commissioner antonini: we will see what the other commissioners have to say. commissioner olague: commissioner morore. commissioner moore: just as a matter of fair play, to continue, could you object if you tell us that communications, if applicant communication has been erratic or date? is there any animosity that we would have to use as a base for things -- for a pack of letters -- better words, taking advantage? >> interesting question. we have had a number of meetings with the dr requester. we are shocked that he is not here. we thought he wanted to raise some issues. we do not know why he does not formally ask for a continuance. there were two dr's originally filed. if it was not for this project, we would not be here taking up your time. we would be going to the zoning administrator for a minor forbearance. but now he is not even here and we are being told days before the hearing. >> the only thing i would appreciate for a continuance is an unexpected event in the family or something. we all know that things can be extremely erratic these days. however,

commissioner antonini: second. commissioner moore: there could be blocked notification where members could get a ddi -- dbi notice. when the case file shows up, people can go to the web site, link to dbi, and see the plans as that are submitted. i will ask planning to submit block notification to the people for consent. that is at least how it is described in other situations. >> what the data suggested is very similar to our current process. typically, that request for notice is established by an individual or neighborhood group in advance. o we are offering is to do that for this project in particular and to notify the people we know what to be notified. it is on the filing of a building permit application that we noticed the neighbors. they did not have 10 days to come and comment or review on the permit. commissioner moore: there is a wide variety of circumstances in which we do the same. we often approve something which we describe in words without the plans in front of us exactly showing what we are approving

commissioner antonini. >> ok. i was going to ask mr. crawford for a comparison of the relative size, if you vu that of the the fifth floor structure that's to the up hillside as to the proposed fifth floor of this project. >> i don't have the size of the neighbors. >> not that it makes that much difference. i guess the only reason i would be opposed to the motion is that if there were a demonstrateable impact and although this is not a d.r. hearing, i realize but we still have to use the same concepts. what are we trying to make other than to constrict the size of their dwelling unit? i don't see any impacts that have been demonstrated. i think it's appropriate as it was designed in the latest rendition the project sponsor did. >> i'd argue that it's a neighborhood character issue and if you look at 1.1 of the architect's presentation, the penthouses on either side are shown the penthouses that are shown as larger on lots that are are one away from the two adjacent properties, i believe are bigger because they actually are on quite larg

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: well, thank you. this particular case even pre-dates my presence on the planning commission. it was in 2000. as pointed out, this was before there was a requirement, before below-market rates. but as part of it, the developer at that time had agreed to voluntarily provide a certain number of rental -- a certain number of below- market-rate units. apparently these were to be rental units, some of them, and they have not been rented. we never have made a specification that, you know, units have to be ownership or rental in an entire project. i mean, we leave that up to the project sponsor because we know how market conditions change and how it's quite possible that something that begins as a rental unit -- i'm talking about the entire project, will convert into ownership. or we've seen instances where ownership buildings plan to be ownership have been rented for a period of time. so flexibility in the marketplace i think is important. and, of course, palmer -- i'm not sure if palmer applies in this inst

commissioner antonini: this is a hard one, definitely. the one thing in trying to judge the height accurately is really difficult. i've been looking at the pictures over there and there is quite a difference in height among the various structures along that 300 block of eureka on the same side as well as the opposite side of the street. however, the one thing that really strikes me here is the design and we have a almost very uniform looking type of pattern of housing in existing, fairly traditional, and i don't see any of those elements here even using the more modern materials, that being, you know, gabbled roofs mostly, with -- some with stormers, certainly with a pitch. a lot of sun porches are present, board siding most of the time. certainly french windows and french doors with mull ons which we don't have here in the design. i think there's too much glazing on these windows or at least if there were some moldings and mullions to break it up it might tend to mitigate a little bit. so certainly i would like to see some kind of a modi

president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. a few things in response to some of the questions. this, of course, the haze and the approval of the haze, which is now known as the haze, predates any c.a.c. that was connected with it by quite a bit. so that, i don't think, is a factor on this, because, you know -- and the other thing is that what may be being lost here is the fact that we're still talking about affordable units. i would feel differently if they were saying, well, we want to change these and sell them as market-rate units. we want to go against our earlier agreement. what they're doing is they're changing the form of whether they're rental or not, because it probably makes it more possible to make the project a success. and that makes sense to me. and the mayor's office of housing is supportive of this, from what i understand. and just to answer commissioner moore's question, could i ask project sponsor a question, just for a second here? i assume you've made efforts to rent these units. it's been a long time. it's

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: you have kind of answer this already. the areas in question that are being noticed for people doing maintenance up there and other personnel who may be on the roof, these are not publicly accessible areas. >> to get to their, you have to go out on the roof and it requires two ladders to get there. we recommend signs, but no other access restriction. >> commissioners sugaya. commissioner sugaya: can you repeat the number of days that people have to request information? >> this is based on what the maximum output and the antenna of the equipment are. they will be performed within 10 days of operation and installation. they are entitled to do an actual test inside of their property. these will be actual tests. >> there seems to be some concern regarding the cumulative. >> the actual tests, you cannot block out certain radiofrequency exposure. >> commissioner antonia. commissioner antonini: i would respect that you would let the people within the building know that they have the right to request these tests after a period of

commissioner antonini: thank you for the report. on the ceqa appeal, who were the supervisors who voted to accept the appeal? the three, i guess. >> the three voting against were supervisor farrell, supervisor elsbernd , and supervisor carmen chu. commissioner antonini: interesting. >> was there a board of appeals report? >> the board of appeals considered three items that might be of interest to the commission during the first was a building permit for new construction at 1231 u conn. i want to highlight it because it was in the eastern neighborhoods. they have an existing warehouse structure. they also had concerns about the property windows that we had on their property. the continued it for one month to discuss the matter. they allow time to consider that. the second was a jurisdiction request for 3423 market street. this was the matter that was before this commission on a conditional use authorization in december to modify the approval. we have had a history of enforcement action with the property. we had advised them as their

commissioner antonini? >> commissioner antonini: i had a few questions about supervisor chiu's legislation? are these all planning code modifications? that is why he lumps so many together, because they will all come before the planning commission? >> yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> commissioners, the places as on item 10, for 1355 sansome street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the department's staff. this concerns 1355 sansome street. the school would expand their facilities in an existing four- story building to a three-story building. the school offers graduate degrees in business and has an enrollment of approximately 250 students which would grow to 520. they have a full-time staff of 12 and four part-time employees. we've been meeting with neighbors concerned about parking in never reached an understanding, including the removal of a forecourt from their plants. the project sponsor is here and can address in more detail the details of that agreement. thank you very much. >> good

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: director ram, thank you for your report. it would seem that the two- track development would allow for phased development. >> just for the benefit of the public, i would like to remind everyone to turn of the mobile devices that might sound off during the proceedings. if you have a call, please step aside. commissioners, that places us under item nine, -- a review of the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. >> [inaudible] i am here to give you your weekly update on the planning and when used by the supervisors. -- and land use by the supervisors. this concerns action items associated with the treasure island project. first, at the request of supervisor wiener, the land use committee held a hearing to consider the impact of historic preservation policies on public policy goals. staff the the board of supervisors and the public through a presentation outlining where in the planning code in general plan historic preservation is relegated above the local l

commissioner antonini: i have to agree with commissioner moore. on the second part, there was a basis for recommendation. we are actually establishing a separate residence in addition to the care facility that we approved a couple of years ago. the other thing of is that the zoning administrator would perhaps grant variants to the parking and pretty much the district will have the requirement of a parking place with the unit. you can grant a variance, and i do want to create some kind of precedence. i am not quite sure why we would not want parts that would be required by this. >> on the variance issue, i share the skepticism about what is the hardship here exactly. it is a level that they have maxed out the development potential. to me, looking at it was the issue of, if they can add a separate parking space that will reduce the square footage available, they have 12 people that live there. the parking requirement kickstand at 9. if they were to increase the amount of parking the reduce the capability to care for people, there would be parking sp

. >> on that motion to continue said items, commissioner antonini? [roll call] so moved, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. on the consent calendar, all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items for case number is 2,010.0626 c, and item six, case #20 10.0614 c. also a request for conditional use authorization. the preliminary recommendation is approved with recommendations. >> is there any public comment on items proposed for consent? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner more. >> move to approve both projects on the consent calendar. >> second. >> on the motion to approve -- [roll call] to so move, commissioners. the motion pa

president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: we have many projects that come before us, secondary, preschool, elementary, and college. and happy to see the use of the residences which will probably in some day return to residential use as the school is able to build more facilities to meet their growth. and i am also really encourage bid the fact that very high percentage of your students, 70% or more, come from the adjoining forces districts which are at the creconnaissance influence o what -- of the confluence of what serves the community need and i can identify with the need to have a gym or a center and multipurpose center on campus. my kids went to an elementary school and we were also the bears and we built our gym after my kids had left, and i can identify with coaching out in the rain and in the darkness and in the cold and the ability to have so many more uses and days that were previously unusable because of the weather or the short dayses in winter and that is a great benefit for all kinds of ac

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff -- in regards to this issue that's being raised, i'm a little unfamiliar with the, you know, there's the question of whether or not d.b.i. has reviewed this adequately or not. is it properly before us? and i guess i wanted to know a little bit about the issue of the noteation that the requester is bringing up. >> thank you, commissioner. kimberly duronde, planning department staff. what has occurred is the permit to alter the ground room floors was approved by the planning department over the counter and subsequently issued by d.b.i. as a code complying permit and project. the staff neglected to notify the b.b.n. holder, who then contacted the zoning administrator, requesting that the issued building permit application be suspended, which he did, and which was. subsequent to that, i issued a b.b.n. letter to mr. hoffman per the requirement and waited the 10-day period, during which he filed for this discretionary review on an issued code

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i am supportive of the project and as was mentioned, there's lots of support with the 30 letters from liberty hill and also in terms of the issue with the shadow, we have already d discussed that all things considered, it is still below the .1% annual increase in what would be the allowable amount at .06 and as far as the height is concerned, i think at 52 and a quarter feet they are a little higher than the original project which was probably 50 feet or below but part of it is crafting into the eastern neighborhoods which requires or asks for a higher ground floor which is appropriate. it looks a lot better and just as they have had to reduce their parking level in keeping with the valencia n.c.t. so it creates the grouped floor height. again, no significant no change in the shadow issue, but it was why it's a little bit higher than it originally was. and it is a great project in that there are 18 three-bedroom units changing from 1100 to 1700 square feet and this is really housing t

. >> commissioner antonini? >> well, i will be supportive because the supervisor has asked. although i can remember instances when supervisors have asked for continue -- continuances and we didn't grant them. there are some advantages to try to work out some of the issues still remain. one of the opportunities might be if there are issues between any of the neighbors and the project sponsors in regards to the actual form of the project itself that might be resolveable during that time. that might be a good opportunity to do that. i'm not saying there are things that need to be clanged with the project in regards to its position of its upper element in particular. this is an opportunity to work on that in addition to the thoughts that the supervisor wants to explore about whether or not there's value in keeping these garages this one in particular and maybe city wide as parking structures and areas that are compromised and don't have enough parking. that's a decision we're going to have to make in regards to this one and i think the project sponsored moved a long way towards

. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner borden, this is a good project, it does utilize an unused lower floor and of course on the rooms down mate rick connects the two so at no future date would there be a temptation for an illegal unit down there if it was sold or anything happened to the owner occupancy. as far as the garbage situation, i sympathize with commissioner borden, i always have to run people who come onto private property, at my place, they're rifling through and leaving big messes. so if there's a way to put a lock on top of the garbage to make it impossible for scavepjers get in there, that might be the solution to the whole problem but it has nothing to do with the approval of this particular thing. but i certainly can understand that it's an issue. >> commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes, i guess what annoys me about this is there is no possible way this rises to an exceptional or extraordinary matter for planning. could be for d.p.w., could be for

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. as was pointed out fairly modest addition here. and if you look at the pictures, i mean, the structure that's being added to is tiny relative to the structures around it. and so these are things we certainly have to take into consideration. staff has said that stairwells are not protected as far as light and that according to the staff report that the present design is not have what they feel to be a significant light impact. so i don't know eliminating the pitch might architecturally change the appearance of it and would mean they would end up with a different structure and more cost and redesign. and i don't really see that that is necessary. olague r commissioner moore. commissioner moore: could we see the model one more time please? is that a model you did or prepared -- is this an accurate -- is this an accurate depiction? >> i would like to ask the architect have you given any thought from the stair side of the other person's building and this angle doesn't look so awkward. is t

president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: no comment. president olague: i visited the project two years ago and spoke about the odors and some of the complaints and i got the whole dour. i think it's an excellent use for that site. i trust we will get the written agreement. that was like two years ago, you were working with project -- the nonprofit next door. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: sorry i'm late. i'm quite familiar with this. i do know the property. i do know the executive director of the child abuse center. and one question that i have with respect to condition number 12, staff. on odor control, my understanding is that the issue with the child abuse center was triggered by smells but in fact is not so much a smell issue as toxic chemical issue into their establishment. and i understand there's a settlement of some kind between the two parties involved. but i think this condition depends on your being able to smell something. and is it possible that there would be chemicals used in printing process or whatever that w

commissioner antonini? ant apt apt commissioner antonini one other xhept on the square footage that i should have mentioned earlier, you have a little bigger square footage with an up to house or multilevel because you have the stairway and i know those don't count but you have to deal with these and so where you might be able to get away with a size on one level in a suburban setting and go with multi-floors you are obliged to have more square feet to make it work and rooms with computers and things and sometimes require a certain amount of separation or privacy. and that wasn't the case before. president olague: and we have asked staff millions of times before, the in lieu fee and where does that end up? can we get a response otosome point where does this go? we're curious to see how that could get more detail and how much the fee was produced from this and this is how it was sent. and i get that question a lot from members of the public and people don't seem to have an answer. quality the question. secre

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i will probably be supportive as long as it's understood that they work with staff and this is a companion piece to the 1563 and it went up on the roof and looked down where the towers are and to discern where they are. and if we can approve the aesthetics, why not. and a lot of comments were made about the closeness of installation and the topography is unique and anyone who has ever had a cell phone and tried walking over telegraph hill and calls are dropped because of there is the area between the different installations and not only that but the huge increase in usage and types of usage. and with all the people texting constantly and downloading books and movies and other things that put a tremendous load upon the system is imperative with this tremendous load and more people living entirely on the ipad. and so that is the the wave of communication of the future for business and emergencies and the future and the present and we have to make sure it works. i

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree that it is quat and consistent. i would like to answer -- is adequate and consistent. i think mr. cooper spoke to a lot of those but comments were made to the effect that you know, a lot of this is landfill as is most of downtown san francisco, which did quite well in the earthquake of 1989. i think it is not the landfill but how the landfill is treated and i'm quite impressed by the measures that are being proposed to compact about 125 or 130 acres of the land that needs compaction to strengthen them to build areas around three miles on the outside and have it be two feet above the level of downtown san francisco. for those concerned about the future residents, they will be safer with the measures that are being taken than they are now today. i think it has been 10 years in the process and i think it is time to move ahead on this. on a couple of other issues, i think mr. cooper spoke about the traffic impacts and the mitigations and where they are not mitigateable, i think the benefits that are gained outweigh the

commissioner antonini? cra i'm very much in support of this. this is an area where perhaps we have to look at the code a little bit because as was explained, it sort of a technicality where when we had distilled spirits, where there was previously just beer and wine, then it is treated the same as if it's a new bar as far as the conditional use is concerned. and that i think is maybe something we may need to look at in the future. of course, it depends upon the n.c.t., which in this particular case, valencia street has an n.c.t. that makes it a conditional use. so i think that it allows, as was mentioned in the case report, their customers have said, it's not a question of alcohol or not. it's a question of your choice of alcoholic beverages and some people prefer distilled spirits and cocktails as to having a glass of wine or a beer. ky remember back as long as the early '70's when there were two restaurants and under the same name, same food, happen to be mexican restaurant but one had a full bar and the other did not and we always went becau

commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: no. president olague: aye. >> motion passes 6-1 with commissioner miguel voting against. commissioners, i'm assuming that is for all three -- >> can i ask a question on that? if between now and then they come to some resolution -- president olague: we have to see it because it's a mandatory d.r. because of the demolition. so we do have to see it. ok, commissioners. >> you are now at general public comment. president olague: we should have voted for the demolition right now. why don't we do that? we'd have to rescind our votes. >> we can't. president olague: ok. that's fine. thank you, linda. general public comment. is there any general public comment on items that were not on today's agenda? seeing none, general public comment is closed. and the meeting is adjourned. >> good morning. today is wednesday, may 18, 2011. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i like to remind everyone to please turn off

commissioner antonini: that is what it looked like to me. in fact, if you look at the planned changes to bring it in conformity with what the design team has come up with is actually very well done and the two-story element above the branch of d.r. requester is very much contextual with the two-story addition that is planned for the project sponsor. so it looks like exactly what it should be. then there was some mention of a d.r. requester to the east, but i thought to the east is the sink hole. maybe it is a different -- >> it is directly to the east. that parcel has been subdivided and there is a no owner who was actually probably first on the scene of the violation. commissioner antonini: there is nothing there now but could be in the future? >> correct. commissioner antonini: i thank you, mr. ionin. i just don't see the impact of the d.r. requester and i -- it has been brought up by project sponsor. i think there is certainly a lot of steps taken here with the separation of 32 feet on the privacy issue. and the rear setback issue to me,

president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. i am supportive of this project and i don't really think that the procedures here have been that much different than what we have commonly seen in a lot of projects. and we have something brought before us and there were some concerns about the neighbors and to be economically feasible and address most of these concerns and did a good job as far as that was concerned. and i was at the meeting and even know most of the conditions are part of the plans and we can talk about the detail of those to the type of roof with composition and other things brought up by neighbors which are probably understood from my mind and certainly agreeable if project sponsor is agreeable to make sthur kps have been adhered to. it does not mean the conditional use will be passed today, but from the project sponsor, is that agreeable to have this look back that was suggested? it is just a report. that is all it is. not a reconsideration. we do this often and a report given to us everything is fine with the pr

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. as was pointed out fairly modest addition here. and if you look at the pictures, i mean, the structure that's being added to is tiny relative to the structures around it. and so these are things we certainly have to take into consideration. staff has said that stairwells are not

commissioner ant -- antonini. >> i'm in favor of it for a few

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would agree with staff and project sponsor on both grounds. there was, while it's important to note that the sunlight is early morning and it is a limited area of the playground, numerically it's very clear that the total additional shadow is .06% which is less than the allowance which is .1%, so certainly in conformity even if the shadow were cast at more significant times. and on the other issue of who will tl live there and where th mayor newsom go, i know from -- and where they may go, i know from my ebbing peerns as a dentist -- my experience as a dentist and they are working for places sometimes at one place and sometimes at another. just because currently you are working for google, many of them are transferred and then work in the google offices in san francisco and others specifically move to a san francisco company because they don't want to put up with the commute anymore. and so we are starting to see more companies relocating to san francisco. and

president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm in favor of the continuance. i'm in favor of the continuance definitely until i have more information, the name of this establishment, miracle chi gong massage is exactly the same one as the citrus. and there must be some sort of copyrighting -- there isn't. so anybody can -- you can use the same fictitious business name? ok. well, i want to have that explained before i would approve this. so i'm in favor of either disapproval or continue -- or continuance. president olague: commissioner fong. commissioner fong: thank you. i am not in favor of continuing the item. i don't feel we're put in a position to deny a business and give someone a fair shot. unless i misunderstood or didn't hear. i didn't hear that there was any problems or danger with the existing similar like businesses in the area to warrant not adding another one. as far as street traffic and pedestrian flow, this type of business along with the nail is a loan is not an impulse, -- is not a salon is not an impulse, it's really a destination you have in