>> commissioner moore i want to make one other suggestion that has something to do with the fantastic we understand not exactly them that presentsism to talk about the tattoo 0 so massage parlors get a positive altitude in display windows that try to change. >> the way the business shows itself to the public whatever way we can urge the young business owner to be as pro-active and positive displaced in their front windows >> commissioner johnson and. >> couple of things on the age i saw this as well in the public comment letters i don't agree

that that it makes our lives more complicated in the future we're not here to adjudicate what the material is the law of the land says you can buy cigarettes above the age of 18 not get in the restriction in terms of bathing on the storefront we have tobacco use in the outdoors not win 25 feet of the entrances but maybe perhaps as people think that is an issue we can add a condition of asking the business owner not to have people conjugate in the doorways while still recognizing we have laws around tobacco or

bathing or whatever within 25 feet of the entrance and just to clarify i did is my understanding the part of the business plan of the business owner to restrict assess, however, not part of the existing conditions of approval before the commission so if the commission times to include that as a condition of prevail that's not in the motion right now in the motion before the commission right now. >> thank you i'm sorry just on that, yes so, yes, i knew that was in the business plan as people want to add that i'm not supportive of ages above 18 by law they're not allowed to sell paraphernalia or below the age of 18 i feel that's enough i don't know we needing need to add an additional condition they check ids at the door they're

not allowed to sell he stiff under 18 anyway. >> commissioner fong. >> quick question project sponsor do you plan to check id. >> absolutely. >> upon entry. >> any transaction if they want to look at stuff we'll ask for id. >> we're willing to put in an id readerer in too. >> let me try it this with a couple of additions an id reader be instead of saying 18 or more and no tasting or loitering outside the space and you are the designated liaison i give them a phone number and if the neighbors have issues they can

contact you and you'll wish responsive and responsible the last item we had a six months look back and closing time at 10. >> and a six months look back 20 if there's issues or crime reports you report them and assuming their accurate and coming in the form of writing to the planning commission and if there's any problems. >> my seconder was commissioner hillis. >> are you holding to those moechgz commissioners, if there's nothing further dollars then there's another motion that was sejtd e seconded with the conditions as amended to include that an id reader and signage be played in front of the building no loitering and limiting the hours of operation to 10 p.m.

and establishing a liaison with that information posted and 5 that a six months look back be required and commissioner antonini no commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards no commissioner fong commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 2 about commissioner antonini and commissioner richards voting against arrest commissioner wil5 minute break. >> welcome back to the san francisco regular meeting for november 6, 2014, conversions we left off under your conditional use calendar for case d at 520 this is a request for quality of life.

>> members of the planning commission the project before you locked on the boulevard proposes to lift the building to insert a second level to provide a garbage at the rear yard area it includes the edition the zoning administrator requester would like the rear edition to be pulled back to the existing deck at the second floor the dr requesters concerns the department if find it to be extraordinarily and asked that you approve that project and do not take discretionary review thank you. >> thank you. the dr requester our team has five minutes.

>> good evening commissioner president wu and commissioners tracey representing the dr requester maria the owner the adjacent property to the east of the project you have our brief so i'll be short and leave time for the lady herself 3 consecutive points a variance inform the side yard encroachment and the project sponsor hats not met the requirement as we pointed out and the variance decision it pending the project sponsor has not - we submit in the the project sponsor can't have it both ways incorporated either there's extraordinary

circumstances if not then if not the variance it be denied and if so the discretionary review is properly filled the modifications were done to accommodate artist neighborhood to the ante no such accumulation has been made for the lady now she'll address the commission with the remaining time. >> thank you my name is a maria gonzales the owner which is the property adjacent to this thing in question here anyway when was i first approached and invite about the

drilling and evasion what kind of drilling and problems causing to the structure to my structure the homes are very close together and so i was afraid you know it would really cause damage but when i look forward the entire project and what we were trying to achieve by building the garage at the bottom they were going to free up the existing level and lined up with a whole new level of occupancy so in the spirit of being a good neighborhood i thought no problem i'm happy for them so i don't think have a problem with them listing the house and building the garage at the bottom but i have a problem with this additional 14 foot extension they're planning to do

on the ground floor with all the spaces they're turning second-story house and why now do we need an additional 4 story treasure it is non-conform not common with the variance or the side yard variance nor the rear yard variance and really i mean, he it is an excessive a huge project and this expectation would really be a totally excess they want to extend the deck on top of that and just going to do create a omi truthful and non-conforming structure there's

no need for it there's no specification particularly in view that they're gaining so much more says that the whole level of occupancy so that's all i have to say i thank you for listening to me and giving me the opportunity to voice any concerns and objection and i hope once you look at the project and see what a massive project that say that i will give me consideration and not allow this additional 14 feet to be constructed thank you for your time. >> thank you other members in support of the dr requester?

okay. then moving on the project sponsor our team has 5 minutes >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioners from rubbing benefit and rose on behalf of the project sponsor their family this is not a massive expansion this is a truly a quiet a modest proposal and i'll keep my rangers brief i'd like to show a few voiblz that is important to see what's happening here and those pictures tell the story better than words can certainly far better than mine. >> this is the backyard this is the dr requesters home

this is the la bad home you can see the story poles showing you the rear yard xaengs extension about 3 feet before the dr requesters home a basement level it's scarcely viable if the homes you'd have to homestretch to peer out from the windows to see the extension la bodies have pulled back this plastic pole shows the depth of the rear yard extension the la bodies have pulled that back 3 feet dr and neighbors had asked for that the la bodies compiled the dr requester is asking for more

those evaluations shows the la bodies home in the for grounded and the dr requesters in the back and rear here's the proposed beck up above noted reaching as far utility as the dr questions home and the extension below all expansion is below ground and inhernl to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and particularly the neighbors one final exhibit here the for ground is the dr requesters home and at la bodies home behind in

the lower evaluation you see the roof and the proposed project here we go what we're talking about that 3 foot by the 3 foot conversation is viable from the dr requests home this shading and the outline in the back is the buildingable envelope the la bodies started with a modest proposal they could have proposed something much larger and negotiated back from that but instead, they started reasonably and now they have negotiated as far as they can last point it may seemed to me that a middle ground could be found this is just 3 feet beyond the

dr requesters home that maybe the commission consider reducing by a foot or two but the b.a. bodies can't pull that room back any further on the inside is the rear building wall that can't be moved once contradiction is complete even though interior dimension is 11 feet 6 inches to go any narrower even 6 inches motivators it's a very narrow room to go further makes it more than a wide hallway i ask the commission to approve that we think it's a minimal impact the la bodies are here and thank you

for your consideration. >> thank you opening it up for public comment in support of the project sponsor i have a number of speaker cards (calling names). >> i'll just is there's one speaker in support here the other 4 had to leave got into picking up kids hours and so forth. >> two and speakers can come forward. >> hi, i'm chris, i live other 501 el camino delmar across the street somewhat o oblique to 520 delmar i'm in port of the project and reviewed the drawings i completely understand them this is a small edition in

keeping with the context or possibly below average in terms of size and schashg of the neighborhood and sea crystal-clear is pretty large homes that is especially consider rat their achieving by excavating below 0 rather than doing a vertical it is very small in my mind i have two large picture windows that lubricate across the street it is o oblique so i'll be able to see the fuel deck of the small edition and again, very in favor of that it is consider rat and i want to mention that is the way i understand from looking at the cross section it looks to be 10

feet away from the e cigarette set back so it's only one story high so again, i want to give my support for the project i urge you all at that approve it and not take dr. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi him sheila i am a neighbor live across the street my front window and berm windows look o obliquely at their home as well i've lived in the neighborhood 18 years now and in terms of looking at their plan looks at appropriate one of the things i like about the plan is because their excavating potentially having their garage

in the back they can close off their assess if el camino if you've been in sea crystal-clear many of the homes have their garages in the back this takes away that the garage is in the back it's an improvement to the streets i think overall they've been reasonable and asked us to look at the plan and come over and looked at the pole and we did all of that and i looked directly as i said we're in in favor of what they're doing. >> okay is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed dr you have a 2 minute rebuttal.

>> we'd to clarify we are in no way opposed to the excavation, in fact, we've n be in favor of more people doing excavation it's expensive anticipate it's a.d. membership admissible itself issue is very discrete you've got a rear expansion we'll call it the basement level that extends 11 feet i believe beyond the pull back deck an awkward looking structure all we're asking there's a lot of space they're going to gain through the project we're asking for thought 11 feet for flush with the deck above there's a noting has nothing to do with

anything just a discrete initial. >> project sponsor you have two minutes. >> just clarify that the expectation is not 11 feet beyond the deck above nor it is 11 feet beyond the dr requesters home showing you here again, this is the viable extension beyond the dr requesters home it is approximately 3 feet it is approximately 14 feet back if the rear building wall it results in an interior having

said that, a 6 inch room and so with that, the public hearing portion is closed. >> thank you sir, i have a question i'm looking at the picture that shows the rear of the existing 520 el ma'am, delmar the basketball hoop in the garage it looks like the cars are presently entering from the east into the garage they're going going to lower the level and create a backyard from what i can tell. >> thank you, commissioner for that question currently what's occurring is maybe this slide will help are the response arrest the el camino dell mayor the existing garage is approximately right here within

the rear facade so the vehicles have to enter and make a u-turn or back up into the garage. >> okay. i see that. >> what's happening because the downward slope into the driveway agreement there's excavation blov abhorring below the building but it's a one story garage sure they'll be urging the derivative easement and then restore the el ma'am, delmar and where the derivative used to be and the other question that came up because theirs creating a new rear yard because they won't be having cars through there are they're only going back 14.4 so

no radishes variance. >> it's within the envelope just to point out the 4 foot extension and the rear yard line is approximately right here and portion of the existing building currently here within the 5 foot set back approximately a 4 foot set back on the side currently so did you inspire building is non-compliant they'll want the existing sidewalk at the 14 foot extension then the dr requesters home is not going into the rear yard. >> the side yard is non-compliant the rear yard is okay 31 they can go up to 5 feet that's the point i'm making this is modest i have a home with a

rear easement i didn't realize they had to make a u-turn into the rear yard they're gaining a rear yard they never had and the cars go underneath and have a deck and i can't see impact on the adjoining house this is on the basement level essentially as far as effects that might have on foundations or anything those are dbi concerns i don't see anything unusual or extraordinary in this case. >> commissioner moore edition is indeed appropriate i think that the housing being lifted is a major contribution

in having a derivative that is a typical to the neighborhood in visitacion valley o having filling backs, etc. the documentation clearly shows the building does not spill over into hits general appearance not noticeable for critical points i understand that the dr applicant is concerned about the extent of the contradiction but today's construction techniques we've reviewed a number of considerable extension is more, more might have had than expectations in the past i move to not take zoning administrator and approve as proposed. >> second. >> on that motion to not take dr commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore

commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7 to zero commissioners, i have places you open general public comment i i have no speaker cards. >> any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closedokay.

>> mark is stuck on me