with the several conditions, one would be that the air filtration exhaust system be installed and especially addressing the odor issue. and that it is a code issue so that is not in our camp. that the kitchen not be used as a come sarry kitchen to provision the food truck and i think that is about it. >> hours. >> no, i'm not going to go there. >> what they are. >> i think that the hours that extend, that it would be only until ten,; is that correct?? >> currently the hours to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. >> right. >> i'm okay with that. >> as i understand it, it cannot be used as the primary come sarry, but we would not

have prohibitio n. the parking over night. >> no over night parking. in regards to the air filtration, system it seemed that they were going to repair the existing system and the variety of the air filtration on the market and maybe it would help here, and i know that there is one on extreme called the smog hog and it burns off and i think that it has an after burn and burns off grease and things like that. and i don't know what system they are proposing but maybe this would help and so that we are all going into it for some expectation and i don't know what the technology will be, but i think that the idea would be that it reduces the odors from the cooking. >> i think that they have specked out the system that they are looking to. >> you have specked out a

system at this point? >> thank you, commissioner sugaya. yes. in this supplemental there is a proposal and the scope of work for marina mechanical and it is our expectation that that is going to address the issues, really well. and if they do not, we will go the next step. and there are problems with the roof at this building. and that could not bare the load of a large system like a smog hog and the weight is too much for the roof of this location and i don't think that is called for by the volume of food being produced. >> if we could, i guess, my concern would be you know, continued complaints, i guess, is the best way to put it. and i don't know, the dr requestor, you stood up and do

you have some comment about that quickly? in two sentences? >> thank you, commissioner. two seconds, the restaurant owner, previously suggested a system called a malatron odor abatement system, it is a small but effective misting system that removes the grease from the air and that was the previous suggestion and i would request that they use the system that they previously had specified. and it is not terribly expensive, i think that it is an $8,000 system and including i think many of the things that they have in the smaller proposal. this has no air filtration, system proposed. thank you. >> i don't know to get into the specific product. but i don't know, mr. sanchez or staff? >> if you have any suggestions on resolving? , you can correct the staff to look at that further and see if there are other systems that would better address the odor, and the odor is very difficult.

>> yes. to address and i would not want this to be an ongoing enforcement issue with the violation of the condition of approval and so that is why i am cautious at this point before they take any action on this item and this has happened on the other cases where if there is a certain expectation and lack of proper clarity or condition into that. >> i agree. >> i think, you know what? this is the crux of the whole conversation is the odor and if this were a carrot or a turn up we would not have a problem here. if i am hearing you to specify specific equipment or part numbers, it is difficult this time. >> i mean, it is helpful and more helpful if we can agree on a system, i mean, as kind of odd as this seems, it is better to do that at this point, and if this malatron system which

has been discussed is something that the project sponsor can implement. >> could i call the project sponsor? i want to hear your thoughts on how good of a job and how much money do you want to spend on this? >> it is a $100,000 proposition that we could not support. the fact is that we need the new exhaust and the tube that comes out needs to be repaired and the fan updated. >> but when the bay area control came out there was no confirmed smell and my only concern is the people that will continually call the city because she have a history of doing this and i don't want to open myself up to constantly being called by the city having these complaints where i have come up with a system that will resolve the smell and it is a proper exhaust. and if he wants to pay for that

fill vasing system i will accept that offer. i will accept that. >> you are going to improve it by blowing the air out but you are not... it does not address the odor according to your consultant. that is not acceptable. >> i apologize. that is for the malatron system? >> you know there are so many systems thrown at me, i don't... >> technically, i mean that we could, i think that the issue is a difference between a ventilation system and one with filtration and that is what i am hearing. i have no technical expertise. >> we don't either. >> it seems to me that if we

could at least agree and the commission could direct the sponsor as part of the approval to install the system. >> i will agree with that. >> and then follow up on the details. >> i will agree into putting in filtration and i don't want to come across as not agreeing i am just concerned about... >> and to improve the situation. and there is a system that is appropriate for this kind of construction because we have restaurants that with the same issues, this is not the only building that cannot support the heavy equipment mentioned first. but there are other people that have done this, but i think that it is basically checking on the building who have the appropriate new systems and give the applicant advisor guidance of how to inquire about it. >> right. >> the project sponsor, and why i called you up and i need your word to do your best effort to take care of the odor?

>> the proper exhaust up grades that were outlined in the file that you have. >> and we can work with the project sponsor and have a system specified on the plans, and i think that to the dr requestor they can make the discussion what they want to staff. >> it sounds like you have equipment information.

>> this is the malatron abasement system, and this is what the applicant has already applied for and this is the filter that we would ask him to follow through with. and there has been a lot of going back and forth saying that we will not do it, and we just ask that he do what is on the permit which is the malatron system and it is not expensive. >> okay. >> thank you. >> do you want to motion the equipment or better than? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> fine. >> you just have to work with staff. >> commissioner wu? >> thank you. >> i just want to understand the distinction between the come sarry or not. and so with the motion that has been made then, where is the restriction? is it that food cannot be loaded on to a truck? is it that there has to be some sort of proof that it is being sold on site? >> it cannot be used as the

primary prep kitchen for the food truck and the home base, if you will for the food truck. they can still park the food truck out in front while they do the incidental loading and need to pick someone up and it will be within the limitations of the parking codes. >> so the major regulatory limitation is the dpd code to the 30 minutes. >> yes. and for the specified to no over night parking or storage of the vehicle. >> i am supportive of the motion as stated. >> commissioner antonini? >> i want to ask the sponsor about this come sarry issue to be sure. i think that we are close to a motion that will work, but i want to make sure that your business model is okay with having another site presumably the site in the mission district to be aible to load your trucks for their, you know, the use around the city to sites where the food trucks

are allowed. it requires a designated come sarry. >> that does not suggest that you will not need to use to go to bacon to bacon. >> i call the question and we do have another item after this and after the question is called and the votes taken and if you could quietly head outside and finish up the questions? >> i did not hear anything second it. >> i second it. >> commissioners on that motion to take the dr and require that

the exhaust system with the filtration, equivalent to the system to be installed to mitigate the odor and not to be used as the food truck and no over night parking of the truck at the subject site. on that motion. antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> president fong. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes five to 0. >> that places you on the last item, green wood street for the

mandatory discretionary review. >> young, the planning department staff, the item before you is a discretionary review to merge two dwelling units into one, it will include a new stairway and elevator providing the direct access, the dwelling unit on the first floor, a open dining, kitchen and one bedroom and bathroom. the second floor, 1855, consists of a living, dining and kitchen and deny and two bedrooms and two bathrooms. after the merger, the dwelling unit will be approximately 3,157 square feet. this will be ininclusive of a

proposed addition of 400 square feet of floor area filed under the separate permit. the second floor, will consist of those family room, den two bedrooms and two bathrooms. both of the existing units are currently under the ownership. to date, the department has not received any letters in opposition or support of the proposal project. the background that the project sight is in the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of two to four story residential buildings with two units, as a few residential buildings with three or more units. and assumed rh 2 and rh 3. and 158 radius of the property that are in the rh 2 zoning district. they are 29 percent in one unit and 71 contained two or more

units? and also it only meets two of the five dwelling unit merger criteria. in conclusion, it is to take the discretion review and disapprove the merger, this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> and good afternoon, commissioners, steven, i am the architect for the project sponsor, i am sorry, submitting this at a late date, but the letters of support. and the petition for the neighbors of the request for the dwelling merger and the main point that i would like to

make is that the criteria of the department uses in establishing the prevailing density and prescribed zoning, the ratios, can be looked at in another way and then especially in this case when it is a two-family dwelling going to a one family, when the historical use of the property itself for the single family and the majority again, historically, if i can find that one. were also single family houses. and if that is going to show up. there you go. there was a little purple dots were the ones that in the immediate vicinty are all single family dwellings, most of which told are still single family, this is the point that goes back to the sand born and there have been six added over the hun years since the

buildings were built, and 6 added to the two units and so the point that i would like to make is in fact if you crunch the numbers differently, and the two dwellings which have been in the category of a single family home and separate out the very large units that skew the average and there is a 53 unit >> and they will use the discretion in deciding, in fact it is a benine reduction of one unit and if you look at the density in the arrogate in the whole area that is looked at, there is like 100, or in other

words, there is off, it is over the density right now. and so, we are actually using non-conforming properties to determine if this conforming with a two family dwelling, so i find the discrepancy in that in the non-, internally inconsistent logic and i hope that the commission agrees that it is a border line. you can ask the questions later. >> yeah.

>> okay. my husband wrote a letter that he wanted me to read to you. he was born and raised and is native to san francisco and it was also in the bay view areas as you are aware, he purchased this house, 1855, green wood street in 2007 and would like to turn this building into a single family dwelling. the building itself is in need of many structural up grades which were never done by the previous owners. we also plan on installing an elevator for my husband as he has hip and we have no plans of

renting any portion of the building, and we also have met with several of our neighbors and they are in favor of our plans to maintain our home as a single family dwelling. i gathered the petition and my husband has a family of daughter and grandchildren that and the additional space would enhance our family's needs. a very nice name, his name is

raymond and he saw the notice on our door and said that he was going to write a letter and i was going to read to you what he said and i also have provided the copies of the other folks in the neighborhood that signed the approval form. i grew up across the street, at 1855, 57 green wood street and i own and occupy at the same building, previously owned by my late family from the year 1937, i can tell you that 1855, 1857 green witch was originally built as a one dwelling house. i am delighted that the current owner wants to restore the building back to a one unit house and his plans are beautiful and a compliment to

the neighborhood. and since and we have so many for the american dream and that is defined as owning your own american home. with all of the wars to protect the american dream, please allow this family to live in the cat castle by their own space. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item. >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. >> i have some questions staff had reported at least a way that i read the staff report that they thought it was originally contained two dwelling units but mr. marteli who should know has lived there his whole life and he says that it is a single family dwelling until, you know, for quite some time. so, i know that that is not one

of our criteria but it is important to me that this house was restored to what it originally was. >> well as far as the information provided to the staff, i mean based on the permit records appear to be a two-family dwelling based on the 3 r reports and such. and there is no clarity as far as that previously that was a single family dwelling. >> well your reports only go back so far probably. i am not sure if it goes back to the original building the particular structure. >> the structure? >> yeah. >> well, thank you. >> but, you know, i think that this is a situation where the project sponsor has made it very clear that this is not going to be a rental unit again, it is their home and they intend to keep it and pass on to their children and their family to continue their use. and so, i think that we should respect that and we should allow them to create a home that meets their requirements

and it may be more than some people feel it is too large. but i think that families have different needs. and one of the big criticisms that has been spoken, many about san francisco's housing stock is you go in and you look at some of the units and they are pretty dysfunctional and they may have technically two bedrooms and a bath but the bedrooms are lined up wrong and it is not high enough criteria to qualify this as a non-functional situation but often times many of the units even though they have fairly large square footage don't meet the needs of families that well and we are building tons of smaller units all over the place, for those who want smaller units but we have very few larger units in san francisco, and we are not building any new ones, and the only way that we are going to create more family housing that meets the needs of people with large families is to allow the mergers on the selective basis and you know it is owner

occupied and it has been since 2007 and it is going to continue to be that way and all that we are doing by disallowing this is inconvenienting the owners when they have to go down stairs and through the door and instead of allowing to use the property in the way that they choose to use it. my support is not taking the dr and approving this application. >> i would join that support. commissioner moore? >> for the building and zoning it means that indeed the existing building is reflecting of the intent of what was supposed to be build and occupied in this area and if that guiding spot is larger than the depreciation of the owner wanting to live there for the rest of their lives and future generations, that is a personal statement which has not at all, influence the decision that i am asked we have been asked to make and in that sense, i believe that the

department accurately analyzed the situation, as described and what the city needs to do relative to the future intensefiation and maintenance and the units on their own is sufficiently large to at least have a family with one or two children and the square footage is in that direction, 1500 square feet and even in newer construction, they are already labeled as two unit, or two bedroom, family unit. so, in light of that, i will support the department's decision for the denial and i will make a motion to disapprove. >> second. >> do you have further comment? >> no. >> commissioner antonini? >> well, i just you wanted to say, yes, if this happens to be rh 2, there is a lot of even though there is some question about the kol you lacings of

the areas, knowing that neighborhood very well, my office is in there and i know the houses that are single family and those that are duplexes and it is pretty much of a wash and that depends on where you draw the lines or whether you allow for as project sponsor has pointed out where the units were added without the permit and just existing two units but they are not legally two units and it screws the whole statistics in the wrong direction, so i am not in favor of the motion and i will hope that we can allow this family to go ahead with this property. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second on the floor. >> are you gathering information that will effect your voting decision? >> no. >> i like to make another comment. >> sure. >> we will continuously be thrown into this as a planning

commission, we are being thrown against the intensefiation and the bay region and the burden that san francisco is to carry, here is what we are doing, taking large enough family units and making it single family and we cannot accommodate someplace else. i suggest that we need to take time out as a commission relative to unit mergers and have the department work with us intensely to figure out of how we can retain existing density which is not even meeting the projections and still find ways to intensify, we are basically as a commission pulling in two directions that is impossible for me to up hold. >> i understand your position and it has been said already that the zoning here does allow the two units while it could be reduced to one they could add it back in the future, however the important thing to note there is the existing unit

would be subject to rent control and any new units added and the future would not be subject to it. that is not a criteria here in the decision making. as a discussion about the changes about these criteria and we wanted to put that out there for the submission. >> commission sugaya? >> i have a question about the motion, and either to the secretary or to the staff, the motion is to take dr and disapprove the project. i believe that there are not enough votes to disapprove the project. >> if that takes place, then the project then automatically approved? >> and would there have to be a separate motion for approval? >> if that motion fails, there will have to be a subsequent motion to either not take the dr and approve the projector to continue the matter. those would be the options if the motion fails and there is no subsequent motion and then the project is approved as proposed. >> i believe that either motion

will fail 3-2. >> and therefore, i am going to make a motion to continue the item until there is a full commission. >> is that a second? >> yes, that is a second. >> procedurally, the motion to continue will take precedence over the motion on the floor. and do you propose a specific date? >> no. i think that... if we would have at least 6 people here, i think that the matter can get resolved. >> okay. >> the next hearing date is a week from today. on july 18th. the only commissioner hillis is schedule to be out. and august 1. >> commissioner borden is coming back on the 3:00 plane, she is landing at 3:00 and that pushes her arrival into a very kind of questionable time and so i ask that we take it beyond next week. >> okay. >> july 25th, both commissioners fong and hillis are schedule to be out. >> august first is a very full nd