the various four different owners and then we went through in 2013 and got approvals. we have the residential building that's been constructed so we're here today, hopefully being able to move forward with the renovation of the alexandria theater. so most of you know where this is. it's on geary boulevard and 18 avenue. you can see the building dead-center and the residential building under construction just beyond. the building was built in 1923. it was renovated in 1942. so it went from an egyption-style building and went to being art decoized in 1942 and there are some of the pictures there of the interior from 1942.

it almost looks lick this except the trees are 10 years down line from where it is today. our project is the revitalization of the theater building which has been closed since 2004 for 15 years. the project will retain all of the historical fabric of the building while providing new community uses. the project is a new direction from the approved program in 2013. the new program includes a swim center with two swimming pools. which will include a 1,100 square foot addition in the west alley from the theater. it can't be seen from the street. for a visitor's gallery from the swimming center. expand the second floor has been done in the 2013 plan and for a learning center and utilizing the old upper portion which is all poured concrete of the seeding and it will create the forum for a lecture-hall space.

a new third floor center for business center which is space for non retail professional services with shared conference space. so going into the building, the swim center and the learning center will come in from under the old marque in the front door of the building through the lobby. the existing lobby and all of the historical fabric is retained including the water fountain that looks like it's made of emeralds but it's just glass beads. the only change we'll make there is the candy counter used to be located along the curved wall. we'll open up windows there so from the lobby you can see into the swim center. the grand stair, unfortunately it's been painted pink which we will change. the grand stair, the old bronze railing. all the features of the lobby

that are there now will be retained. the swim center will use the in 1976. the movie theater was cut in half with the addition of the it were new leaders in the upper tiers of the theater. the swim center is in that front trunkated part and it has two pools. one for adults and one for children and on the left, the lower side is the visitor's gallery and the space will be separated environmentally from the spaces above and you can see their sky lights over this visitor's gallery which lined the two sides of the building where there are murals above on the long side walls of the old auditorium. so this is the plan you can see the two pools. the long curving side have the murals on them and the event trance and the lower left corner with the lobby. the curving kind of curving

lobby is still retained. retail space on the street. it's been there since the building was built in '23. we'll still have restale space on the street. we will be excavating to create pool equipment area and large locker rooms on a basement level and it's interesting because under the theater floor, there's a four to five foot high cavity where they used to heat the theater. already has been excavated in that particular area. this is the business center, i mean the learning center and you can see we're building a building inside a building so that we can retain all the murals that line the sides of the building so they're setback seven feet away and with windows wrapping all the way around, all these classrooms, you will be able to still experience from many vantage points the sense of

the space as well as being in a place where you've never been before right up close to see the murals there. this is the form space that i mentioned. there's kind of seal thing that goes up. that is one of the old theaters and you can see on the side, again, we'll have kind of a glass wall where you can look down the length and see the murals as well as the historic 1923 ceiling there but then have projection capabilities and lecture-type space there. so you can see the layout of that floor. the pulled in space. if you are standing on that second floor you would look down and see these sky lights separating to the pool area and this forum space on the lower left. and the business center is the roof of the learning center and up on a new third floor under this beautiful 1923 classical ceiling. it has a big dome in the center

and asian tahrir from 1923 that is still in good shape hanging there. so this is that space and it will have access to a conference space and this is this forum space so people who office here might use that space. so this is a section through the existing building. in the center of the dome it was cut in 1976. the area on the right is the big theater and the two theaters are located to the left. this is a section that shows where the murals are. you can see they're pulled off to the upper right but where the pool is where the front theater is and we have the two floors located in the space with the upper space under that this is

where you can see the building in the building. the central building with the set backs of seven feet and then where you see the big space in a unique way that is never been able to it be seen like that before. in 2013, it included the residential building on the right and commercial space on the ground floor and i restaurant on the second floor and one small 220-seat theater. that's what we're modifying here. and, you know, in terms of conditional use, we have to show it's necessary and desirable and compatible. well, a building that's been there 96 years is compatible with its neighborhood. the building has been vacant for 15 years so we're revitalizing that and bringing life back into this area. we'll retain this historic tur

of the building. these are new community-serving uses because all these uses will be open to the public. and it will, the business center will offer unique office space to professionals to expand the opportunities for local neighborhood employment and then in terms of the other things that we need to show is that the nature of the site of course is revitalize and existing building. the parking is in the lower levels, the basement levels of the residential building that is next door. the traffic study that we did indicated that there's, this is a less intensive use than the one approved in 2013 and the bicycle parking for the project exceeds code requirements. safe guards on offensive emissions. one of the things that is interesting about this is most of the construction is inside the building so it will minimize the issues that come up around construction and then things about landscape and signage and

the signage, the most important signage is the big marque and that 50-foot high blade sign you can see from a mile away. those will be restored and hopefully the permits have been issued and hopefully we'll be ready by the end of this year. one of the concerns was losing a movie theater but the project sponsor has talked to lows theaters which is now amc and even four star around the corner and each one of them indicated this is not an economically viable option. so i think what we're doing is something that will be incredibly desirable for the neighborhood to bring all these community uses in and i hope you will approve the conditional uses. thank you. >> i do have the owners here. if there are specific questions as well. >> if there are specific

questions. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. we will open this up for open comment. i have catherine petrin and ron miguel. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i have a letter from the san francisco neighborhood theater. i'll leave them to distribute. i'm representing san francisco neighborhood theater foundation. we are disappointed with regard to the proposed project for two primary reasons. one having to do with access and community benefits. i did hear some things in this presentation that i didn't understand before so this may be a up for debate. in accordance with the final mitigate deck of may 2011 and as

part of the larger multi-use p.u.d. project, the project sponsor committed to adaptively reuse the theater incorporating new commercial spaces a sin a ma and restaurant. these would have provided broad community benefit and public access to appreciate the alexandria interior defining features. with elimination of the si cinea it's curtailed. the design could be achieved in a way that more meaningful reveals the character-defining features. we just saw in the presentation the construction of a building within a building. i wonder about some aspects of what that will feel like and how you experienced the space. it doesn't appear there's natural light and i wonder about the viability of the uses.

we suggest that more treatment of the interior that appreciates the volume of that original auditorium could be highlighted as part of a modified project so we request the commission hold off on approving the pending c.u. a. until anna approved design is submitted. we think it would better highlight the public's access to the interior charter-defining features. after many years of construction, neglect at the alexandria, the community deserves a better project and we're lucky it's intact and be sure to maximize the potential of this neighborhood landmark. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> long day.

[ please stand by ]

the housing on the parking lot is already being done which is fantastic. it was a pleasure to be able to work with your committee. we are totally absent from any neighborhood involvement. what i really want to talk to you about is the problem that you have heard interface with a y was continuing until recently they have shown absolutely no interest and have turned it down. that was a no go. the housing on the parking lot is artie being leased which is fantastic. it was a pleasure to be able to work with your ugly

and other present owners because previous owners were totally absent from any neighborhood involvement. what i really want to talk to you about is the problem that you have heard constantly, and believe it or not started about 15 years ago. that is the problem of neighborhood commercial districts. theaters such as this where linchpins of neighborhood commercial districts. they brought people, they brought shoppers, they brought kids, they were essential to them. that is why you found them in neighborhood commercial districts. 15 years ago was the start of the demise of neighborhood commercial districts including gary. to revitalize this space is absolutely essential. several of the large theaters have been made into gems, not unlike the

use that is going to happen here. believe it or not, if you've gone into some of those, and i have, just for curiosity sake the, if i can use the term history city, of the building, of those is nowhere near what is going to happen here. i have to congratulate mr. perlman on being insistent on keeping everything we can. the previous speaker i understand, i work with her in the beginning trying to get a theater operator. no one wants to touch it. that was a no go, nearly from the beginning although we had hopes. this is the only practical way of doing it. i think this theater building coming into a totally different use but viable to the neighborhood. will allow the general public of today, my

grandkids to understand what these theaters really were in their glory days. i urge you to approve this. >> thank you mr. miguel. next speaker, please. >> thank you commissioners, i am jeff gordon, the board chair for the richmond district ymca. i want to make a quick clarification with regard to the statements made by mr. miguel. the ymca did approach the various owners of this property. in fact we had also come at one point i think sent them a letter of intent regarding what use we would make of the space and in fact i think the response we got was we didn't get a response. the interest was not that there was no interest on our part, the interest was actually coming back the other way. obviously the ymca is concerned about this

project. we want to make sure that it's a good project for the neighborhood and doubted impact benefits the neighborhood. i think right now, we are not certain. i think it is obviously a project that we will follow with interest and we want to make sure that there is good community use. we are happy to work with the owners we had indicated that with regard to how the y might be involved in whatever's going on over at that project. i wanted to clarify that statement made by mr. mcgough and the executive director for the richmond district ymca is here with me as well today. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am patrick connolly. i may richmond resident i live on sixth avenue, i am a dad of two young kids. one of which is

currently in swim lessons and currently take him outside of the neighborhood to have the swim lessons. i think a use like this would be useful for the neighborhood. there's a lot of families out there. maybe my kids and my younger kid when he's old enough to take swim lessons can go and take swim lessons there. i'd also just generally say as a resident of richmond that thank goodness somebody finally wants to do something with this theater. it's been like this since i moved to san francisco 10-11 years ago. thank god somebody wants to do something with it. i'll leave you without. >> thank you. any other public comments on this item? public comment is now closed. commissioner johnson. >> i, too, am a resident of the richmond. yes, thank goodness.

somebody wants to do something with alexandria. when i originally saw the plans in 2013, i was really excited. i think i am a huge fan of civic infrastructure and making sure we are using these crown jewels of our city to find ways for people to come together and interact with each other. i was really excited by the idea of theater space or something coming on that could provide traffic, vibrancy to the community. i was interested, if i am honest, slightly confused by the new use. i recognize that our neighborhood could use more pools. the nearest one is the rossi which is right around the corner from my house which is under construction right now. we will get upgrades. but, i would love for you to just add a little bit more color to the understanding of the community uses that you arrive to, and

help us understand how will be operated and run and how it will be truly accessible to the neighborhood. >> and neighborhood survey. >> sure. after working with four different owners, the current owner did try to work with the ymca, i did get responses. the thought was that the y could move into this building on housing to be built on the side of the current why. they did have demands for taking over the building that were just unattainable. what is interesting is, this particular owner, i can introduce him to you, it is mr. lee over here, he has two programs like this in the south bay called star aquatics. they have swim programs that are for kids, and then also club membership open

to the public. as well as the learning centers. he has been operating these for many years and has found that they are profitable. that is when it didn't make sense with hawaii, the idea of having the pools is great because it is a complement it is not in competition to the why. they do not have that service. the afterschool programs and things are things that maybe he could speak more to them specifically. he operates these 2 other facilities down in the south bay. since he was the owner of the building, it seemed like it made sense for these 2 particular uses. to be frank that having another use that could be income generating. the idea of some kind of a business work center will people could be coming and going and local people could have some space was a way to actually provide some method of having a little bit more income to make this a

viable, economically viable, project. >> a small theater attached to it? >> that is like a classroom space. the classroom spaces for afterschool programs from just after noon until about 6 pm. in the morning hours on the evening hours, this space will be available for community use. neighborhood organizations can schedule time there. i think it becomes a really fantastic facility for nonprofit groups and other groups, the planning association of richmond, for instance, could meet there. that space is part of something that could be offered to the community for showing some evening events, something like that. i mean, it was seat maybe about 75-100 people. as well as

for the professionals that might be doing presentations for their clients, things like that. it would be an option for them to use. the building is interesting. it is a poured concrete structure. that whole upper tier area is all poured concrete and it kind of locks the building across. we didn't want to take it out, because it is a very important feature of the structure of the building. then it was like what do we do with this space. it kind of has a meaning relative to the uses. >> last question. i know there were several theaters, i get it with movie theaters that did not want to touch this project. i am curious what work was done to explore this as a small music venue like the independent or the paramount? >> we did not talk about music venues. we didn't. that would still be, we would be in the same place relative to

demolition of a movie theater if it became something like that. also, that would only really be an evening use. the beauty of this project is starting about 6 am for people to come swim come all the way until 10-11 pm the building can be an active use for most of the day. i think that is a great benefit to the community of the neighborhood. >> i think this is a very probative adaptive reuse of a building. i have no objections. i am prepared to support the modifications. >> the business model is obviously described to us in words that i would have liked to see some form of formalized understanding of what private membership means. i would like

to see a balance between an income generating facility, but also public component which at this moment is described in words but not yet formally realized. did you have a conversation with the supervisor or any other neighborhood organizations about the nature of these programs you are mentioning? >> yak, we have included the supervisor both sandra and eric moore, because we have been working on for a long time. supervisor at her office have been very supportive of this. of course they see this as an important piece of the richmond that it doesn't disappear and it doesn't just sit vacant. we have reached out to the planning association of richmond. we reach out to the golden gate church which is directly across on 18th ave. the ymca they have obviously expressed some concern. i know that the owner,

and the members of the staff of the ymca, the owner is very willing to sit down and talk about cross programming and things that will benefit both. no, we do not have a formal business plan. again, this is a model that mr. lee has been successful at in two different locations. that could be developed along the line here, so that it will be more palatable for you. >> can i ask you another question please? when it comes to preservation, we are not experts in that subject matter. does this particular project with the insertion of an independent structure have to be reviewed by anybody else, other than what you see as historic preservation architect? >> it went through staff, through the preservation staff. it has been reviewed. there was a historical study done that

supported it and said it met the sec. of interior's standards. the only element that we are removing. the only significant element that we are removing from the building is the slightly bowed floor of the original theater. the rest of the spaces in the building, are essentially in tact. certainly on the exterior, all of the exterior, we are not really changing the exterior at all other than some windows along 18th ave. which is right now a blank façade. that was approved in the 2013 approval. >> there is a description in the addendum to the mitigating declaration on page 15. this structure is individually

eligibility for listing on the cal register and is considered part of the district. the addendum took a look at the changes, after the 2013 and overall they found that the smodified project would not cauamodified project would not cause severe cultural resources nfranimpact. that was identified in the original mitigated declaration. there is one item that the construction of the interior floor levels of the volume of the theater does not comply with the secretary standards. over all it does retain sufficient integrity to remain eligible for listing. >> okay. i will just say that i am very excited about this project. not quite as long as you, but i did work for

supervisor eric mark, this took up a lot of my time this particular building. all of the issues around the building, the effect on the commercial corridor. the issue of vagrants outside, everything. i am excited that we have an adaptive reuse. i think this is beautiful. to your point, commissioner moore, i quickly googled the star aquatic and fitness facilities in saratoga and was pleasantly surprised at how affordable membership is. in fact a little more affordable than the ymca. i live - and you know, as you guys have heard, numerous times i got a bunch of kids at my house, it is such an important part of our lives to be able to go to the pool, to have birthday parties, too, you know, have a place. i cielo my neighbors there. it is great.

and then we go out to lunch, you know, outside and, you know, around the neighborhood we walked there. i think this can be very positive. it meets some of the same things that made neighborhood theaters great. which is to have an entertainment that is family-friendly that people can go to and see their neighbors, the kids can play together with the other neighbor kids. i think this is a win-win. i am sub - excited to support it. i am impressed by the design. i like the skylights that let the light in. i think all of that is a good adaptive reuse. i'm happy to support it. >> i can understand the community may be disappointed of not having a theater as it was discussed in 2011. when the building has been standing that empty for that long, i'm getting very nervous about its future usability. i, unfortunately,

witnessed the ill use of the theater which is an outstanding piece and it really doesn't carry in this particular case. i think we have slightly more options for a more sensitive integrated use and for that very reason i will support it, although i am sensitive to the questions raised by the public about some of the other things. >> i make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. that motion passes number-one with commissioner johnson voting against. we will place us on your discretionary review

calendar. [reading items] this is a discretionary review. >> good evening commissioners, the item before you is a public initiate a request for discretionary review of building permit application 2018, 1213, 8275 to construct a 2' x 7' horizontal extension to an existing second-story rear deck. as a permitted obstruction within the required rear yard. this building is historic resorts status and category a. the reason for the dr, patrick mulligan of 3606 scott st. and adjacent neighbor to the north of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues. the deck will violate a private agreement to preclude a functional deck which will enable cooking that will produce smells to the dr adjacent bedroom window. a public comment to date, the department has

received no letters in opposition of one letter of support for the project as proposed. the departments recommendation is for the residential design advisory team. they reviewed this and confirm that this addition does not present an exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance with the respect to the 2 foot extension of the deck. since it is minimal adding enough space to have reasonable use and setback 8 feet from the lot line is sufficient, and that the 9'5 " from the adjacent neighbor to the south is also sufficient. it is worth noting that six adjacent neighbors to the south enjoying similar decks at the second and third floors. whether or not a legal agreement exists, and is enforceable is not the domain of the planning department which is not. such an agreement. this concludes the departments presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> we will hear from the dra.

>> mr. sec. i have a couple of items here. if i may? my name is patrick mulligan and i live at 3606 scott st. i watched you all day today, you heard a lot of words so i will condense mine basically down to two words. recourse and intent. essentially the question is a philosophic one before you. does a neighborhood agreement, after having met through the

neighborhood preconstruction process, having come to an agreement specifically, in writing, does that override code compliant? if i may, i would like to read the email that i'm talking about. having just finished the report, 448 pages of it, the email is extensive and it and it's obviously an aspect of intent that mr. moeller relied on extensively. it says hi patrick, the owner asked that i send you the attached revised design for his project, in response to your concerns about the rear deck and privacy. we decided to eliminate the rear deck and only keep a minimum 4 foot deep landing area so the owner can exit out of the

rear family room glass door and descent down to the rear yard. the narrow deck will preclude any function or activity on the deck and will only serve as an access path to the rear yard. he also wanted to extend his study room on the second level by the same 4 foot depth so he can get an exit door from his room to the yard as well. hopefully this change, in addition to the other changes made since we first met, will alleviate your concerns and you will be willing to now support the project. i signed a document supporting his project based on this. if i can, i read someplace that pictures are worth 10,000 words, i actually googled it. i want to show you a few pictures if i may. this is

the building, came before you a little while ago not filed by me, but another neighbor. the question at the time was whether if it should be a 4 foot fence or a 6 foot fence. i supported the neighbor, although my neighbor had accepted limits for me a few days before, he hasn't spoken to me since. i came and spoke for the other gentlemen's dr that he filed. mrs. up close, it is a 250 foot deck approximately, maybe a little less. as you can see, there is all sorts of paraphernalia, heating, couches, cooking,

whatever. this is the area we are talking about that is in question. he has put a device down there, cooking device. it is not supposed to be, according to our agreement. nothing was supposed to be on that landing right it was not supposed to be a deck. they cut back a deck and said it would just be a landing. your decision is, as i said, philosophic. you have to decide what has merit. code compliant, or an agreement between neighbors. the core portion of your purpose seems to be the preconstruction meeting among neighbors and that is to head off confrontation. if it doesn't have any value, and 70 can come back again, you know, i take another bite of the apple, we

are "all lives matter" one trouble. there is nothing to rely on. i have a few other pictures. i think my bullet point note make my position clear. it is a simple situation. either you decide one way or the other. i am fine with whatever you decide. it can raise bigger issues long-term down the road if you decide against me. thank you. >> thank you, sir. do we have any public comment in support of the dr requester? okay. we will then hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening. thank you. i'll try to be brief. it is last, i know, for the day. mr. mulligan

states that we have an agreement, not to do anything other than things he permits presumably, on my deck. that is not true. if that would be true, this isn't the right form to decide that. i will talk about the project, and then i will talk about the impacts of this project relative to what mr. mulligan has talked about. and i will give you many reasons why there is not an agreement between me and my neighbor. the project is tiny. it's 2' x 70. we have several existing deck uses. my dog uses it for sunning himself. the use of or access to the backyard. the backyard is not accessible from downstairs when we have occupants in the other unit. this is a two unit building. we also grill on this

deck. we have a small grill on this deck that i use for myself and my partner. we have a bigger grill on the roof and we agreed with mr. mulligan that we would do our entertaining on the roof. the initial design of a very large deck off of our family room that went almost to the lot line. we did agree with him to move it off of the lot line. we did agree to put a small deck. we did not agree to never expand the deck again, and we certainly didn't give my neighbor veto rights over any permit application and the future. permits are governed by the planning code, not by my neighbor. you will notice, look at this photograph, that you will see that mr. mulligan has a large pop out on his home. you will see that my neighbors on the north, who wrote a letter of support for this project have a large pop out on their home. once completed my neighbors to

the south will have a 6 foot extension beyond my buildout. mr. mulligan will have a 3.5 foot extension beyond my buildout. there is no reason this should not be allowed for neighborhood purposes. you will notice, in the circle, this is a teeny little project. this expands what is a 4.5 foot with deck 26.5 feet. it allows me to wield the grill to a different location so people do not bird themselves. that is the only purpose of this. we have been cooking on this deck for almost 2 years, since we moved in. we have not want - one single complaint about cooking orders or any other complaint. the project has no impact on the neighborhood, the project has no impact on mr. mulligan. last time he was here, mr. mulligan asked you to have my roof deck

removed even though it had been constructed in: ordinance with planning department approval and inspections. he is today asking you to do some things to make decisions about the use of my property. you will see, in all of the emails he sent you that he doesn't like the use of my family room. he doesn't like the use of my property. he doesn't like the additions that we have built into the house area mr. mulligan simply does not like the planning code. he wants the planning code to be revised, because he doesn't like - he doesn't like homeowners to build outside of the envelope. so be it. it is a good philosophical decision. i understand there are many people in san francisco that believe that. that is not the planning code. it is my view that a small project like this,

which allows the homeowner to cook more safely, is a minor, minor, minor project that should be approved. i will go through the reasons why mr. mulligan does not have an agreement with me, but i think the primary one is the exact opposite of what he presented to you. the planning process is one of the compromise with many of your neighbors. you will see the letter that was distributed to you of support for my neighbor says that we cooperated with neighbors tremendously in the construction of our project, three years ago. that compromise should not give every one of my neighbors a veto right over changes when we make minor errors or want to adjust those. thank you very much.

>> thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. you get a two minute rebuttal. >> well, the email i showed you wasn't for me, it was from his architect. it said exactly what i read. when he reconfigured his building, he took out the bedrooms and put them up on an extended third floor, and put a family room, tv, the picture i showed you is probably 11 o'clock at night. as far as cooking, i don't think he has cooked there more than four or five times. most times when i go to my bedroom, the window is open, i was small hamburgers and so on, because there is - it is an alcove so nothing is going to blow to the south, everything's going to blow north. that is where i am, 5 feet away. i think

he called me a liar, but we will let that go. it's basically your decision. it's a philosophic point of view. what has merit? you decide. thank you very much. >> project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> i will be very brief. the previous owners cooked right below his winter, when we remodeled. we know they did. i actually talked to them in the past couple of weeks and asked them if they grilled and they did so. this is not a new use of the property. thank you. >> okay. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> the aspects under which we are to consider is that something is exceptional, and extraordinary, those are the criteria. i've looked at this

plan extensively. it was actually - it wasn't easy to understand because it is so minimal. i personally do not think that this rises to be something that i consider exceptional and extraordinary. i am prepared to support this project as it is proposed. >> took the words right out of my mouth. i

>> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is

a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow. for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made

week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes back to how do we help companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san

francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general manager of the mission bicycle company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here. essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot

about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on the team is kind of getting involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally.

over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers that are facing similar problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us, so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a

little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a he hwedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a platform for changing and making the city something that it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening thatgo.

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes local businesses and changes san franciscans to do their shopping and dooipg within the 49 square miles by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine the 49 hi in my mind a ms. medina.

>> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco planning commission and building inspection commission joint hearing for thursday, june 20th, 2019. i would like to remind members of the public that the commissioners do not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices, and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. technically speaking, all of those persons standing who cannot find a seat are causing a fire hazard and can't remain in the room. we are setting up an overflow room. we're just trying to figure out where media services can accommodate us. i'd like to take roll for the planning commission. [roll call]