Street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to february 8, 2018. Item three, at 1713 yosemite avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to march 1. Item four, at 479 28th street. Conditional use authorization is proposed to continue continuance to march 1, 2018. And case number five at 1815 mission street. Large project authorization has been withdrawn. I have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Great. Thank you, jonas. Any Public Comment on the items being proposed for continuance . On sfgov tv overhead, please . Hello. Frank gladstone. This is regarding four, 28th street. I represent the Property Owner. Were requesting continuance until march 1. Im pleased to tell you that the adjacent neighbour whos most opposed to this by the name of annemarie zabala was kind enough to write this email to the staff. And its here on the overhead, indicating her agreement to a march 1 continuance. The plans were show
Time. [roll call] and we expect commissioner richards to arrive shortly. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continue wants. Item one, 2016007850env, 88 broadway and 735 davis street, an appeal of the preliminary negative declaration is proposed for continuance to march 8, 2018. Item two, 2017004489cua at 701 valencia street, request for a conditional use authorization. And item number three, 2017006817drm, 1190 bryant street and it is proposed to be continued indefinitely. Item four, case 2016010348cua, 1233 policiening street is conditional use authorization, items 5a and b for case numbers 2015014876cua at 749 and 27th street, conditional use and authorization variance are proposed to march 22, 2018. Item six, case number 2015015846drm at 520 28th sfraoet, the staff initiated discretionary review has been withdrawn. And weve received a proposal to continue items 20a and b for case numbers, conditional use and rear yard modification. The project sponsor was re
Leaders positions it is request quality day and the one hundred year of the 19 amendment that give woman the right to vote joining me on stage a margo the ceo of ma tell. clapping. 74 percent have been girls in middle school express interest in office only girls are expressing an interest in Computer Science 50 percent less graduating are for girls than thirty years ago ive spent 8 years of the treasurer of the United States to have a portrait on the photo in our Public Engagement process there were one hundred of women overlooked in the history of our country many tops will be discussed and empowerment 2020 conference everything there empowering young women and girls to be the future leader to encourage women to get into Stem Education and getting into nasa and google and making sure that they are part of tech economy. The second part of empowerment 2020 is women money and power to put women in so and so positions for the corporate fleet and elected office the third part of empowermen
Thank you very much for allowing me to walk you through, excuse me, the nomination. Most of the purpose of this is to show you some photos, as youll hear the Planning Department didnt receive the photos. And probably all of you could have written three quarters of the nomination from what you know about the building. Im not going to bother reading off all the bullet points here about the building. And really just try to concentrate on the photos. This is the entry portal which unfortunately in the 60s was modified and removed. It is a still characterdefining feature. Heres the building when viewed looking west on golden gate avenue. These are two of the most important character defining interior spaces above this. A mens gym and below in the basement is the Swimming Pool. The carpeted area in blue carpet. It covers the Swimming Pool, which is still there because tndc didnt need a Swimming Pool and couldnt operate one. This is the main lobby on the second floor looking down the grand st
Sprinklers in the house. Are you reneging on behalf of your client on that commitment . I dont think that she was aware of the fact that its not required. That doesnt matter. There was a request neighbor to neighbor, will you put in sprinklers in your house, and what i was just hearing again, i cant read that far and i could request that we postpone this and we get that all printed up, but what i heard was we will put sprinklers in the house. So regardless of whether its required or not, there was an implied contract between the your client and the neighbor. Im asking you, on behalf of your neighbor, are you reneging on your clients commitment she put in writing. Im not reneging. The reason is she thought it was required. This house is gutted. Theres a lot of work going on. So with your permission, if we move forward under further conversation amongst the commissioners, you wont feel bad if we put in sprinklers given that your client said it was okay. This is a really expensive thing i