the dr because i also, you know, things get complicated as we move architecture and encourage him for the variance hearing he could remove the elevator and the deck inside if that's the case and remove the roof-deck there should be a set back on the back at least 5 feet you can put a deck out there. >> it could be, you know, if the conditions could be the same i could take dr and remove those elements or not take dr and change anything and get through the variance i don't share the same concerns with the roof-deck because it is part of the design

and it's very well landscaped it doesn't have a penthouse and really the quality use of open space because their rear yard is so many levels below and the balcony would be the only usable space so the roof-deck as proposed is really quite fine so if the commission and want to take dr and prepared to take action on the variance to have a 15 rear yard with no obstructions to the rear yard level. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i'm prepared to make a motion to take dr and reduce the building in keeping are the suggestion of commissioner moore to shave the back off she's

discriminated i won't roach the roof-deck. >> commissioner antonini i believe that the roof-deck holds itself quite well interest the northern property with a deep notch in respect of the joining properties so i'm leaving it there and would second the motion. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm sorry can you reiterate that. >> i would leave the roof-deck. >> okay. thank you thank you. >> it holds back from the jane property. >> okay. >> commissioners, we have a motion and a second to take dr and approve the project as proposed with the eliminations of the rear elevator and open

balcony. >> commissioner moore if you could the elevator gets moved not eliminated. >> i was trying to mitigate between the jane property north corner. >> excuse me. we could use the same language i'll propose in a 15 foot rear yard with no obstructions at any level we're moving the elevator mass and a rear yard of 15 feet with no obstructions on that motion. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. is commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. sxhishgd. and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes amazing 6 to zero zoning administrator what say you >> the variance with the closed session grant the conditions there's a 15 foot rear yard remaining with no obstructions

into the rear yard and if anyone wants a copy of the letter contact the staff planner autopsy commissioners that places you on item 15 at 458 percent grove street request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu i members of the commission. the item before you is a request for discretionary review of building permit 1658 a change from retail to restaurant doing business on grove street the property is within the transit district between octavia and goose it is to have a bone fide

restaurant that will be climate by sifshgs for consumption the planning code defines allows the licenses for 4959 or 745 or they want beer and wine on the premises it will be a can he recall space previously occupied by a retail and there was a removal from the scope during the notification period of quality of life to use it as an outdoor area the removal of the patio from the proposal reduced the notification the building permit occurring asked the change in retail to restaurant

if the interior space optional we've received 51 letters and 33 signatures in support of the local residents and businesses voicing their support of an individually owned super bowl that contributions to the diversity of the neighborhood 21 from letters of opposition and others from the group voicing their concerns and the letter of opposition from the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods asserting a prototypes restaurant is not a bone fide eating place the police department supports the proposal that operating conditions, however, this proposal didn't include the outdoors area that is subject to imperfectly approval those can be found in the communication section of our

packet i have 4 letters that were received after submitted one in support of the proposed project and 1 in opposition the department not take discretionary review the request for discretionary review has been the probably use of the rear yard and it only guarantee goes from retail to restaurant it didn't include the back patio the rear of the properties requires a separate discretionary review hearing in the haits district and while the recipient is to operate before 2:00 a.m. and will close earlier to be comparable with the neighborhood the proposed restaurant will operate and secure at about ab license 41

only permitting beer and wine and the proposed restaurant will be an individual local business for the surrounding neighborhood and it meets applicable terms in the neighborhood if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> secretary this is a somewhat dr we follow the regular dr procedures; is that correct. >> yes. >> so dr requester your team has 5 minutes. >> power point. good afternoon commissioner

president wu and members of the commission i'm michael welch representing the site of the permit neighbors were deeply disturbed by the social media as a wine bar with a patio given the close proximity to the homes and the noise issues we've encountered in the back planning realized that rear eye involved additional conditional use authorization i'm going to phone call on the permit on had an the initials have been addressed but some remain. a principle concern is this is the change of use with a type 41 permit it's a wine bar not a restaurant we're concerned about the lack of notification and the

consumption of the licenses in the hayes valley neighborhood i'd like to begin with the definition of bone fide restaurant and the eligibility for type 44 licenses they're required to operate as a bone fide restaurant they may have suitably kitchen facilities for cooking meals meals it states what's disloudly it is only appetiteers is not considered a meal and fm to prevalent bars from mass raiding ace restaurant and the states a minimum of 51 percent of revenue and food must be 51 percent of the sails. i'm to review two businesses

that are located less than one block from the proposed project that is representative of a 45 license. the terrors is the boxing room it was offering casual cuisine and offer a variety of food this is a business that is a bone fide business next on a restaurant an iv i didn't street is a beer and wine bar they serve a variety of appetiteers but not a full ditch they've applied for a 42 licenses this is appropriate for a wine bar in the case of the other restaurant they've seen the advancement to

the board of supervisors per california law this is the standard operating procedure with a significant of alcohol permits i'm come back to that later. the proposed wine bar doesn't confirm to a bona fide restaurant the plan to operate with a wet pantry with but no working kitchen at the site this is a requirement and future on a sound proofing that is riverside in the planning code and based on the plans and permits this appears to be a bar and not a bone fide restaurant. the applicant submitted a menu all the foods is appetiteers but sandwiches are specifically

prescribed in the absence absent position offering appetiteers is not concerned considered a meal mr. the photos are pictures those appear to be a finger food not subject to cuisine >> the bona fide definition was designed to prevent liquor loopholes in my given neighborhood in hayes valley there's a lot of bars severing alcohol 8 are permitted in the track we currently have 44 in our neighborhood adding an additional bar requires the board of supervisors to approve. so the neighbors request that the planning commission take discretionary review on this building permit first, we building the proposed business is a wine bar not a bone fide

restaurant they should get a 42 license >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you. okay. we'll open for public comment supporting the dr requeste requester. >> chair the chair for the neighborhoods land use and housing committee i want to read a reducing resolution it says that the neighborhood organizations supports the following resolution regarding the proposal for a wine beer garden property for the property on grove street the neighbors a change of use from retail to

restaurant a type of abc license at 458 grove street as well as the conditional use authorization for the use of the patio for outdoors activity and further resolve they stock exchange support the discretionary review it's a building permittee site when we first heard about this we were quite precipitated that the planning department should recommend approval in such a scenario we understand that this project is in the back and is in close proximity to condos and i think if you live in those condos right next to a so-called wine beer restaurant you'd be

strongly opposed to the project the dr requester mentioned that the applicant for the change of use from replacement to restaurant with a type of 31 license wants to get a use for a wine garden this proximity to multiple residential unit will have a loss of peace and quiet loss of enjoyment so the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods fears if this is approved it could be approved in other areas and circumstances that would be detrimental to the quality of life in all neighbors thank you.

>> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> good evening i guess some point i'm allen the proprietor of boreder lands books my connection is interesting it comes if two directions first one of the property owners next door to the proposed recipient has been a friend of mine for almost two decades and employee for over a decade secondly, in the early 90s i worked at a company who's offices were located in the promoted building site so you have an interesting that, of course, prospective and also running a cafe and restaurant i have an idea of the demands associated the first one i'm sure you see the photocopy it was an 0 selfishness the

central halfway is leadership and don't offer a full menu and still crowded for space i don't know see how it could work as a restaurant 2 makes me suspect the san francisco public utilities commission is to make it a wine barry probably true i don't see how it's possible to have 51 food sails with any reasonable sail for a restaurant and again running a cafe and bookstore restaurants are very

loud just dishwashing that is taking place in the pantry adjacent to a residential structure in my own business i'm separated by a dish working class by a double firewall and the door of my office and it closed it is still loud enough to go smoirp to talk on the phone. so i wanted to address that that's for another discretionary review hearing thank you very much. thank you. next speaker. >> superstitions hello, hello thank you. i live my backyard butts up to the patio of 458 i'm on fulsome

street i'm not anti business but when i became aware of what's going on first this was a proposal for wine and beer yet not the license for the change of use but then on social media there's advertised this is going to be used as the patio is use so fund us with your money and have a party on the patio i've lived there since 1992 when that patio has been used a little bit in the daytime it's allowed that's fine i hear people talking whatever there's been a few parties that the salon oxen rose has had i take it okay. i'm in fear the sound of that business.

like i said feel once the restaurant is in there. i don't know how a restaurant can function let me back up if i was a business i would have to use that patio so if i'm going to use the patio so i'm saying as a resident i need guarantees there's a sound like proofing for the patio that's what i want to say i appreciate our time >> thank you. next speaker. >> commissioner president wu i'm kathy republican lopez one the property owners on grove street. i bought the condominium in 1995 and i like the previous speaker seen the residents in question from resident to office space to

salon to a porn studio i'm thrilled our hayes neighborhood has survived there are restaurants and retail is that a that interest have expanded this use of this space as has been previously noted is not appropriate. due to the close proximity to our buildings and other binges buildings not appropriate to have an outdoor wine bar please take discretionary review of this project >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is kari live on grove street right next to the grove i'm opposed to the restaurant and bar after living in san francisco since 1988 i bought my

place in 1986 with the tips of living there for life the only businesses were a hotel and laundry all the other buildings were residential or office space i wouldn't have bought the property nbc to a recipient and bar. allowing this permit will have a severe impact on my quiet enjoyment my bedroom window offer looks at the project and sound travels from the backyard through the window in the past any conversation in the backyard is in my home when there are parties the noise is very loud if the space is occupied on a a daily base it is like my bedroom

where in the restaurant and noise at the clean up at the end of the day it will effect my peace the bar and restaurant is not a reasonable use the people they this people will be talking in normal voices this is not anything she can guarantee there's no realistic way to have a limit on how loud conversations get even if those people talking about in a normal tone 41 people is a large sound i'm concerned in the bar opens i enlighten as my lifetime home i feel this is unfair this proposed change of use i'll not been able to enjoy it i urge the commissioners to deny the chance

of use >> thank you. >> i'm christen i'm here in support of the dr requester. the neighborhoods initially approached me around the issue because there was concern of the quality of life given the proximity to the rear yard and the business. at the time there was some impression that the rear yard was going to be used i'm sure you're aware of your heard that has since been changed so it will be just the interior use of the building which still does if you have been to the site could actually are a change in the quality of life as a wine bar or which is being proposed. so i do hope you consider the

devastation and possibly taking dr as mr. welch has requested and whether or not this is restaurant is a bone fide restaurant or not in the past increase language associated with some projects the good neighbor and liaison language to be put in this the dr lose this to the reviewed with the owners that sound like proofing adequate for the 7.5 be added to the interior and the outside to the back patio be located directing business miser until the discretionary review has been considered when we looked at other biz businesses like the coffee in the mission there's there's an outdoor area those

types of conditions or those types of considerations the language has been added to the discretionary review so i heard the business will be closing at 10 that's a good start which coming in this neighborhood this kind of quiet street there's a salon that's not been used for restaurant or wine bar. so i hope you consider taking or including language in the discretionary review. so thank you for your time >> thank you. >> hi my name is jimmy wrote the hayes valley association the letter that you received it was approved by the transportation planning committee chair and the president of the board. when we reviewed the project the

backyard garden and the advisement of the project as a wine and beer garden was the tone that the project had taken. i viewed the garden area and clearly that is the preliminary gather place that will affect the quality of life for the neighborhood and no where for the noise to go but into the apartments >> i think the ladies comments are very much things we would support if the claim now is that the gasped is not going to be used there are will be assurances to make certain it's not mr. walsh's point about this is a 41 or 42 permit from

everything i've seen it should be a 42 type permit application. there is reason to be skeptical about the ability to have food as your preliminary source of income without a kitchen and in a tight space. if the neighborhood association is unusual 1/3rd of the neighbors are businesses we're not trying to limit businesses. one of our board members is the owner of the emphasis he will they came to the community and the merchant association and the neighbors have been supportive and been good neighbors we look for an amicable solution we want

garages converted to good communities servicing businesses but not for the quality of life of residents who have to be impacted if adequate precautions are not taken all the comments of the lady are from the hayes valley associations will urge you to build into this thank you very much >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. okay. seeing none project sponsor our team has 5 minutes >> commissioners. ma'am, chairman i'm john kennedy the owner of 458 grove street purchased in 1976. the