>> my name is asim selma and i'm known as sal selma. and i have been at san francisco for over 58 years and i have owned or governed businesses in san francisco in the last 50 years. and i am over all parts of the city from mid markets to noa valley and north beach and in the 80s all over the marina and the cal area. i was involved with wherever i went or opened up a business and we improved the area. and i was the resident of the association for years and i was the small business commission

for -- during two different administrations. my wife and i owns 163, 165 jesse. we are (indiscernible) and the windshielbuilding. the area was the most difficult neighborhood in town. you have human (indiscernible) and markets and it's the heart of san francisco. as a matter of fact this area was the heart of san francisco in the late 1800s and early 1900s. and all of the newspapers and they were there. okay? and i looked at this building, my building was historical too. it was built at the same time

like the hearst 1910 and my building was built for a newspaper called "the california democrat with a k." it was the largest german newspaper in san francisco, on the west coast. i liked the building and i like the neighborhood. i know that it's difficult, though i was retired though i was looking for a challenge. and i thought that the area would be a challenge for me and you could see that i went there and i went to clean the area. i formed the group and we with the help of the tenants and the new (indiscernible) we start improving the area. the biggest problem for us was the hearst garage and the palace hotel. they don't work with small business and they care less for

small business. that's a fact. we were there, and like you say, if you fooled me once, it's shame on you. and the second time, shame on me. i have worked with hearst, they have dead space and i'm glad that if you -- they were talking about dead spaces in parking spaces in the city. all they have to do, "the chronicle" edition have looked at, and they have kept (indiscernible). we tried and we went to create business, we want to create people walking. always they claim that there is leases. it was all not true. and when the -- when the

apartment sent me a letter asking me -- they're telling me that there is to be a new hotel, i said, that's the best. i myself, i think that this is the best project for our neighborhood. i am 100% here for the short term. if we finish what we have been working for, especially they finish the building next to it and they are should build a restaurant on the top. we have all of it complete, we have restaurants and bars in my building and we will have some of the (indiscernible) but hearst's intention all along they want to have approximately 5,000 square feet, and 30 feet on stevenson and 60 feet on

jesse and they want to turn into valet parking. they don't see that in your report. >> okay, sir, your five minutes is up. yeah. but we may have questions for you. >> yes, please, please. >> thank you. we'll hear from the other appellant now. thank you. >> sure. >> hello. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm susan bramholly representing the friends of the hearst meeting and i requested 10 minutes and we only have five, we're totally unrelated appeals here. >> i think that we gave the other gentleman five minutes so i think that it's fair that we give you five as well. but we may have questions for you. so go ahead. >> thank you. i do have a picture. so we're here appealing the mitigated negative declaration.

and what's happened here, it happens a lot, and understandably, the project sponsor is trying to resolve all of the issues with the design before going forward to this commission. but the ceqa analysis must precede that for the decisionmakers to understand what the impacts are and what the feasible mitigations and alternatives are. that's the whole point of ceqa is to mitigate impacts. the question before the commission is whether there's a fair argument in the record. it's a very low threshold burden that this project may have any significant environmental impact. and there is a definition in ceqa as to what qualifies as substantial evidence needed to support a fair argument. it includes facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and fact-based expert opinion. and what we have provided to the commission is a qualified expert

who has assessed the importance of this penthouse that is here proposed for demolition. everyone agrees that it's just one of the most spectacular buildings in the city. and it's historic and it's category 1. and there are called out character defining features that are of integral importance to the building. many of them are in the lobby and many that were discussed are in two or three various areas. but one of them is this penthouse and it's designed by julia morgan 80 years ago. it's very unusual in that we have this 13 story building which was a great skyscraper at the tom of construction and there's a little cottage at the top. it's known -- it's a typical of a julian morgan type structure. it's welcoming and it's comfortable and it's quite a contrast between the rest of the building. so it's a very special part of this building. and none of the analyses of that

allow the demolition and contend that it's not a significant impact discussed the importance of this, only the barrett rider report that we have now provided to you. and it is -- its loss, according to barrett rider, would be a significant environmental impact and, therefore, this commission has no basis to say that clearly there will be no significant impact to this project. we've met our burden to require the e.i.r. and, especially when you are dealing with historic resources, it's particularly important to have analysis of the feasability of mitigation. is there a way to work around or with this structure in the penthouse structure without demolishing it? there's no reason to lose -- that we know of, that this commission will know of later when you are making a decision about the project, you don't know about the feasability of working around this building or with it. the secretary standards do allow a lot of changes and alterations

to main tap maintain the signift not full demolition. the preservation officer who we all greatly respect has indicated that this project qualifies for tax credits and has given the opinion that it meets the standards. i did research that it's not a conclusive determination. and alternate opinion based on facts and a discussion of the penthouse that you're going to see nowhere else in this record. so there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument. your staff has done a great job and been very cooperative and very impressive in the way they've handled this, but what was stated to you at the end of the presentation that there's substantial evidence to support the department's decision is not the test before you. the test isn't, is there substantial evidence to support

what the city staff and project sponsors say, it's whether there's substantial evidence to support what the petitioner friends or the appellants, the friends of the hearst building. it's a very unusual standard only when the question is whether an e.i.r. is required. so based on that standard you have an expert report and you have a significant, very significant historic building, and there's no reason to provide it to justify a negative declaration in this situation. that is needed for you to all to go forward and make your land-use decision. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i'll just leave it. >> okay. with that is there any public comments on this issue? >> project sponsor --

>> louis -- is there a project sponsor? go ahead. i'm sorry. >> good afternoon, president melgard and commissioners. we're very happy to be here in front of you after nearly three years of work with the planning department, local and preservation stakeholders and the community. on this exciting renovation of the hearst building. i would like to thank mr. selma for his verbal support of the project. i will not address his appeal and my comments just because i believe they involve a building that is not part of our project. as you can see in your packet, this project has widespread support, and from s.f. travel and a variety of neighborhood stakeholders. unfortunately, the appellants' counsel and her still anonymous

client have refused to engage in direct discussion with us about their concerns and instead have elected to send in serial last-minute appeals and unsubstantiated challenges less than 24 hours prior to our meetings. to delay our project and to confuse the commission. the last challenge received before the scheduled hearing before you raised concerns that we had not yet received the san francisco heritage formal support or the preservation signoff on our part two applications. as you have heard from planning staff we have since worked hard to receive those approvals and in your packet you will again see both of those support for our proposed project. the hearst building has not seen a systems renovation in over a hundred years. this means that there are a number of areas, including seismic and life safety and accessibility, that are below code requirements. we as a firm went through a similar process over a decade ago in close consultation with the department of interviews and

planning and san francisco heritage. we undertook the rehabilitation in the square. that you may know as the fairmont, and it's been successful since opening. we take our commitments to perform these preservation projects seriously and the hearst project will be a tax credit transaction and, therefore, to meet the highest standard of a rehabilitation project. finally, as you know this is not the final hearing as staff indicated on this project. and it just addresss what we believe to be the misguided ceqa appeal, supported by staff. we'll be back before you and h.p.c. in the coming weeks to secure final approval for the project. in closing, this is a good and thoroughly analyzed project. it does not create any new significant neighborhood traffic and adds no new footage to the project and it expands public aspects to the areas like the

lobby and the upper floor marble floor wainscoating and it contributes to an improved pedestrian safety and experience in the district. we will be proactively and have them working with all tenants in the building and our project plan will honor all of the terms of the existing tenant leases in the building. we are proactively working with the five non-profits that are in the building to help them with any transition that will occur during the construction. and, finally, our project upgrades the seismic of this building so this important community asset is available for future generations to enjoy. thank you for your consideration and with that i will turn it over to our counsel, miss chase and other members of the team to walk you through specific matters before the commission today and to answer your questions. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. caroline chase on behalf of the project sponsor. as a reminder when this appeal was first scheduled for hearing the appellant sought and received a continuance on the ground of the state historic officer had requested additional information and and evaluation f possible project changes before making a final decision with respect to the project's compliance with the secretary of the interior standards for historic tax preservation purposes. in the intervening weeks the project sponsor submitted project changes to shipa and the planning project, and most importantly modifying the lobby design so that no gold leaf panels will be removed. shipa has since issued a formal determination agreeing with the planning department, page and turnbull and frederick napp, that it complies with the standards. san francisco heritage is also in support of the project as you have heard in. light of that the project

sponsor was hopeful that the appellant would be willing to meet to resolve the appeal. instead, we just yesterday received an opinion letter commissioned by the appellant from a consultant who is not on the planning department's list of qualified preservation consultants for ceqa purposes. that letter concedes that the project largely shows a sensitive treatment of various historic, character-defining treatments of the hearst building and includes the cleaning and repair of the building's exterior envelope. and the letter then focuses on the penthouse which is a conference room located among rooftop equipment and not publicly accessible. to suggest that the removal of that room would result in a significant impact in the context of the overall project is, frankly, absurd. under ceqa if there to be a significant impact on the environment, the hearst building must be altered to the extent that it can no longer conveys

historic significance, meaning g that it's no longer eligible to list on the registrar. and per ceqa review the critical questions are -- what would the overall effect of the resource be if the proposed project is carried out? what would happen to the character defining features? if the proposal is card out, will the re-- carried out, will the remaining features carry the historic significance? the answer here is, yes. the conference room is one of about 30 character defining features and it isn't even visible from the public right-of-way. don't be misled by the appellant's argument that the project is not consistent with all of the standards and, therefore, there would be a significant impact under ceqa. miss grant holly knows better, that is not the standard. while the ceqa guidelines complying that it means no possible impact, the converse is not true. in any case, again, shipo,

planning department and preservation staff and page and turn bull and frederick napp all agree that the project is consistent with the stories. please recall that this is a rehabilitation project. and the rehabilitation standards, quote "acknowledge the need to alter or add to an historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character." the bottom line is that the appellant has failed to provide any real evidence that the removal of the conference room would cause the hearst building to no longer convey its historic significance. we think that the clear that the pmfd should be upheld to do otherwise would jeopardize the future of this building which desperately needs rehabilitation. recall that this commission and the historic preservation commission will have the opportunity to review the project on its merits at upcoming hearings. the only question before you

today is whether the project could result in a significant impact under ceqa as argued by the appellant. we assure you that it would not. thank you for your time. >> thank you. someone else from your team? you still have a couple minutes? okay. okay. so now we will have public comment on this item. >> thank you, ian lewis, local 2. and as you know our union is quite critical of m.m.d.s and on tourist hotels. but, yeah, in this case i think that it's quite appropriate as mr. chapman said, that he successfully carried out the renovation of the giradelli fairmont heritage suites, quite a successful project in every sense. this one too, you know,

obviously is a restoration of an older building. they reached out to us and other affected parties i think closing in on two years ago to address our concerns and others going above and beyond in our case. and we have guarantees that the workers at this hotel project will have the right to organize and to put together the quality of life that you need in this city, and so to that end i think that you should go ahead and deny the appeal and move forward on the project. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lewis. any other public comment on this item? okay, with that public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> so it's interesting, i got a little bit confused here but it cleared up. it seemed that the secretary of interior standards, whether they were met or not, justified the dedemolition of this resource which is a ceqa issue.

and staff and the appellants, the project sponsors' attorneys seemed to clear that up in my mind. you know, everybody freely admits this is a character defining feature but we're faced with these kind of decisions all the time. and here we are with a ceqa issue. but if we knock down one building, say, in a historic district with 30 buildings, will the historic district -- i'm using an analogy -- cease to retain its significance as an historic district. and i use that as the same thing here. i really wish there was a way -- i think that this cottage is special, i don't know what alternatives you've looked at in to retain it. you know, i'd love to move this project forward but also to understand what alternatives there are, and we're dealing with a ceqa issue here. project sponsor, what alternatives did you have -- i'm sorry -- project sponsor --

staff -- project sponsor, what alternatives did you have on this? did you even consider moving it around or anything to keep it? >> so we did study it and i know that the picture does make it seem like it's a quaint little cottage on the roof. it's really not. it's one facade of an interesting kind of penthouse conference room. there's a lot of material that needs to be takeen off that roof for seismic purposes and so we looked at other alternatives and this alternative was the best one for the remainder of the building. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> so, thank you. i was a bit confused too when i first read this. but can i ask you a question just on -- because, one, i wasn't sure if you were disagreeing with shipo? because to me this is a tax credit project and shipo has agreed that this complies with the secretary of interior

standards. to me that's kind of a done deal. you may have an issue about -- you may think that the penthouse is -- is nice and want to preserve it but i think that is outside of the scope at this point of ceqa. but i'm confused what you're getting at because your original letter didn't talk about the penthouse and you talk about the penthouse now. >> we always mentioned it. from the very beginning we talked about the penthouse. that's you and the friends issue is the penthouse? >> no, no -- i'm sorry. i'll wait until you are done. >> we could separate the ceqa issue from what your issue is with the project. >> okay. respectfully it's not time to talk about the project. it's only time to talk about ceqa. >> okay, if you want to talk about ceqa, i mean, i think that you tried to get us into a bit of a circular logic, but, i mean, to me if you're getting a tax credit you have complied with the standards and shipo

said that you have complied with the secretary of interior standards. it's great they have heritage and other consultants and you have some consultants. but we ultimately has shipo who says that this complies with the standards and it's getting tax credit. and i don't see it as all, your ceqa basis. >> may i explain? >> briefly though. you tried to explain before. >> i'll try again very briefly. the shipo review of the secretary of standards and compliance was for purposes of the tax credit. it is not a -- >> the secretary o secretary ofr standards? >> it's not definitive and i did mention at the outset and i checked with the office of historic preservation. their determination is not a final determination except as to the qualification for the tax credits. >> you can't get the tax credits if you don't comply. >> you need an opinion from shipo. >> they got it. >> but that is not definitive for all purposes and it's not

definitive for purposes of ceqa. >> i got it, i got it, thank you. you're putting us in this circular loop. >> i'm not. the question of the significant environmental impact is different from qualification for a tax credit. and what the guidelines say -- >> but you meet the secretary standards -- >> if you meet the standards you comply with ceqa and it's not definitive. and there's many cases where there's a dispute whether a project complying with the standards. >> so do you dispute -- do you dispute that ship -- do you dispute that it complies with the standards? >> yes. >> so you disagree with shipo on this? >> respectfully no. they're separate -- >> okay, i got it, i got your answer. thank you. >> they are. >> yeah, okay. but thanks. i get it. so i just disagree. i think that you're trying to get us in a circular logic but i'm done with my question. thank you.

(please stand by)

>> when the item comes back if we were to see something in writing just to protect the existing businesses that are there now that will not be able to operate during the construction. >> clerk: moore. >> when it comes forward i'd like to see more explanation why this feature cannot be retaped. the reason is in the heart of women architects in california judy morgan is more significant and under recognized as a powerful architect in the united states and california. i believe the few resources left require attention and i'm not jumping into any attention into

shipo or ceqa because that's to difficult to weigh in how you define it and a won't get in the middle of it. i'm accepting it with the caveat i may not fully understand the characteristics between of them but i'd like to see more attention to how the penthouse was represented and i've seen the report and it seems to be somewhat casually represented. notion how difficulty it is to have the judy morgan history of architecture represented. and even then that is one of her major buildings, however the history of her buildings is very thin. that said, i believe the

historic structure report is casual in how to present it and it may be because [indiscernible] and photos are not particularly attractive and it's hard to understand as an afterthought and since it's not publicly acceptable it sits there like a little jewel and nobody knows bit. i admit i never knew it was up there. that said, i want more attention to it moving forward. i'm personally not prepared to throw this in as a hindrance to or reject the appeal but i ask we spend more time as a commission hearing more about it. >> commissioner richard. >> what i'm hearing is secretary interior standards have gone two way. you have class credits as a result and there's an issue with ceqa. there's not a connection between the tax credit and ceqa.

if you get tax credits it doesn't mean you rise to the occasion of ceqa. is that fair enough? >> no. >> department staff. that is correct. there's a different process in going tax credit now and going through and getting your ceqa analysis. >> and it's based on what you have is sound. regardless of whether they have secretary standards or tax credit the ceqa stands on its own? >> yes. >> that's what i want to understand, great. >> if i may follow-up on that. is this for both purpose. >> there's one secretary of the interior standards for the rehabilitation of historic buildings and there's 01 standards and -- 10 standards and we did an analysis and they

did the report and we reviewed that and concurred with it and shipo use the same standards to do their review of the project. they also did that and did initial questions an changes they wanted. those were addressed. >> in order for ceqa purpose do you ever envision not meeting secretary of interior standards but not meeting ceqa standards. >> yes. >> you demolish. >> material impairment is a different standard than the secretary of interior standards if we want to get in the details but that's what ceqa requires. that's one level below where you

could have more changes but as long as the property still able to convey its significant it doesn't have permit. >> so when the project comes before us, let's say something happens and an asteroid hits our heads and we say we want to keep the cottage but we don't know what the alternatives are. >> there was an alternatives developed in the ceqa process because it was mitigated and not in the e.i.r. the project looks at different options but there wasn't actual alternatives in that regard as part of the ceqa review. >> we could say in the conditions of the approval keep the cottage if we wanted to? >> yes. >> okay. >> director williams? commissioner hillis. >> is the only reason shipo looking at this because of tax

credits? >> correct. >> you're interpreting the standards because of ceqa and shipo is looking at it -- >> because of the tax credit process. >> you have two entities using the lens of the secretary standards and interpreting it both saying it complies with the secretary standards. >> yes. >> the cottage could be nice. we could say preserve the cottage but i don't think it clearly doesn't rise to a ceqa issue and it's project related issues we should address during the project but i think it's clear neither are ceqa issues. i think the environmental documents are sound. >> that was our determination. >> okay. >> does anybody want to make a motion? >> i move to uphold that

environmental document. >> second. >> there's nothing further commissioners. there's a motion seconded to uphold the preliminary mitigated declaration. >> clerk: so moved commissioners the motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that places on item 17 for case 2018-007049cua. >> good afternoon. president melgar, members of the

commission, laura iello planning department staff. the proposal is a conditional use authorization to establish a medical office within the sacramento street neighborhood commercial district the planning code requires approval for health services within the district. commercial establishments characterized in this portion of sacramento street include a mix of specialty shops featuring home finishing, clothing, dry cleaners, restaurants and personal services. the surrounding zoning is primarily residential. the subject property is developed with a three-story commercial building constructed in 1907. the proposal involves interior tenant improvements to the 2072 square foot face with no expansion of the existing tenant space or envelope or exterior

introduced. the tenant space is at the basement level with no window at eye level to make it less designer for retail business it's occupied by a wealth management business established in 2016 for approval of a conditional use. no public comments were received before the commission packets were distributed however yesterday there was received a letter was e-mailed to each of the commissioners and to the planning commission secretary. in opposition. it cites for different use and the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and the proposed use would fill a basement level commercial

space and allow the property owner to relocate his medical office federal gary boulevard which is within a mile of the subject site. this concludes my presentation. i'll be available to any answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there a project sponsor? >> president, members of the commission, i'm gerald green. i don't have much to add to the staff's presentation. i do want to provide with a slight background. in 2016, this commission considered a conditional use authorization to allow financial services activity to occupy this space. the lease for that space is coming up. the owner of the space who operates the practice nearby

wishes to move into the space. that's why we're here before you. the space is a very difficult space from a retailing standpoint. it's not what i would consider to be a traditional retail space. as staff has represented the space is partially below grade and makes it difficult to have pedestrian interaction. prior to the financial services conditional use which you considered, the doctor made the space available for some six months and was not able provide or able to find any retail activity interested in occupying this space. we are obviously very supportive of the department's analysis and recommendation to you and out of respect for your time i'll finish my presentation and ask you to approve this application. the doctor is here if you have any questions and wish to hear from him. that's all i have for you now. again, we ask you support the

department's position. >> thank you, mr. green. we will then take public comment on this item. >> my name is evan barnette. i'd like to submit correspondence on behalf of the president of the street merchant's association. the couldn't attend and tried to e-mail commissioners by close of business yesterday but would like to voice her opposition before the planning commission. i have 10 copies for the secretary to submit for public record as well. i have time to comment as well? >> go ahead. >> i'd like to summarize from

tracy's letter, dear s i'd -- commissioners i'd like to oppose the health use at 3378 sacramento street. this is the second attempt to circumvent the zoning laws established to protect the ground story retail goods and services use within the sacramento street neighborhood commercial district. met medical use on the street front has been prohibited within this district. tracy in her letter as you'll see provides a history of the project. the doctor purchased the property and has a retail art gallery in 2014 and early 2015. he received an over-the-counter permit to convert to a dental orthodontics. on the application he stated it was not a retail gallery but a

health management office. once the pre neighborhood discovered the conditional use professional had been circumvented they voiced their on spipgs in 2013 the zoning administrator revoked the permit and in may 2015 the board of appeals unanimously voted in support of the denial of ref vasion of the permit. revocation of the permit and tracy includes all the community documentation at that time at an appendix. as mentioned on june 30, 2016 they granted the doctor conditional use to allow a business or professional service use at the location. tracy had a ranged a good faith agreement the office would be open to the general public and not flipped to medical use.

according to tracy, the offices were not set up to receive or welcome cliented there were no stated hours and the it was clearly used as private offices for small business entities. i believe the doctor is attempting to circumvent the process once more and there's a different name attached. if you could review the submissions. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? with that public comment is now closed. commissioners. commissioner moore. >> i think we had other neighborhoods where medical office is the appropriate use in a very active vibrant retail

corridor i have a strong positive feeling about this part of sacramento where i often talk to because it's actually beautiful and would like to retain that. i want to express myself carefully because the effect of medic medical ground floor office in the corridor is deafening. and i would like to prevent that. this is in front of the planning commission a few years back and we denied it, i would like to continue protecting the very special character of the sacramento street in that area and not see a medical office on the ground floor i think we have the ability to ask to be put

them on the second floor not ground floor. i am cautious and would not support it in this particular location. >> commissioners, we've taken that advice. we have been very cautious also about medical uses at ground levels. i remember the one in north beach and others like it at the clinics. the difference with this one is it's halfway below ground. it's the windows in the gray zone and maybe staff can help. that's why we made the recommendation we did because it's not a typical retail space. and in our opinion it would be somewhat challenging to use as a retail space. that's why we're making -- i just wanted to make clear that's why we're making the recommendation we are. >> commissioner moore. >> i looked at different retail

establishments in the corridor and i'm not here to argue but many invite you into a small courtyard to something other than typical storefront retail. i think it's in that kind of changing environment along sacramento street it becomes interesting to see submerged retail space, there's specialization in linen and glass and certain kinds of things you don't find anywhere in the city. i believe this particular location can support active retail in those intriguing other forms at the corridor. that makes it so charming because there's nothing predictable about it and it flies on its own power. >> commissioner fong. >> could you go back to the overhead, please. thank you. commissioner moore, i 100% agree the intent we want to keep the ground floor retail active. this say very unique building

though and maybe the only one with a subterranean basement. i don't know why they did it that way. mr. green, the white windows is that still a hair salon? >> i'm sorry. >> the first level not the basement. is that a hair salon currently? >> yes. i agree with you, commissioner moore, we want to keep it on the ground level we allowed for psychiatric office, different types of services upstairs in the upper level and that has become in san francisco a hot bed for those types of services. in this case, i think because of light and air, it would be difficult to operate a clothing business in that sub tear an anwith the -- subterranean with

the lower windows and in this case i feel it's okay to have a medical use. i'm not sure the type of medical use, if it's somewhat aesthetic. >> it's an other -- other other orthodontist office. they'll be involved in this. the previous use, the financial service you when it was where you as a conditional use there was a statement supporting that. dk indicating they felt it would be a good contribution to the neighborhood. i'm question why it is now only this specific use, this specific

occupant has their opposition. this space was previously occupied as a retail gallery. it was there without permits. never was there legally. the previous use before that that had permits was not retail use. there hasn't bain retail presence for decade. >> i'm supportive of staff's recommendation but want to be clear to commissioner moore if this was a ground floor and ground floor only, i wouldn't necessarily be supportive of medical services coming into ground floor spaces but it's knot ground floor. >> -- not ground floor. >> commissioner. >> i see where commissioner moore's coming being on a half ground floor. i think some places in my neighborhood that are submerged there's a place called local take on 17th streets and you walk down the street and it's submerged an it's doing really well because it's got an

interesting mix of goods and services. goods tourists and neighbors buy. an othrthodontics office isn't active. i'd like to other places with retail with nice frontage. i'm leaning more towards commissioner moore's point. >> commissioner moore. >> the type of business as an other orthodontist reasons needs curtains and that's basically the nature of the business. there's privacy involved and for that not even participation on its use is possible. you'll not just be able to look in and see an activity in there. it's for that reason i believe we're further eliminating and

deafening the ability of that as part of the overall corridor. >> commissioner koppel. >> i'm leaning towards supporting the project based on the fact that it was vacant for so long. it's a subterrain lot. >> commissioner johnson. >> i can see it both ways. the fact we want to continue to ignite the commercial corridor and at the same time i think in this corridor which we heard other testimony that retail has struggled in this corridor and thinking about the unique nature of the subterranean unit i'm leaning in support.

>> commissioner fong. >> i was going make a motion. >> i'm also leaning towards supporting the project. i can understand and see it both ways but i'm looking at this particular building and retail has changed and it is difficult. we're seeing it all over the city. we have vacant storefronts because people are getting stuff on amazon. i think i don't want to jeopardize the health of the corridor by hanging on to something that no longer works. that being said, i think this particular store front is unique that it's a basement. the windows are fairly small. to your point, commissioner, moore about wanting them to be open and seeing what goes on, i

have a hard time thinking of how that could happen with this particular configuration. with that, i'm okay with an orthodontist's office and there's families in and out and a lean towards supporting the project. i see something you have something you want to say. i'll allow to you comment and say it before we make a motion. speak in the mic for the record. >> i just a few years ago this was a very successful art gallery and framing shop. the only reason it was vacant is because the doctor kicked out the tenant. he wanted to build his practice after he bought it and after you

put the signage up it's very inviting and friendly. it just looks stark and dark when you take the signage down. it was active for a long time as retail until the lease was revoked. >> thank you. we have a motion, right? >> not quite yet. there's five schools from it and i think it's a great location for that so i make a motion to approve. >> approve the matter with conditions. commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner coppel. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> the motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and melgar against.

and item 18, 2017-00529cua. the conditional use. >> i think after this before the haight street item we're going to take a five minute break because we've been sitting here four hours. just a bio break for all those folks here for haight street we're going to take a little straight before we cue that item. >> clerk: thank you, president melgar. >> members of the commissioner, presenting the request for conditional use authorization pursuant to section 317 at 448 valley street. subject property is between noe and castro street with an upward sloping lot, 25 feet in we haveth and depth of 114 feet. on site is approximately a two-story over garage

single-family home constructed circa 1910. the project originally came in for a horizontal and vertical condition and through review with city staff and upon the sponsor's analysis has resubmitted demolition and new construction. the proposal for the existing two-story single-family home over garage and to construct a new four-story, 4,450 residential structure and at the frontline it's three stories tall with a gabled roof. 15 feet back and setback with the fourth floor with a gabled roof. it provides in conformity with the neighborhood character and requires the 45% rear yard and the two-story pop out. provide two, three-bedroom

unit. unit one is 2024 square foot and unit two is 1945 square foot and two-vehicle garage at the ground floor. it's usable open space with direct access to the backyard and the second has a four-story deck. it contains a 10-foot wide garage accessed by a curb cut. there's raised entrances accessed by a staircase. a variance for the staircase to be in the front yard and this has since been with drawn as the zoning administrator confirmed the stairs are an unallowable obstruction. one letter was received prior to the report. the letter had concerns with the demolition, the efficiency of the layout of the building.

there's comments in regards to the roof decks on the true roof and the facade design and i believe they've been addressed through the most current design of the project. staff recommends approval it will provide two family-sized units within a structure compatible with the masting and design of the block. i'm happy to any answer questions. >> thank you very much. do we have a project sponsor? >> i'm the architect for the project. the project as you heard in the description -- >> can you speak into the

microphone. and the masting of the block face between two and three and four story structures and have the roof compatible with the neighborhood's gable ends. we have the deck that accesses the fourth level. basically, we have two almost equal-sized units, 1924 and 1945. they're both two levels in height and basically if you take out the stairs they're about 1850 and 1880 or 1890 actual square footage. the project the frontage of the

building -- >> speak in the mic, please. >> we can't hear you. >> is the line right here had a new addition at the front which is in the same facade area as the original houses. and what we're seeking is your support in this project and we're adding that additional unit. we started with one single-family home and ended up here to get another unit. it seems to work out better for the project sponsor as well. >> thank you. we will now take public comment on this item.