>> that was from 8 to 6 monday through friday closed all the holidays and christmas and thanksgiving. >> i mean how long will be there. >> i'm there full-time unless i'm sick. >> i mean you open at 8:00 a.m. >> i open the school everyday for the last 126 years i'll be outside or one of the teachers to help with the child. so 7 clock or 7:30 to open the doors >> 7:30 to when. >> to 67. >> that's when the last person or child leaves so whoever is closing up who will they leave and after the cooking and

cleaning and what time. >> 647. >> half an hour to an hour after and nothing on the weekends. >> no. we're closed amp all the weekends and holidays. >> okay. i mean i'm supportive of the project if any sort of concern i try to write down the option i hadn't heard that that's my one question you're having residential use you're not going to be living through no activity in the house during the nights and we understand and holidays i don't know if that particular part i'm not sure what the other comments i don't know if that works for a residential neighbor that's my comment and my second question you're looking to convert our garage to extend storage space in the entryway for the school

and you indicated that you would be able to turn this back into a residential house at the some point in the future whether you do it or sell it my question i don't tell are you going to make structural changes to the home to convert that space there's walls it's not clear you're adding a corridor it's not clear that it would be an easy job to make that booking back into a garage. >> they're going going to remove petition walls and put if

structural walls to make more open space so essentially one floor that becomes one open area. >> and then the petition walls could be easily pit back. >> okay. i don't know if other commissioners time to comment on that i'm not sure okay. thank you for answering my questions thank you very much. >> commissioner moore. >> since this project will go into or stlo through the state review or any changes where the deficits will be expressed that's a minor observation. i want to - i agree with the

commissioner, i want to talk about not the preschools but other schools that are rights smack in the mid of other residential neighborhoods and traffic we have two university and cathedral hill for boys on john's street and all of them pretty much have traffic management methods in plasma of this i observe because many of them are close to where i live they work well, a fraction of a moment when people have to wait because one child gets put in the car but overall those are so ready to make it happen i personally don't this this is an impact. i've not seen what the department side a person identified a contact person there's is a phone call with an

individual who would be available 2w0u67 whatever the operational hours to monitor complaints because in the interest of everybody to have this blend in await disturbing the neighborhood the children will not be running all over the blocks and doing things, i.e., crossing in the middle of the wrong there's an additional danger to expose the children to you building that the organizational structure how i run this is well organized and people are prepared to deal with the increase in children together with the operational hours i'm fully no support and move to approve >> second. >> on the motion to approve it

matter councilmember sharp. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. i'm sorry, i didn't hear you >> commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes naming 7 to zero zoning administrator what say you >> close the public hearing i'll take it under as time the possibility of placing bicycle parking to reduce the needs for any parking and note condition 5 of the motion requires a liaison be identified by the sponsor. >> that places you on our discretionary review calendar

one remaining item for case and 2013 d and v. may or may not discretionary review authorization and the request for the zoning will consider >> good afternoon jessica the planning staff ms. a questioning for the it demolition of a self-same the department is recommending not to take dr and approve that as proposed as mentioned this has had a recent situation that the existing property is not affordable and meaning that the property and land value is greater than 80 percent of the combined land of the single-family homes in san francisco our code will exempt

rh1 requirements and could be approved administratively but this is located in an rh2 zoning district it is here before you today. the current strutting structure is a one story basement single-family dwelling unit it's not been previously occupied it will be a 3 story house with floor plans. the departments residential design team found the massing appropriate given the block pattern as the majority of buildings are two to three stories team high the department likes the project the project is seeking a variance from the planning section as the subject property as an exaggerated set back requirement because the

property to the east is 70 feet from the property line it increases the regulatey and will make for a gradual stepping and it is built out to a major set back the department has not received any additional comments except the supportive letter we recommend you not take dr and the basis is the project is not considered an affordable unit or acceptable housing. the project will not result in my reduction even if houfrgz in the stock and create one single-family home and meets our residential design guidelines. that concludes my presentation.

and i'm available for questions >> thank you project sponsor. >> is there a separate time for a dr or a separate variance. >> it's wrapped up into the 5 minutes. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners i'm david armor the architect for the project. the owner is kate and kate is here with me today. kate grew up in noah valley a few blocks away in a victorian farmhouse she grew up in the neighborhood and the lifelong history in the neighborhood led kate and her husband to purchase the property and hired my firm to; right work with them on the improvements they weren't sure

it could be reasonably expanded renovated or you can tearing down the house was the most common sense way of building a long term family home we analyzed the property it was a small cottage and probably a third of the rear building is in the back that is built we are going do bring up the rh2 factors and i guess to wrap up a few things the design of the home was, you know, informed by

the kind of the victorian homes in the neighborhood by we've specifically sought to not to create a 19th century victorian but to have more - to, you know, kind of relate to the neighborhood but do something fittings that's a little bit more time less in character and use the materials that match the neighborhood in a way remind kate of the how's that they grew up in and particularly the house up the street. the properties in a lot the second floor walks out to the garden the kitchen opens up into

the backyard pay there's no outdoor space it's open an elevated roof-deck they've been working with the neighborhood on a landscape design with no fences between them and the house to the west and the west beyond that so the kids flow from one yard to other wrarptd to the variance we looked at the property in the current house where it's located the set back is very much impacted by the fact that the neighbor to the east set way back creating a set back requirement for the property we're asking for a set back variance to merely align with the adjacent property and the proposed location is 18 inches back from the structure

and will look nicely reforced the block pattern and this line is a future development occurred at some point will set that the massing of the adjacent properties no one's is here in opposition clearly so we're here to ask for your support for the project. thank you >> thank you just foyer formality is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini and it's a very well done project it's been mentioned already it is not affordable it will be exempt basically, we're placing a single-family home that's adequate with another

single-family home that's much more adequate for the family needs and conceptual but the size is much better i'm impress that the architecture, in fact, i've picked up the case report and said i can't believe someone is doing a great job of something that belongs to a neighborhood we see contemporary architectures that sometimes, it's well but sometimes like sorry thumbs and a lot of the principles we historically did between the usuartificial light will the it's a well done

project i'm holding into people's 3 this one to point to that i was happy to approve in the future >> commissioner fong. >> i too am in support i want to thank you for rebuilding this and i think it's pretty bold and not inexpensive to create san francisco's historic architecture pattern but thank you and i'm sure in the details and the tichz materials to determine the type of project is what you want it to be i'm in support and will make a motion to not take dr and approve the demolition and construction of the new proposed. >> second and commissioner moore. >> i want to say this is for contemporary architecture i want to commend the department to

taking a bold stand and developing a project dial by which this is skillfully kin to pull the project up rather than dealing with the set backs i want to comment on that and just acknowledge that. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to staff. did you take a look at on the block face and streets with respect to how many two unit buildings there are? >> no, i did not. >> okay. and to the project sponsor did i give consideration to building two units? >> we did look at one of the things that precludes i guess how we normally will approach this type of things the project is built into a lot the rear portion of the ground floor is uninhabitable and didn't allow

for a garden apartment we probably will propose in a project like this. but no >> i thought about it. >> but it's i am practical. >> i had to ask it says rh2 we're trying to address a housing issue in the city i want every opportunity to get even though quarry whether or not its possible to flairs what the zoning will allow i'm in favor the project. >> commissioners there's a motion and second not to take the dr as proposed councilmember sharp. >> commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes zoning administrator what say you >> close the public hearing and

in this case, the lot with the adjacent u just a minute property as well as the project sponsor has alcohol to maximize the project they could expand but not choose to do so, so i'm in support of the project. >> oh, excuse me. commissioners that leaves us to public comment there are no speaker cards. >> general public comment general public comment is closed. i want to thank again commissioner sugaya this is his last hearing maybe you can come back and sub. >> we can do that lair. >> and close the hearing in horn of doug wright. meeting adjourned >> thank you very much..

>> it is august 19 entertainment commission meeting to order. please turn off or

put your phones on vibrate and all recording devises during our meeting and we want like to send sf gov tv for sending us out over the airwaves. can we have a roll call please. >> commissioner perez. >> here. >> commissioner akers intl here. >> commissioner joseph. >> here. >> commissioner lee. >> heir. >> commissioner frost. >> here. >> vice president hide. >> present. >> president tan bryant tan is out of town and excused for this evening so we have a quorum. >> all right. so the first thing we're going to do today is open up public comment. this is where members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter and jurisdiction within the entertainment commission but not on our regularly scheduled program. do we have any public

comment? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] so next we are going to review and approve the meeting minutes from august 5, and -- so i have a couple of changes they would like to make. >> all right. >> absent were cake cake and commissioner lee and i'm not sure if liam was here so i wanted to check with that and commissioner hyde moved to continue item c to april 19 i think it's august 19. >> i move to approve with commissioner hyde's changes.

>> second. >> [inaudible] >> because you weren't here. >> actually we can't vote on this. >> they're not enough of you. >> i move -- i amend my motion. i move to continue the minutes. we only have three commissioners here. we need four on vote on the minutes. >> so there is a motion to continue. is there a second? >> second. >> commissioner lee seconds. commissioner perez. >> aye. >> commissioner akers. >> continuation. >> it's just a continuance. >> aye. >> commissioner joseph. >> 50eu6. >> commissioner lee. >> aye. >> vice president hide. >> aye. >> all right we're ready for the report from the executive director. take it away jocelyn kane. >> thank you. good evening commissioners. this is going to be short and swee. we have a guest that will pop up in the middle of this -- in fact right

away of my director's report because we thought it would be easier to present this to you. under the heading of policy and legislative update there was discussion but a request from i think commissioner hyde to have someone from london breed's office who is the author of the legislation here before you to talk about this file regulating mechanical amusement device and arcades so he's here now if you want him to do this and then i can resume the rest of my director's report. >> great. >> thank you director kane and commissioners. i will keep this as short as i can and happy to answer any questions but by way of background the entertainment commission staff originally brought this issue to us. ms. blackstone sent us information about a business in district 5 in the upper haight

and a t shirt screen printing shop that added a number of arcade games and ran into problems with the planning and police code and actually solicited support from their customers and users of the arcade games and it's a great business. we know it well. supervisor breed knows it well and we want to support it so we read through the operative portion of the police code and 6,000 words dating back to 1982 when there were concerns that arcades were over returning the neighborhoods and corrupting the youth and reading it it didn't seem relevant and clauses that they can't be open during school and kids will skip school and 30 years later they can pull the cell phone out of their pocket.

there are lots of stipulations where they can be in respect to other arcades. the police are entitled according to the current police code entitled to search arcades anytime for any reason so there were things as a policy matter presented a concern to supervisor breed and i think several of her colleagues shared that concern as well so we worked with the police department and your staff and vice president hide and thank you mr. vice president for that to develop a comprehensive section of the police code to encourage the handful of arcades we do have in the city and make sure that the entertainment commission has a role to play and work with particularly bars that have games so you can implement the good neighbor policy and that is a important distinction because what we set out in the legislation is a two tier system. businesses that are a restaurant or shop are

treated differently than bars with games and that came from the concerns of your staff and from the commission that you wanted a foot in the door. you want to work with bars on the good neighbor policy and that's a different circumstance than a shop that has a street fighter two in the back so that is reflected in the legislation. i can go into some of the history how it's evolved and i want to apologize we didn't bring this to you before. it went to the board of supervisors and rushed before the august recess in july and went to land use and passed unanimously on first reading before the august recess. with that said there were some concerns from your executive director and from staff and from vice president hyde about an amendment that was made at land use, and we met with executive director kane and the city attorney and supervisor breed right before the august recess after that board meeting and came up with what i think is a

compromise that will benefit all sides so let me walk through how that evolved. the original legislation said a bar could have one game but as soon as it gets two games it needs a permit from the entertainment commission. nan bars can have up to 10 games before they get a permit and that's not changed and they're off the table and there is strong consensus that they can have 10 games before they need a permit but as it was submitted a bar can have one game but if it has two it needs a permit. supervisor kim which is on the land use didn't like that and too much of a hassle to small business owners and made an amendment that a bar could have up to four games without a permit. as soon as they got the fifth they needed a permit. that passed in committee with

supervisor breed's support. although she is not on the committee. i spoke on her behalf and went to the board and passed unanimously and your board had concerns with that and now supervisor breed is ready to make additional modifications that a bar can have one game without a permit. if it has 2- 10 games it will get a director staff level permit from the director or the designee. there is a lot of precedent for this. planning does this and if you say want i to change the port core by 5-inches and stamp is it and give you the permit. i think it's news to the entertainment commission but there is precedent in other departments and then any business that has 11 or more games require a permit from the commission itself so just to review the compromise we're proposing if a bar has between

2- 10 games they get a staff level permit from the commission. any business with 11 games or more would get a entertainment commission permit from the commission here. a bar with one wouldn't need a permit or a restaurant or some other business with -- 1-10 don't need a permit if i didn't lose any of you with that long winded explanation i am happy to answer questions. >> commissioner joseph. >> i'm sorry. just a point of order i want to add a couple of things. i think connor is trying to be brief but it's complicated but i want to reaccrue the commission and yes it's a new thing for us and over the counter permit. however, the process for suspensions, revocations, like appeals, those things are all in place so if we do begin to have trouble with