the design advisory team found that the d.r. requestor's concerns regarding the loss of light and privacy are neither exceptional or extraordinary as the setbacks are appropriate and maintain access from the d.r. requestor's property. the planning department recommends that they not take d.r. and approve the project as revised. >> okay. we'll hear from the d.r. requestor. >> i think we would like to start by requesting a continuance. there has been numerous revisions of the plans that we've not received and reviewed. we did not receive the response from the project sponsor that was submitted in late january

and have not had a chance to review any of the revisions as suggested by the planning departme department. as the association stated in its january 30 letter, there's been discrepancies in the plans, numerous revisions, as they relate to the story poles, which the project sponsor erected, which were not accurate, during the period of neighborhood notification, 311 period. the project sponsor represented that the story poles were accurate. we had an on-site meeting, story poles were not accurate. we could not evaluate the plans at the time after the

30-daytime, story poles were rearranged and we didn't get the benefit of the 30-day notification period, which we would like to be reinstated so we can get a clear picture of what the project sponsor has in mind. we think that the project sponsor is making efforts to understand our concerns, especially as they relate to light, air, ventilation of four bedrooms and four separate units, two units which only have one window that would be encapsulated in a light well, which is of great concern to us. we need time. we need time to meet at the project site and we need time to get a clear picture of the

intended scope and revisions. it's been a moving target. theres been three, four revisions of plans we've never been in receipt of and not given the benefit of reviewing. so we would request, perhaps, a 30-day continuance period to avoid having to file an appeal and have this project stalled out again for another three to six months. >> thank you. any public comment in support of the d.r. requestor? project sponsor? >> story poles were installed on

october 25, which was within the 30-day period. they asked for some changes, some setbacks, and to show additional 42-inch walls and guardrails. it was updated on november 10. on october 31, they were sent drawings to show that the changes were made. so by october 31, had a set of drawings. by november 10, they had -- the story poles were corrected. on november 15 and december 9, they were sent emails stating that the story poles were corrected. and the project was adapted to their request. in particular, 42-inch wall on the west side. staircase was added. 42-inch wall, deck, on the second floor was added.

a three-foot cutback on the northeast corner was shown. so it did clear the window. additionally, we took off a stairwell on the roof. we cut back the northeast corner, we clawed back the northwest corner. we also set back the third floor three feet back from the property line. and additionally per the design committee's request, set back the deck five feet from the property line. so, yes, there were a variety of changes. it was due to the d.r. request and city's request, but for the most part, they had all the changes by october 31, except for the changes that the city requested. as far as the story poles go, on december 19, i did send the d.r.

requestor a copy and listing of the story poles that were changed and that included photographs showing that the fire wall was added. the story pole on the west side was adopted to meet their criteria. and on the east-north corner, it was set back so not only did i put it in writing, i attached photographs and turned everything into the city and the city has copies of everything including all the emails to back everything up. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment in support of the project sponsor? objection. commissioner richards. >> rebuttal. >> sorry. 2-minute rebuttal. >> i would like to, again, stress the purpose of the 30-day review period is so we can marshal our resources, which we did. we had an architect and attorney on site to go through the

project. at that time, there were misleading story poles at the property and when we did our on-site inspection, the architect could not explain the project to us. so we're here today -- we would like to get a good understanding of what they're proposing, work with them in a good faith manner and we need time to do that. we had not seen any of the plans as revised and mr. jerevec conceded they've been changed. he did not send us a copy. we want to review them and on-site inspection and continuance so we can get this done. thank you. >> thank you. >> story poles were put up on october 25. they were revised by november

10. everybody was emailed including the d.r. requestor. and there was an email stating they would be up until december 19, which they were. two emails went out to the d.r. requestor and the other neighbors were copied with the change of plans, with the states that the story poles were changed to meet the criteria, which was november 10. and a copy was sent of all the revised plans except for the 5-foot setback of the second-floor deck which the design committee asked us. they had the revised plans on october 31. and, again, they had the story poles up until december 19. i asked through an email if they wanted to meet again. no response given and the city had all the emails.

thank you. >> thank you. now, commissioner richards? >> eni first looked at it, starting to go against the public policy questions stated before. and i will need your advice on the flats policy.

we're taking a small unit on two floors and making it smaller by cramming it behind the garage and having a very large unit on top. 3,018 square feet. it kind of raises to me the issue of what we call sham units as well. is this really going to be, quote, a single family house with a unit that never gets rented or airbnb or whatever. i just couldn't support the project as it is given those things, red light blinking at me. >> commissioner moore. >> if one unit needs to be smaller in order for the other one to become three times a large, i believe that we are doing something which is really not in the interest of what we are here to do.

we don't need to enlarge a perfectly functioning two-unit building by making the small are unit even smaller or make the other unit a mega mansion. i find that basically, from a policy point of view, with or without on approved policy somewhat inconceivable. i like to also point out that the building, as it is proposed, has issues of, perhaps, the architect -- is the architect here? you're the architect. would you mind explaining -- could you come to the podium here? are you a licensed architect? >> yes. >> i do not see your -- >> these were the last sets that were given 10 days ago to the city.

>> of course, looking at your suggestion for the garage on the proposed first floor, the garage and the elevator don't work because the way you are designing the bicycles and parking does not work together in determines of dimensioning. why does the bicycle -- either the bicycle parking goes away or the second car to have a punking elevator. two things -- functioning elevator. that tracks the entire building. again, it makes me wonder -- >> i'm not understanding your question. >> i'm sorry? >> i don't understand the question of the elevator versus the bikes. >> the elevator, as you're accessing the elevator from the garage, the way the bicycle parking and the second car don't work. if you want to have a second car in there, either the bicycle parking has to go, because you're not able to get a second

car into the garage. by doing that, you cannot properly circulate and access the elevator. >> there's a note on there that it's a compact car and you cannot back both cars at the same time. you're going to have to put the small one in first and then the large one. you cannot access both of them at the same time. you're correct. you are not back them both out at the same time. one has to go in and the other one. it's label a compact car, the second car. although i don't believe two cars are required. >> as long as you're aware of it. i need to put that out there because there's something which doesn't quite work. >> the compact car is tight in there. you're right. >> i think if dbi comes, they may say no. you may do that, but it doesn't really work. i would agree with commissioner richards. thank you so much.

congratulations to your registration. i have a hard time with these units. now, this was an honest acknowledgment of passing his exam. that was an honest acknowledgment here. i have a hard time with the unit sizes and do not know what else to do. >> i mean, we -- unless you want to -- >> go ahead, commissioner. >> we could continue the item and give -- and hear it again, abbreviated, but there's already two of us saying we think there are fundamental public policy issues that the design of this building is raising to us, and maybe we should take dr and give advice to staff on some of these items. >> i will say that i, too, have the same issues and concerns that my fellow commissioners

have already articulated in terms of decreasing the unit size and putting it behind the garage and increasing the unit size for the second floor unit. so-so that's three of us. i don't know how other folks feel. we could continue it and allow for some more communication to take place with a dr requester operating in good faith or we could vote on it today. do any other commissioners have any comments? >> yes. commissioner fong. >> move to approve and recommend continue working with staff and commissioners. >> second. >> move to take dr. >> take dr and continue the project. >> okay. >> what date? >> wait. what? don't take dr.

continue it. >> i want to give them more time. >> if we were to continue it but to give staff direction to work on the issues we raised. >> and your concerns. >> that's fine. second. >> so commissioners, if we are looking at potential dates, i think this one is going to need some time because -- >> i think the earliest your calendar has is march 15th. >> okay. >> the project architect, would that be enough to hear feedback to make the changes? could you speak in the microphone, please? please come to the microphone. >> commissioner. >> thank you. the feedback we gave was we wanted more density equity in keeping the front back exposure of both units. so instead of making the unit smaller and tucking it behind

the garage and giving it only one exposure to the rear of the building. we would like to actually have it still be kind of a flat like it is now with a downstairs, bonus room's down, i guess, and the upper unit and create more of a -- more size comparablity. instead of 3,000 square feet and 808 square feet, we would love to see 2,000 and 2,000. >> my question is -- i know this is a new code that just gotten acted. my question is, with all due respect, why are we held to the new code when we turned this in so long ago and we had met the original code. the original code does say that 75% is all we need. we have 85% of it. so that means you're asking me and the client to redo all of these sets of drawings that met the code requirement when we turned it in.

the code has changed and now we're asked to redo it all. >> it's not that the code has changed. the interpretation of how we view the project has changed. we have, you know -- this is a discretionary action on our part and we have the ability to ask you to change the project so that we can approve it. we don't want to disapprove the project. we believe that we two units here. that is densification. we want density done more equitably. >> that are a family with young kids. they bought one unit in 2004. they bought the other unit in 2015. the reason they bought it was so they can live in this building and rent one of the units out. they keep doing basically the same size existing small unit the same size as before, 800, 900 square feet. they're trying to build the house to live in at the same time. what you're requesting is that they chop the size down so they

can't fit their whole family in there. i don't know if that's quite fair. >> it's the quality of the take away of the unit that i think we're really focustion on. you have a front-back exposure which is a typical flat in san francisco. that's really what we're focusing on. we're asking you to please redesign the building to that standard. >> we've heard -- you've heard our concerns. so i think that we're asking if you have enough time to, you know, take our feedback. you can come back on march 15th or later, if you wish, but you have heard our concerns. you can choose to incorporate them or not and take your chances at that hearing. but, you know, we would ask that you communicate with the d.r. requester in the meantime as well. >> does this have anything to do with the d.r. request? that seems like two different animals we're dealing with.

>> ideally, sir, you would meet with the d.r. requester and we would have an agreement between the two of you and we would have it on a consent calendar. we would never hear this again because you guys would come to an agreement or understanding. so we would encourage you to make sure you sit down with the d.r. requester on whatever revised project you would come up with so she understands the impact to her property and the issues she has if she identified them in the d.r. application and we can use your new project and its relationship it her concerns as to whether we want to take d.r. on the next project. if you come back with a project that delights us and the d.r. requester comes back with reasons that she's asking us to take d.r. and we don't feel like they hold much muster, we will not take d.r. and approve your project. the purpose is to get this approved. >> okay. can we take a vote on it right now?

did we? we couldn't hear. >> if we vote to disapprove then you can't do anything for a year. we don't want you to do that. we want you to have a probably executive. we -- project. we really do. we're trying to give you feedback. come back with something more where we would like it to be. we're not asking for it to be the same. we're asking for exposure on front back and more size equity. >> let's do it on the 15th. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okayment commissioners, on the motion to continue this item to march 15th, recognizing that the project sponsor would work with department staff to obtain more density equity within the existing units as well as provide for equal exposure for the two existing units.

[ roll call ] >> so moved. this matter has been continued to march 15th. now we come along on item number 18 case number 2017-010311 did. will. about at 217 montana street. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, planning commission, subject property is located at 217 montana street. it's on the south side of montana between capital avenue and it's in the rh-1 zoning district. it's to propose a rear addition at a two story residence.

it includes interior renovation and additional habitable space. there will be no changes to the front facade. this will filed by the next door neighbor due to concerns regarding light, air, and privacy to a rear deck. this proposal is a relatively modest rear alteration and consistent with similar expansions for this type of structure. the d.r. residence is the same step as proposed residence will become following this expansion. the south and western exposure for the neighboring residence will not be impacted by this expansion. the addition will be providing a side set back from the neighboring properties for the rear addition and deck which is used to access the rear yard. the design team says it meets all the requirements of the planning code and residential design guidelines and the department is in full support and determined this addition is

not exceptional nor extraordinary and is recommending the decision not take d.r. to the project. that concludes our presentation. >> thank you. d.r. requester. >> i've been here since 1:00 just like you. my name is jane. i am the d.r. requester and we are at 219 montana street. so we are -- they're at 217 montana street. so our house is abutting to their house. here is the -- i don't know how to -- oh, okay. so sorry. so here is the picture of the front. this one is our house. this one is their house. so they are -- the two houses are abutting.

so their proposed plan really imposed a large significant negative impact to our lives and to our -- the value of our house. our main concerns are light, privacy, the value of our house, and the box-in feeling. the light issue is our main concern because they are -- their current viewing depth is 31 feet. after the extension, their total viewing will become 71 feet. that is 40 feet into the backyard. their building height is 18 feet hall. their building is higher and taller than our house. that means our entire deck will be cast in their shadow.

our kitchen will become much more darker. so that impacts us every day, our daily life. currently, our deck -- like we get sunshine since morning because their house is to the east of our house. but then after their rear extension, we won't get any sunshine until around noontime because their proposed plan is really tall and long. secondly is privacy. their design has two windows designed on the second floor. i don't know if you can see this. it's these two windows that are directly facing our deck. that's directly facing our deck.

our kitchen -- they can easily see into our kitchen from those two windows. given the height of their house, the second story, i mean, these two windows really pose concerns to privacy, to our privacy. because of the large scale of the rear extension, i mean, this is uncharacteristically deep and tall extension, and we really feel a boxed-in feeling. it blocks our view. this is currently the view that we enjoy right now to the neighbor, but after their extension, the rear wall will align with our deck wall. that means -- and it's 10 feet above our deck floor.

so that means our entire deck is under the shadow, and we will have no view. so i do want to recognize that we had two meetings with the project sponsor, one during july time. that was the pre-application meeting, and one is during october. the result of those two meetings is they agreed to set back three feet and two inch space between our property line to their housd extension. so that is -- we do appreciate that, but given the height of their house, we don't feel that is really enough to address the light issue and the concern to light and the privacy issue. so with that, i would like to --

we would like to request to -- for you to consider the following three modifications before you approve the application. one is to remove those two windows on the second floor design. they have 6 windows. >> i apologize. your time is up. you'll have time for a rebuttal. >> oh, okay. >> any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. project sponsor.

>> hello, vice president melgar and fellow commissioners. i'm here with kelly, the owner of 217 montana street. i'm going to first let kelly talk about why she wants to do this addition, and then i'll talk more about the architecture. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the owner of 217 montana. me and my fiance purchased this house early last year hoping to settle down in san francisco and start a family here. unfortunately, this house is irrelevantly small in comparison to other houses in this neighborhood. it can't really accommodate our near future needs and even our current needs, to be honest. you know, in the future, we definitely hope to start a family, have kids, and 700 square feet can't accommodate that. on top of that, my mom and my brother who are also present today were hoping they could

move in with us as well. they're renting a one-bedroom apartment which i'm supporting. so it would become a financial constraint on us as a family. so that's why i'm proposing to have there expansion to accommodate our current needs as a family and also foreseeing the near future to have kids and grow in. like the d.r. requester mentioned, we've met with them twice, but multiple communications back and forth. so we started with the pre-app. during the pre-app, we made a modification according to their request. they mentioned that we need to reduce the width of our 25 feet extension, but they're okay lengthwise. that was noted in the pre-application. after that, we made changes, brought it back to them in october where we presented the modifications and they have requested additional cutbacks,

which we also accommodated before submitting it to planning department. this feels like through these modifications and addressing their requests, it's still unsatisfactory to the d.r. requester. hence, the d.r. was filed. we did continue communication, even at the last week, we tried to reach out to the requester, but unfortunately, we haven't received any responses to our follow-up. but through these outreach, we've talked to our adjacent neighbors and received overwhelming support, which we have sent out the support letter, e-mailed it out to you this morning. sorry for that being a little late, but we were supported by the neighbors. i just want to wrap up saying that we're hardworking individuals who saved up for a house in san francisco. we really hope that we can grow into this house. that's why we made all these gestures to accommodate to the

d.r. requester. i'll let jeremy talk about the technical piece of modification we made. >> if i can get the overhead, please, or the computer. there we go. apologies. this is a little hard to read. i believe you have something similar in your packet, if not i have a copy i can hand out. as you can see, it's. will. will-1 zoning. we should be able to build a full 75% of the lot depth in this case. we're only proposing to build and leave the last 42% open, which actually is exactly in line with the d.r. requester. it's an addition of about 31 feet -- i'm sorry -- 35 feet. here is the proposed first and second floor plan. the original building is 31 feet long and, as i said, adding on 35 feet total of four bedrooms for her family. here's a rendering of the rear yard. it really fits in quite well

with the neighbors. keep moving on here. existing views of the rear yard, here's a view of the neighbor's deck that she's concerned about. one thing i would ask you to note is her concern for the light she's getting into her windows, even though they've installed window shades covering their own windows here, here's the mid block open space. as you can see, it's pretty consistent with the exception of some of the rear yard, including one of the neighbors own. here are the supporters of the project in green. 10 supporters in nine properties. i have a shadow study which i'll present in rebuttal. this came up earlier today, we did recently do demo calculations just to present to you, and we are way under all the thresholds. that's that. thanks. >> thank you. d.r. requester, a couple

minutes. >> we're not asking you to disapprove the application. i mean, we understand they have their needs to raise a family in san francisco. their current house is small. but 40 feet into the backyard is allowed. and we are asking for 3 modifications. one is to remove the two windows that i mentioned. two is to set back additional five feet. it's hard to explain, but right here, if they can set back additional five feet by three right here, that will actually help ease the lighting problem into our kitchen. and then the third modification we would like to consider is if they can set back the depth of their rear extension because 40 feet into the rear yard is huge. >> thank you.

>> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> back to the computer, please. so we modeled the shadows three times during the year, and three times per day. this is the summer solstice, one hour after the addition. so as you can see on the left, we have the current shadow. on the right is our proposed. so at 6:48 a.m., there is more shadow. however, it's on the upper regions of the building. one hour later, we are blocking a little light to their rear popout, which i should add is the same depth as ours is proposed. one hour later, the sun is clear and shining into all you this windows as much as the existing condition. it's about an hour of sun loss during the summer.

during the autumn and springtime, about similar. ends up being about 90 minutes of additional sun. then during the winter, it's about two hours. so worst-case scenario, they would be losing about two hours of sun only to these windows off of their deck, which are already shaded. none of the rear facing windows are going to be affected. we know that wouldn't -- in san francisco, there would have to be tradeoffs. we've already set back the building 6 feet 8 inches. the building is no longer than theirs is. we have another set back on the other side. if we're talking about setting back additionally, we're going to have a ten-foot wide addition and it's no longer worthing it. thanks for your time. >> thank you. commissioner koppel. >> yeah. hi. normally when we hear the words modest addition, it's something we actually look at even more

closely. in this case, i do think this is a modest addition. looking at the drawing a-0.1, it looks as if this addition would only bring this house to the same level that the other surrounding houses are. it's not even doubling the square footage. the rdt approved this design and the setbacks are already enough as is. curious to see what the other commissioners say. >> commissioner moore. >> i think this is a reasonable addition. i think it's compact. i think it holds with general line of surrounding buildings and the 0 thing i would ask of the architect is would you mind coming up, please? the only thing i'm having a hard time with is on the second

floor. your deck and the stairs because for fire, you don't need the deck and the stair. i'm looking for a neighborly gesture here. there are all kinds of ways of getting into this garden, which you well maintain for required setbacks. is this side deck there together with the stairs, could disappear, i would be really more supportive of the thing. i see what you are doing. i assume you're doing the seismic retrofit by adding the additions the way you do. it's really ingenious and i appreciate it. that is the one thing i'm having a hard time with. it's really about just really recognizing that the other neighbors have that deck. there will be not impact, but the growth in the city makes this a norma addition, yet they have -- normal addition, and i think eliminating that would let

them have nor breathing room. >> we have it set back there on the second floor, but not the first floor. so there's a roof. the owners just want access from the living spaces to the rear yard without going to the front of the building. >> as you know, this comes out of the bedroom. it does not come out of the living space. it comes out of the master bedroom. the door goes directly on to that gallery or what you call the deck. >> i believe you're looking at not a earlier version of the plans. there's a sliding door. there's a sliding door. >> yeah. that's been revised. >> i see. it's the corner there, almost at the corner. >> i can show you here. >> i have a set here. that's what i looked at. i cannot see because of the -- my screen doesn't work. >> it's out of the living room. so this is the walkway out of

the living room and then stairs come down to the rear yard. >> okay. >> we have a different version. >> okay. >> i have the same -- >> yeah. it doesn't, for me -- it doesn't matter. it's still, i think, kind of like -- i would prefer a more neighborly gesture there, but i don't know what else to do. >> you could actually, if you wanted to, take the stairs with the landing straight along the building face and there would be more room there instead of having an occupied space. those are alternatives i would be happy with. if you put the stair in the same alignment as the deck, instead of making a deck turning into a stair, you would put them on the side of the building which is more transparent transitional space rather than occupiable space. >> with the landing in the middle. >> just like there would be a landing for exiting from the living room and then the stair goes down. >> would you be putting that in

the 3-foot set back against the neighbor? >> can we see the plan again? >> put them up again. >> i have a screen which doesn't allow me to see it. i need to come over to somebody else's. >> so here's the plan below. so above is a 6 foot 8 set back and below it's three feet. you're talking about the walkway above is in line with this. if the stairs went down, you would be cutting out a bedroom. >> i see what you're saying. my drawing set is different. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess to the d.r. requester, thank you very much. unfortunately i have the same type of deck that you have. those have been over my house know that the building surrounds the deck and the neighbor's house is looking down on my deck. they added a set of stairs there. it kind of comes with the territory of how the deck was

constructed. your deck could have been on the other side and you wouldn't have this problem. so i feel your pain, but honestly, the shadow study does not really show to me a significant impact on you. they have made concessions. as i look at the photo, you might want to take the awning off to let more light in. the awning on -- okay. it's late. i think it's an okay project. >> commissioner koppel. >> i would like to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> second. >> i have a comment to the windows facing the neighbor needing to be frosted for more

privacy. are there any comments on that? can you comment on that? are they far away enough? >> our building wall is 6'8'' away which is very close. any problems with frosting? >> i think we can use obscured glass. >> at least there's no concession there. >> take d.r. and do it that way. >> the light comes into the living room, but it protects the privacy of the people that are close by. mr. koppel. >> i'm fine with that. so just to clarify the motion. the commission would take d.r. and specify to use frosted or obscure glass along the entirety of that wall. >> yeah. >> okay. does that move to a second. >> yes. >> on that motion to take d.r. with the condition to specify obscure or frosted glass along

the west wall. thank you. commissioner fong. [ roll call ] >> so moved. commissioner have taken d.r. that is the close of our hearing.

>> third thursdays at the commons is a monthly event series to really activate krisk centkrisk -- civic center, fulton mall, and other locations through social operation. >> in 2016, an initiative called the civic center progress initiative was launched, it was launched by a bunch of city agencies and community partners, so they really had to figure out how to program these places on a more frequent basis. i'm with the civic center community benefit district, and i'm program manager for the civic center commons. also, third thursdays will have music. that was really important in the planning of

these events. >> we wanted to have an artist that appeals to a wide range of tastes. >> i'm the venue manager. good music, good music systems, and real bands with guitar players and drummers. >> we turned uc center and fulton street into a place where people want to be to meet, to laugh, and it's just an amazing place to be. there's a number of different exhibits. there's food, wine, cocktails, and the idea, again, is to give people an opportunity to enjoy what really is, you know, one of the great civic faces in america. when you look from the polk street steps, and you look all the way down the plaza, down

market street, daniel burns' design, this was meant to be this way. it's really special. >> the city approached us off the grid to provide food and beverages at the event as kind of the core anchor to encourage people who leave a reason to stay. >> it's really vibrant. it's really great, just people walking around having a good time. >> this formula is great food, interesting music, and then, we wanted to have something a little more, so we partnered with noise pop, and they brought in some really fun games. we have skeeball, we also have roller skating lessons, and we've got a roller skating rink. >> if you're a passion jail

skeeball player like me, and you're deciding whether you're just going to roll the ball up the middle or take a bank shot. >> our goal is to come out and have fun with their neighbors, but our goal is to really see in the comments that it's a place where people want to hold their own public event. >> i think this is a perfect example of all these people working together. everybody's kind of come together to provide this support and services that they can to activate this area. >> there's no one agency or organization that really can make this space come alive on its own, and it's really through the collective will, not just of the public sector, but both the public and our business partnerships, our nonprofits partnerships, you know, neighborhood activists.

>> i really like it. it's, like, a great way to get people to find out about local things, cuisine, like, it's really great. >> it's a really good environment, really welcoming. like, we're having a great time. >> we want to inspire other people to do this, just using a part of the plaza, and it's also a good way to introduce people if they're having a large scale event or small scale event, we'll direct you to the right people at the commons so you can get your event planned. >> being a san francisco based company, it was really important to connect and engage with san franciscans. >> how great is it to come out from city hall and enjoy great music, and be able to enjoy a

comtail, maybe throw a bocci ball or skee ball. i find third thursdays to be really reinrig rat reinriggating for me. >> whether you're in the city hall or financial district or anywhere, just come on down on third thursdays and enjoy the music, enjoy an adult beverage, enjoy the skee ball; enjoy an adult playground, if you

>> meeting will come to order. welcome to the