, we're treating this like any other d-r, right? okay, thank you. d-r requestor, the first d-r requestor. hello, commissioners. my name is john hayden. i am the neighbor that lives right across the street. i wanted to say that the people -- the planning commission and the architect have been very

cooperative in trying to address our concerns and it is true that -- i have several members of our hoa. we have one of the few units -- few buildings there on that section of corbett that is all privately owned condos. almost all of the other buildings are rentals or a few sporadic owners. and, so, there are very little complaints when the five small homes that are still remaining want to be made into 40-foot dwellings that basically will turn that whole area into a canyon of bill monoliths. so, we're complaining. my apartment is the one in the middle of the building that will have the most serious effect to the height of this middle building. the height of the building as it exists now is 22 feet and it

will go up to 40. the building just to the south of the proposed project is 30 feet high and, you know -- and the new building will be in the first three floors that height, and then there will be another fourth floor. so, my apartment will be very, very dark. granted, yes, i will lose my view, and i'm willing to say you can't do that. you can't protect your view, and i understand that from everybody i've talked to. but my apartment will now not be very nice and it will take probably a 50 or $60,000 away from what i would like to sell. you know how real estate agents are. what i would like to say is i would be very happy now to have the original proposal back, even though i complained then because it was 11 feet higher than the original building. but now the commission -- i mean the planning group has made it up to 40 feet, you

know, to satisfy concerns that frankly i don't think are very important. so, that's my complaint, and i appreciate you listening to me and some of the other people will continue. >> thank you. was that the first d-r requestor? second d-r requestor. >> i thought in this case, commissioners, there is only one d-r requestor. the second d is for the demolition. >> oh, okay. >> if i could clarify the discretionary review was filed on behalf of the hoa itself, although john hayden was the signatory, he signed as a secretary of our homeowners association. my name is todd [speaker not understood], i live in the same building as john just across the street from the subject property. i have very little to add. i would say that my unit is on the lowest level and to be clear i have absolutely no view. so, my objections to the

building certainly have nothing to do with protecting my view. but as john mentioned, the redesigned building is actually four stories instead of three. so, the new design will result in us getting less light and the new building still suffers from the same problems in terms of compromising our privacy because people in the top floors of the building will be able to look down into our unit. i would reiterate that the new building is not in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. the height of the building is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. therefore, i would ask that the commission reject this permit application. however, if the commission is inclydection to grant the permit application, i'll ask that you make the permit conditional on a covenant not to install a deck or patio on the setback area on the fourth floor facing the corbett ave. this would mitigate some of the

privacy concerns. thank you. >> thank you. other speakers in support of the d-r? hello, commissioners. my name is brent smith. i'm a new resident in 85 1 corbett street. i'm not affected by this. my unit is high enough up, it really doesn't affect any of mine. what it does affect is the esthetic look of the neighborhood. would be four-story. i think it just sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the revealed in the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood. i would be -- i urge you to go ahead with the -- their conditional -- their change, but with a restriction to only three stories instead of the four-story. i think that will help with privacy also as well as with the light effect upon our building. thank you. >> thank you.

any other speakers in favor of the d-r? okay, seeing none, project sponsor? you have five minutes. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael boshkey. i'm with apparatus architecture here in san francisco. our proposed project at 85 1 corbett avenue, i'd just like to clarify -- >> please turn your photo up. thank you. i'd just like to clarify that on the agenda it's listed as 861 corbett. it's actually 85 1 corbett is the correct address ~. our proposed project at 85 1 corbett avenue consists of the replacement of an existing

three story single-family residents with a fourth story structure which includes two single-family units. the existing structure is currently unoccupied and was previously owner occupied before its sale one year ago. our project includes one two-bedroom unit, one three-bedroom unit and a new two-car garage. the wrote et as currently configured meets the requirements of the planning code with regards to height limits, front and rear yard is he setbacks and density. in addition the design team approved the street front massing which includes a front

wall facade that equals the height of the immediate neighbor to the south plus a 15 foot setback from the street facade to the fourth floor. the project sits in a neighborhood of mostly three to five story apartment condominium buildings. this is the subject property. these are properties looking north along corbett avenue and then this is the view looking south along corbett avenue. the following two slides show

all buildings along the 800 block of corbett avenue. this is the d-r requestor's property at 850 corbett avenue directly across the street. the others shown are all on the 800 block and are all consistent with 3 to 5 story buildings that are along that block. additional four-story buildings along the 800 block of corbett avenue. so, our proposed project is shown in the dark gray in the neighborhood context. due to the nature of the

property which decreases in width from front to rear and the fact that the new -- that the existing and new rear wall is setback to an average of adjacent rear yards and is thus located beyond the prescribed 45% setback line, the only feasible way to increase the size of the structure is vertically. thus, the project was revised for the residential design team's recommendation to setback the new fourth floor 15 feet from the street facade to minimize the vertical massing. with regards to the comment of the discretionary review requester, that our project will cast lengthy shadows on the building at 850 corbett avenue, i'd like to reference a sun shading study which shows our project only casting a direct shadow on half of the d-r requestor's building during one to two morning hours from

late november through early february. this is in january at 7:30, in march at 7:30 into june at 7:30, and then september at 7:30. do i have more time? >> no, that was your final -- okay. thank you for your consideration and i urge you to approve the project. thank you. >> thank you. other speakers in support of the project sponsor? okay, seeing none, d-r requestor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. can you please speak into the microphone? >> aye. >> aye. wanted to give you some perspective of a picture we took that shows you the relative height differences.

~ i wanted to give you some perspective. the yellow house, an eyesore of the neighborhood, we really do want it to be improved and remodeled, but we just -- look at the height. this was the original change. the little house on the left is kevin's house right here. it is 25 feet tall. the yellow house that is being remodeled was 22. and then this will go up -- you can see this place right here, that's the corner of the building to the left at 30 feet. and then there will be another 10 feet higher. it's really out of -- see, there's these little homes on the left that are the remaining homes that haven't been converted into multi-units. and i know the city wants more housing, but really, you're taking away from peter to pay paul or paying paul to take away from this guy. and, you know, i don't think it's right.

i think you're [speaker not understood] engineering too much. so, that's my rebuttal. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. thank you. i'd just like to go back to the sun shading study real quickly. so, these show 7:30 p.m. shadows cast by our building to the buildings across the street in january, again in march, in june, and in september. in january we cast a shadow over half of the facade of 850 corbett. and then in march our shadows are already decreasing down to the garage level.