mr. teague. commissioners. unless you have commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> commissioner: commissioners. >> commissioner: you know, it's hard to impact the permit holder. i think the department vetted this correctly and unfortunately 47 feet is a good distance away. >> thank you. it was proper issued. >> the clerk: the motion is sto deny the appeal and grant the permit on that motion from the vice president, president fung. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> the clerk: commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> the clerk: the motion passes. >> i should have spoken earlier. i wanted to wish cynthia many many happy years of retirement. it's thoroughly deserved. thank you for everything i've learned from you and your true professionalism and friendship and guidance and i'd like to read an irish poem. this is your life has arrived after years of toil look back with graciousness on your great and high quiet achievements. >> commissioner: is it appropriate to adjourn in honor of our executive. >> adjo

mr. teague said, 60%. given to the private rooms.and that there is not a requirement to actually order food to stay in there. you can just pay the space, but if you look at the numbers, that's not what happens. it's a place where people are going and eating, that's gratuity. $2 an hour? >> but in a restaurant, you go and want something to eat. here you go because you're working and then you get something to eat. >> but they're eating 66% of the time. unless they're lying. >> i'm not sure -- >> that doesn't correlate to the time they spend. it correlates to what they make. >> perhaps what we need to do, if there is a will, this is lod. you can't be adding conditions to an lod. it's a determination that either he erred because we find this to be a restaurant, but we can add reasons why we felt that. the gross needs to be in excess of such and such. it needs to be mandatory. or certain things like that. those are not necessarily conditions, but it's elements of how the decision-making. >> how can we do that without more thoughtful analy

mr. teague, the new plans as mr. teague and mr. duffy do now accurately show the existing condition and accurately show the plans for the adu's. if you look on page -- the third page, thank you bottom -- >> could you hold on one moment, mr. vettel? did you want to accept these? >> yeah. >> did you also provide the same set to the appellant? >> yes. so as the inspection's 2340e9s, the plan on the bottom of pa-- noted, the plan on the bottom of page three showed the proposed set back with a slightly smaller adu unit at that location. it also shows some changes in the openings and the shear wall to confirm the integrity of the shear walls pursuant to the plan checker's directions. and then, the third thing this plan shows is the relocation of the housing services from the area where the adu's are going into other parts of the ground floor so that we're not severing any housing services. rather, we're relocating certain of those services. you can see on the bottom plan that there are the upper left corner is a storage room that the app

mr. teague, i have a question. perhaps you can frame for the board, within the range of entitlements that happens on any project, what reliance then is between a variance versus a site permit? in terms of entitlements? >> well, there are obviously different authorizations. not all site permits require a variance to be obtained in order to be approved. but the necessity to obtain a variance doesn't negate to be approved, obviously you have to get that first. in this situation and every situation they look at, whereas site permit it has to be relevant to all that pertain to that project. >> thank you. >> okay. inspector duffy from d.b.i. doesn't have any -- >> i have a question, mr. inspector. >> mr. fung. the reference made by the project sponsor on the permit number, i'm looking at the application which was the number he referred to. but your permit numbers usually start with the year, doesn't it? >> yes, that's correct, yes. >> so the number that is on the application filled out by staff? >> it is, yes. >> and it'

mr. teague or the architect can recall what that is i want to remind you they're livable units. >> i don't have the exact number of percentages in my head but -- >> commissioner: is it measured from a clear glass. >> you have to have a certain number of square feet of glass in that bedroom. >> commissioner: whether do you have? >> actually more because we're including the clear story. >> commissioner: could review the material pallet pal ate again police. >> our goal is to use modular but we intend to do this over the windows to get more texture and a sense of detailing at the closer scale. the lower level would be a plaster but a smooth finish on the columns and painted dark and the window frames are aluminum. maybe aluminum clad and probably dark. >> commissioner: one thing that excites me of the building is the sensitivity, the palate and the context. i like it and i think the buildi building sensitive and hand some which is what we need for apartments that are more affordable. a couple things though. i prove to approve the build the stipulation of the palate you outline is the one you

mr. teague. >> good evening, again, president funning and commissioners. -- president fung ad commissioners. the permit was originally filed in january of 2016. it was reviewed by our flex team in the department which reviews essentially all of the a.d.u. permits. it was required to receive an administrative zoning administrative waiver from density, open space, and parking. it did receive that in july of 2017. it also met all of the code requirements for the creation of new a.d.u.s in this situation. the a.d.u. allowed in buildings that have already four or more dwelling units and unlimited amount of new a.d.u.s as long as you meet all other code requirements. this is the existing building is a six dwelling building and they were allowed to propose more than one. it required the waivers for density because the maximum density is four dwelling units and the current building already contains six and open space and parking. there are also eviction controls for new a.d.u.s, if any, owner moves in within five years of the application or in the thought of eviction within the last 10 years of the

mr. teague? ok, so at this point commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> president fung: until we get an answer to that, i don't think it's fair for us to -- so we have not exhausted the issue as to whether every alternative location which is legal has been reviewed for the placement of this site in the interest of the neighborhood and the appellant. >> i'm willing to continue this, but i would like somebody here when we hear it again, from rec and park, my first choice is dana ketcham, but if not, someone in her department knowledgeable. >> i think it would be up to dpw to arrange the appropriate person that has specific answers to that question. continue to when? >> what does the calendar look like? >> how is may 9 looking? >> does may 9 work for both parties? i'm potentially not here. >> how about may 23? that's a little less crowded at this point. >> does that work? >> it works for the permit holder. how about the appellant? ok. >> so do we have a motion? >> i'll move to continue the item

mr. teague, do you have further information for us? >> i'm sorry, for further clarification, i think part of the confusion, it may be challenging without the screen, the appellant uses the other number also titled permit number. here is the permit number which is really more of the receipt number and here in this corner, you could see is where the application number is listed. so i think that's where the confusion came between what was actually being appealed and why it was listed that way in her actual written statement. >> thank you. >> we are now on public comment. there's no rebuttal. public comment on this item? 5a? seeing no public comment, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president f. fung: gentlemen, ladies? >> are we reaffirming our position, we're not from the last hearing and have to support -- i'm looking at our city attorney. >> commissioners -- >> i want some instruction, please, sir. >> sure. my advice would be, if you want to have a discussion whether there could possibly be the votes to grant the rehearing n

mr. teague explained that as well. will is no issue with that. the body of the language of the permit is this is i think it says it is in the rear yard. yes in the body of the language where you write in the description of work it is construct 100 square feet and rebuilding at the rear yard including a half bath so that doesn't mean you are building a two story structure. simply telling you what the decryption of the existing building is. >> commissioner honda: thank you for clearing that up. >> president fung: is there any public comment on the item. you will have an opportunity for rebuttal. any public comment? no. okay. we will move on to rebuttal. and now the appellant can approach the microphone. as a reminder you have three minutes. >> explain about the bath tub. you explain they said there was no bath tub. >> they said there was no bath tub. >> they are in my plans here. >> i think i said that that was probably a potting table. >> pardon me, sir? >> potting table. >> oh. >> for plants. >> for plants. >> oh, oh, is that what you -- well, it

mr. teague. can you just tell me, is this thing going to stay or go? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat the last part. >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry, could you please tell us if the sculpture is going to stay or go? >> the c of a was required to remove it, so without some alternate direction from the historic preservation commission that would allow it to be removed, my thought is it would have to stay. >> commissioner moore: does this ruling hold for all cities in other counties san francisco the country? is this in particular tied to ceqa and the his toric preservation rules for the state of california? >> i do know for the removal of this sculpture, it did require the arts commission to act. they have charter and historic responsibilities to move that must be followed. they took that step at their hearing in march, and they unanimously voted to remove it. because this statue is part of the pioneer monument which is within the larger civic center landmark district, there is a certain amount of historic preservation review that is required beyond even just ceqa revi