What i mean, the messes they create. They dont have a public process. You know, it doesnt go to their commission or anything and someone goes in with a permit like this well, they didnt, they went in a permit that wasnt a demo under our rules. Correct. Even if i mean, the reality is that the unfortunate reality is the inconsistency between what we consider a demolition and they consider a demolition. It goes to logic of what a demo is. Im not arguing logic here. But if they go in i guess what is their incentive to make it a demo or not . If its a demo under d. B. I. s process, what are the project sponsors avoiding by not making it a demo under their process . What is the incentive to keep it under d. B. I. . Because you can live within certain codes that are different than the current codes, right, you dont have to meet all of the current code requirements if its an alteration and addition. Our advantage of having the original building date stay tied to the property. Yeah, i mean. Commissioner moore. I went to the site and if this is supposed to be a facade i think that im going to start going back to architecture school. It is basically plywood and a few what looks like an imitation of a tile sitting on a twobyfour or a fourbysix or whatever. It is not a facade and i believe as a commission that we need to stand strong to basically not having this being passed on to us because i dont think that were able to judge on something for which we have different processes and different criteria. Further to this, and i completely agree with commissioner richards analysis and calling this egregious is very kind. Trust is absolutely zero. I got a letter yesterday afternoon around not quite sure it came from mr. Kelvin who is representing the applicant and he sent a set of revised drawings which was supposed to illustrate the amendments of this project to two dwelling units. So i printed them out and it took me a while to dive into it only to realize that what is proposed here does not work at all. Its two units which are sketched out here and are still basically a Single Family home, the oversized Single Family homes with a couple rooms changed on the upper floor but generally when you look very carefully at the circulation systems of these two supposed units they dont really work because theyre not separated properly. There is a modification on the third level plan of how you get from a single entry into the building now into the side door and go down, but as you descend to the proposed second level which happens to be the garage level, you will be finding this out with the second unit owner in front of the bedroom door of the upper unit. So you may be coming in with your guest and the gentleman who lives in the first unit will come in pajamas out to go to his part of the house and its absolutely hilarious when you look at these plans. This was all done on the run i think in order to have the department and im not taking the department on here, im taking on the integrity of the people in front of us applying for a c. U. Saying these are two units. This is basically a pretense of a Single Family home with shoveling around a couple of words in terms what this place is supposed to be, this place does not work and im not prepared to approve it and i think that we should require the request for d. B. I. To come clean and to look at what has happened here. I cannot approve this and i would disapprove it or ask for it to be rebuilt with the original 900 square feet. Thats all i can do. Im trying to hear what other commissioners have to say. I think that were pretty much trending to having many questions about this project. Commissioner richards . So i confer with the city attorney, i agree with her, not having the d. B. I. Hearing on the how it comports to whether its a legal demo or not and having that in writing and having someone here from d. B. I. Is a big piece of information that im missing. So i move to continue this project indefinitely waiting for that information. I know that it needs to be noticed again but i think we need it could to hell freezes over until we get that information, i dont know. So i would continue it indefinitely. I suggest putting a date on it so theres some pressure to put to get answers from d. B. I. On this . It would be good to know. What would you suggest . 60 days. Okay, 60 days. Fine. I would just like i mean, i think that it would be informative do we have the Planning Commission hearing. That would be a good idea. 60 days out is april 18th. Okay. When is the joint hearing . Well, its 12 we are trying to schedule it for april 12th but we havent heard back from the building inspector. Can we hear this as a joint hearing . I dont think that is okay. Okay. Again, informational. So we can surge put it on the agenda as an example. I dont think that it needs to be called out by itself. Okay, great. So april 19th . Is that what im hearing . Yes. Is there a second . Thank you. Tell me what it is. You have to speak in the mike. Theres no approval. Well, its on hold until further information. Commissioners is there a motion that is seconded to continue this matter to april 19th. On that motion, commissioner koppel . Aye. Commissioner moore . Aye. Commission hillis. So moved. The motion passes unanimously, 50. And commissioners, item 21 for case 2017, and 1327 Chestnut Street. This is a conditional use authorization. Commissioners i wanted to introduce you to another new staff member who you have not met. Hired as a current planner for the flex team and a key staffer on the a. D. U. And legalization permits as well as c. P. 3p. Program am and shes worked across Northern California and most recently joined us from the town of atherton where she was an assistant planner and a town stability coordinator. And a bachelor of science with a business minor from cornell and we welcome her. Good evening, commissioners. Here from the Planning Department staff. The request before you tonight is for conditional use authorization to permit a beauty salon doing business as be radiant salon at the second story of 1327 Chestnut Street in and the r3 Zoning District. Proposal involves changing the use of this space from an office use last occupied in 2015 to a personal service use. Establishing a personal service use of the second story of the building in this Zoning District requires conditional use authorization under the planning code. This entitlement before you was processed under the community processing program. No exterior signage is proposed as the owners will rely on referral business and reviews to spread awareness about the proposed establishment. Interior tenant improvements including the installation by walls to establish the stations are associated. Be rairadiant will lease in ordo provide personal Services Including but not limited to hairstyling and cutting, facials, nail service, hair removal and bridal party prep for the neighborhood. To provide up to 19 new Employment Opportunities in the neighborhood, and to facilitate entrepreneurship in the beauty field. No Massage Services will be provided at this salon. The applicants own an existing business beauty lashes, which has eyelash extensions next door on Chestnut Street. The staff has received 31 letters in support of the project and one email in opposition and four voicemails from an unidentified individual opposing the opening of this salon. The letters and emails were not included in the originally suck mitted packet but have been distributed to you and i have extra copies for members of the public. The project sponsor has prepared a presentation to follow and will present the project and address all concerns raised. The department has found the project to be consistent with the general plan necessary, desirable and compatible with the neighborhood and recommends approval this completes my presentation and im available for any questions. Okay, thank you. Project sponsor . Welcome. Thank you. All right, sir. You ready . You have five minutes. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Yes, my name is john baskantelis, for the proposed be radiant beauty salons at 1327 chestnut. This will be at a location that has been unoccupied, vacant, for over 2 fa 2 1 2 years now whiche see as a missed opportunity for the neighborhood. We are proposing to invest in creating convenient Beauty Services, creating the opportunity for Small Businesses and the associated employment with that and to grow an existing neighborhood Small Business which is right next to the proposed location. While at the same time not making any exterior changes, preserving the neighborhood character and also making significant investments in improving a. D. A. Access. And right now we focus only on eyelash extensions in two rooms which has provided employment for three lash stylists and the proposed business, be radiant, will be in nine rooms, offering various services which will extend out to 19 new Small Business and Employment Opportunities. This will be through up to nine independent Small Businesses which will have independent ownership, branding services, pricing. And the services are varied hairstyling, barber, manicure, waxing, and the convenience comes from having those in one place so that people in the neighborhood can get all of these done, you know, very conveniently together. So the only external changes that you would see are curtains in the windows there and a sign on the door, so no change to the character of the neighborhood. And while on the other hand were proposing very beautiful internal changes, clean design, bright lighting, elegant furnishings and all of this is to attract high quality of stylists and high quality of services for the community. Any potential issues would be around a. D. A. Compliance which we agree with, greater access is definitely good for business. The site currently does not have an a. D. A. Compliant bathroom which we would be creating with all of the access as well as investing in signage, alarms and a. D. A. Compliant hallways and door entrances for each of the beauty stations. Another concern might be lack of foot traffic but high qualify Beauty Services generally are from referral business. Yuki lashes has grown extensively by having satisfied customers, friends, neighbors, and coworkers and in some cases she takes care of a group of all of their friends together. And, of course, the mobile modern version of that is yelp and we have very satisfied customers, very positive reviews on yelp which has grown yuki lashes and prompted this expansion of the Beauty Service business. So we currently operate a successful salon, so we know all of the legal requirements and have been able to operate a professional business as you can imagine that theres extensive licensing board requirements, regulations, that we comply with. And, of course, were open to the public if anybody has any suggestions or comments for this to improve this location or this business, were always open to that, not just here but at any time at the business si site. Also there might be a concern that theres going to be more Beauty Services that are not needed in this neighborhood. We think just the opposite. More competition, we think that it leads to benefits for the consumers as well as for businesses which when theres competition they need to be more creative in what they offer. They need to maintain a high level of service. And also to keep prices reasonable when you know that someone can always go to a competitor and so we think this is a benefit for the community. And weve reached out to that is your time, sir. Oh, sorry, thank you very much. Open to questions. Lets open this up to Public Comment. Any Public Comment on this . Yes, my name is mare joe artezi and i live in the neighborhood and theres not that much foot traffic and theres not much commercial, its mostly residential and theres already a hair salon a few doors up from this hair salon. And most hair salons are not in that area but down in the Commercial Area and theyre all on street level and its not like you have to climb stairs. The only concern is about seniors or people with disability to get up to the second level. And most places you will see on street level. Thats my concern is that, you know, theres already a salon in the neighborhood and i dont know if this is going to drive them out of the neighborhood. Its mostly residential and not too much commercial in that area. So thats my concern and my concern is about the handicap or, you know, people with disability to get to the second floor. That was my concern too. And, you know, this other hair salon has been in the neighborhood for over 30 years. So i hope that it doesnt drive them out because theres only a few doors from this salon. Soim just concerneso im not st one salon is to be from the other salon. But like i said im just concerned because the other salon has been there for over 30 years. So, you know, i just hope that you take this into consideration about the residential and about, you know, the handicap situation and stuff like that. Thank you for your time. All right, thank you very much. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing nobod none well open ito commissioner comments. Commissioner koppel . And how about we had an office turning into retail and different neighborhoods, obviously, but due to the long multiyear vacancy of the existing property, i dont see any other commissioners so ill move to approve. Second. Theres nothing for the commissioners and theres a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions and on that motion, commissioner koppel . Aye. Commissioner richards . Aye. Judge, commissioner moore. Aye. And commissioner tillis. The motion passes 50. And commissioners, and item 22a, b and c for case numbers 2017 20174555c2ua, and and 2017455562drp. At 799 castro street and through to 38783880 21st street. And review while the acts admin iadministrator has comment. And you continued this matter to february 2,022nd, 2018 by a vote of 60. And accommodationer fall was absent, because this is the second time that you will hear this item will we provide the sponsor with three minutes in public testimony for one please stand by . Ease stand by effect climinate the fourth roof deck, and reduce massing at all levels, relocating the garage to expand the rear door. Separation between two buildings and the lot is increased from 8. 5 feet to 20 feet, however the variance is still required. The subject is a nonconforming with respect to density as its located within the rh2 unit. The proposals to demolish the mixed use structure presently used as office at 799 castro street in order to construct a three story singlefamily over basement. The project will introduce three units under a separate building permit. The department received no Public Comments since publication of the indicate report. The department is in support of the project and its proposed design. The Department Recommends not taking 2k r and approving the conditional use authorization for the following reasons the project will provide a family sized unit with three bedrooms that is compatible with the neighborhood and squint with the rishl design guidelines. The project will result in a gain of one net unit, no residential tenants will be displac displaced as a result of this project. And given the fate of the project, there will be no capacity on the local street system. Im available for questions. All right. Thank you. Dr requester . Good evening, commissioners. Ryan paterson on behalf of the dr requesters. First off, i want to say that we appreciate that the fourth floor has been removed, and a more traditional facade has been proposed, but the commission gave clear instructions last time, which this iteration does not follow. Its still tinkering at the edges of a project thats massive out of scale with the neighborhood, with the existing lot and structures and with the code. They can rhenvate the existing property within the existing envelope. Wed at least ask that you eliminate the required set back variance. I also want to alert you that a letter of determination has been issued for the property, and weve appealed it. The lod has some Serious Problems that affect the projects approvablity. For example it says the entire building has to be demolished, but it says the envelope can be expanded because the original building will still be in existence. These issues need to be resolved by the board of appeals in april before you consider this project. We also do object to the noticing error. The density of the proposed project is out of character with other properties in the vicinity and it greatly exceeded the average far. Its 2. 01 versus. 79. Theres 799. The project rear yards variance still reduces by two thirds direct sun light from the master suite. This is both the before and after shows. Theres been no change in this, and wed request removal of that rear yard variance. Thirdly, the proposed flat roof building is not consistent with Community Character gable roof Queen Anne Vic tory an victorian homes. Hello, commissioners. My name is larry mansbach. Im a state licensed and designated real estate praiser. Tonight im appearing as a real estate valuation expert. Im here to address the negative impact on value of the adjoining property at 789 castro street, to be caused by these variances, and the problems with the variances that result in the loss of light, air, and views from 789 castro street. Ive prepared a professional study. Its included in your packet, and as the conclusion of my work is this therell be a loss in market value of seven on 789 castro street caused by the variance in the amount of 325,000 have you. Andrew zax. I own the property on castro street. Are you part of the d. R. Team . I am. Okay. Then your time is up. All right. Well take Public Comment now in support of the d. R. My name is phil ledbetter. Im the father of denise ledbetter. Im a widower, and i live with them. As a young soldier, age 17, wa