what it is. >> i had a question about provisions in supervisor chiu's legislation with respect to subdividing the unit and mcthem condos and things a that's not include in yourselves. >> no so in ours to keep in mind one line that was mentioned earlier the legislation that was pass pretty drastically reduced the scope beyond 10 years it took 5 and 6 unit out and so, you know, again, this is why in some ways that's different from schoou legislation. we're going to say to people if you add a unit your permanent abandon if considering or your

future owners going into the lottery that will help inform reduce this. and leeshlg the board of supervisors talked about this issue >> your comfortable with the unit be rent controlled. i assume because there are benefits awe encouraging to the owner. whatever the language >> it's a delicate issue but we've worked with the experts and we believe with the way it's crafted it defenseable in court. >> one last comment in terms of access to the unit itself. if it's within a building i can understand if it's something like that a garage you could

introduce a separate access to the exterior but if it's buried somewhere in the building are we rigging the access through a public lobby. 0 no, the same access requirements from the building code already takes care of that >> i wish it had come forward with the supervisor chiu's legislation and it seems like supervisor chiu's legislation although i hadn't read it has provisions that overlap into this one. >> thank you. i also want to thank staff for

the report especially in the exhibits there was a lot of information. following open the two pieces of legislation i would consider having them considered together at land use or the board of supervisors especially because there are a notice. on the question of rental unit we should consider ways to regulate those not only to convert to a ta c today regardless of what's happening with the lottery but the tenants could turn it into a tic and what's in front of us t is not vacancy control it's noted

allowed and lastly two things dr reform we can talk about that that's a good idea and lastly some the information role seems like this is more of a middle-income strategy i want to be clear that looks the three medium is 28 hundred in the staff report you would have to make over $100,000 to afford that it's hitting a certain part of the market whether or not you want to call it, your honor middle-income >> i guess this goes without saying supervisor but this would

be restricted to a unit that would have to, created for a rental purpose i couldn't create that and have it owned by your children separate. >> it's not limited first of all, i don't know i double it legal to say this unit can only be rental. and the fact is, you know, i'll give you an example after a community meeting in the association a guy said i'm in my 60s and hiv positive and disabled i own a single-family home and a few years ago because i can't get up the steps i moved into the unit and rent out the 0 upstairs unit. people have said i want my kid to be able to move back to college and live in the city so

you might want to have a family member why people live in different kinds of unit. in terms of the $2,800 number commissioner wu. that is something by planning department with all respected to the staff i don't agree with the survey one bedroom off of grazing list in the neighborhood i don't think you can automatically converts that garage so that number is fairly misleading >> >> supervisor i understand there's many different instances and your elective as flexibility. i want to make a motion to approve the two staff

recommendations we call those additional dwelling unit and the other recommendation would be we will allow for them to be over seven hundred and 50 square feet >> you're not doing the monitoring. >> well, they, monitor but in their opinion nothing can be done p with control in prices. so - >> just to be clear it's not about controlling the prices but monitoring. >> yeah. monitoring let's see the result of what came out i'm accepting of that suggestion from staff also in my motion. >> can i make a comment to that. deputy city attorney. i think the supervisor was supportive of that recommendations but i agree it would be wise to culpability with our office and the

dependent on the method of that monitoring and whether or not the information should be provided to the public and the agency vat as opposed to containing any private information so if you'll add that >> i will accept that that's wise to have a consultation with the city attorney with the public information clear it with the city attorney first. that's part of my motion >> second. commissioner sugaya. two quick comments one to the lady that testified in the second row. i think the legislation that will effect your particular situation is supervisor chiu's. >> (inaudible). >> because supervisor wiener's legislation is slightly different in terms of the legislation.

just to clarify that and the whole supervisor wiener can some others c others can supervisor chiu put it into his legislation. is it limited in the area and not citywide >> yeah. he statewide it maybe different but the city attorney can comment on that it's clear and a limited proposal i can't legislate on the 5 hundred feet within my home. >> commissioner hillis. i want to comment >> the conversion having another unit the tics in the future right now if you have a

single-family a you add a unit it the rent control subject to the entire two unit building. >> if the unit is added to a single-family building that's not subject to the control because the single-family is not subject to rent control. >> only if it's atkins an existing but if you take a two unit building and add a third unit and the two unit were subject to rent control and if the condo legislation or tic or condo legislation were to come back would it be easier to come back to the condo of 2 unit you'll be a 3 unit that's a more difficult process if that were to come back as a legislation am

i right. >> the addition of a single-family it raise state law the single-family home is not subject and there's a question under state law what would be in terms of the new law and the law is innovating not entirely clear that legislation is silent. it either is or isn't and it is what it is. with existing rent control building adding a room we're comfortable saying that will be there the rent control >> i want to follow up a little bit on the potential interest. he can't legislate around because it's too close to his

pe residence. you guys can do the whole full around the castro and staff can work with the other members to get legislation he can't vote on >> thank you commissioner moore. >> could we also have a clarification once the in law unit now being referred to the ad u including the reference of minimum side as per code provision as explained supervisor. i would still like to ask what the date sufficient and about the adding the envelope as built envelope as of january one, 2014 because there's a lot of things happening that applies to the date specific beginning point of

where this can be done >> commissioner sugaya unless united states supervisor. >> i'm just asking if we could ask those as recommendations because he's made a lot of important comments but commissioner antonini made a motion that doesn't reflect the specifics of the situation. >> commissioner antonini. >> oh, yeah. you'd like me to include in anywhere motion i'm trying to follow a date which this would begin clarify commissioner >> i'm talking about the combloensz unit that exist on

january 1st, 2014. >> yeah. that supervisor what could you. >> - in addition to what mr. sanchez said earlier that people are inlikely to get a rear yard encroachment to turn that into a storage unit it has to be the building envelope that you can build within say january 1st, 2014, that means if today, i get a variance and build two feet into the rear yard then sell it to someone 10 years later and then 25 years down the road you still can't use that space for in law unit that's extreme. i'm open to discussing that

having some kind of item relay situation where if you add into the rear yard you can't billion a in law unit there for a few years but a permanent stance is not good policy >> thank you. yeah. i think that's a problem. i agree with supervisor and leave my motion as is. i appreciate with commissioner moore said but we've outlawed that by creating an additional to the envelope. we're going to have to take our chances what comes down in the future and some future time they want to put the unit into some

kind of enclosure >> supervisor can you talk about it. >> no, i'm not permit to weigh in. >> given that we should encourage the staff to work with another supervisor. it seems strange to have an area where we do not essentially we're in the middle were the same provisions don't apply does that need to be part of the enclosure >> could it be a finding whether or not that needs to be included are a problem if we included that in our motion. >> i defer to the director but it is sufficient if the

president made a recommendation you could ask if there's any objection but i don't need that part of usually motion. >> the motion will stand and it's up to president chiu. >> i would encourage the recommendation to staff. >> i think we're hearing the consensus to work with staff. i do wanted to add two more comments in response to the question about the rents in defense of staff they've got whatever data they've got. those opt will come on at market rate we assume they'll be less and then be rent control from there. and again, i think, you know, it's aside from this legislation i want to make the designation

between condo the common conversion there's nothing prohibiting or documenting tic provisions and supervisor mar is working on that but the tics that conversion could happen almost immediately >> commissioner sugaya. >> perhaps staff could work with dbi on a couple of studies where you could have dbi i'm sure they know how much those things cost square footage widest that's not a thousand dollars. square foot of condominiums conversion but even that at 4 hundred square foot it's going to cost $80,000 and i don't know

if 2 hundred and reefgs maybe you can work with dbi that at least will provide support or reality to that >> commissioner hillis. >> i believe we're replacing a foundation and at least that's a smart idea to put in another unltd i'm acquit sure i that they are combined. they that's making that easier to put a unit. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there as motion and second to adaptation a recommendation for to consult with the city attorney.

did i hear that >> i don't believe it was all the recommendations of staff. >> only the monitoring was the only part i think - and it was the staff recommendation. >> oh, to check for all parts. that's my understanding. >> correct check with the city attorney open the monitoring portion. >> for the city attorney very good. on that motion commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commissioner president wu. 2054

authorization >> patio was issued a violation

in 2004. the project requires conditional use authorization for an expansion of a existing bar used to have a outdoor seating in the rear yard and requesting for square footage. the materials were transmitted to you and the staff has additional correspondence which includes 9 signatures in observation from the neighbors and there's also letters of support from the police department san francisco commission as well as calls from nearby resident. the vacant makes sense have skurndz with potential concerns. the project sponsor engaged the services of a sound engineer

that's made several recommendations to help reduce the noise to the adjacent neighbors i'd like to pass those out to you right now. so those are additional conditions of approval and kind of augmented conditions of approval that the project sponsor has agreed to as well one the neighbors in opposition and those were developed with the engineer. so on the first page in red is amended to reflect the conditions an i don't think that lack is needed the next four packages the area in red is is

what is the being added excuse me. number 6 there's a monitoring program in place for the next six months where shall they go out and measure the noise from the bar use and submit that

information to the zoning administrator. going to a third page currently the hours we have from 10 to 10. the project sponsor has agreed to to reduce that to 8:00 p.m. and their allow staff to clean up out part of the 8:00 p.m. moving down to 12 there's an automatic door at the rear the building going into the bar it will close automatically so the sound will be constraint and there's a revocation which is normal language in our conditions of approval. so once again the project sponsor is amenable to the conditions of approval. the staff supports the

additional conditions and asked you to adapt them. that concludes my presentation i'm available for any questions or comments >> thank you project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners henry i'm the project sponsor. this is a watering hole that's been her inform a number of years and the area will get you away from the traffic and a chance to meet new people. in the area across the street is a restaurant called zinc and down the road is other restaurant that has seating in the backyard this will be a good

thing to the neighborhood the imagination intention is to be a good neighbor. as you can see on the drawings so the bar is in the front and here at the back is the patio and the seating at the moment they're not being used. will be a door to close to isolate the rest of the bar to keep the sound down. as mentioned by mr. smith we've got a engineer that's giving us proposals to eliminate the sound and also for support we have of people living within 5 hundred feet you have a list up here of

32 on that package and then on the next page we have the remainder which is a total of 78. the neighborhood really wants this place to be assessable and be able to be used for the people that come over there. i again think that's a positive thing for the area and would like you to approve it. maybe mr. hogan can say a few words >> i'm vince hogan i own a attentive i've owned 3 other bars and been in the valley for 32 years. in my time as an owner i've reached out to the neighbors and made deals with them so they'll never be disturbed.

the valley taven i'm here today they want me to get a conditional use. i've reached out to the neighbors with an ongoing 5r789 i'll continue to change whatever they want. i ask the commission to grant us the use of the backyard. it's been in operation for 20 something years and never had a abc violation. i think over the years in general that's been a quiet place so i urge the go commission to grant us conditional use thank you very much. >> thank you.

is there any public comment cards? okay opening it up for public comment >> hi, good afternoon. i'm monica. i live at 40624th street next door to the valley taven and may two small children and elderly mother. i have no problems with them opening up the back. we've had small problems that were dealt with swivelly and they've also been neighbor bely. i know their family that's rooted in the family and so i know they will also treat every problem with respect to in the future as well. thank you