commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i am going to have at the same caveat as commissioner fong. i am going to vote in favor of this because i think it is important that this get done. if we went back for more and more continuances, there might be problems. however, i would like in the future to begin design at the barre beginning. as i said earlier, when profits first come forward, if we could have a look at it, make some comments, and try to find something that fits the testily we are going to have a project on 300 grant that came out beautifully. while it was not ready to come out at that time anyway, it would be nice to begin this process at the beginning so that by the time it comes before us, everyone is comfortable with the design. i think that, with some of the changes we have suggested, it will help to soften the building a little bit. >> on the motion to approve as proposed, with the following modifications -- moving the parking entrance to saw van ness and continue to work on the details

commissioner antonini: i see those. thank you. commissioner moore: i have a feeling this building tries to do too much for the small street it wants to exist on. it is a very large home for an area where, because of the elie conditions -- alley conditions, it is too large to do all the things. i am in support of solar panels. but it cannot be done at the expense of everybody else. i do not believe the building, at least from a contractual response to the alley architecture, is good looking. i think it is dominated, on the ground floor, by a huge garage door. looking at the other buildings, which are small-scale and people oriented, this is very car- oriented. the facade is the expression of a garage door, and the entrances to the right. i personally like some of the ideas described by the other neighbors, by lowering the building slightly or modifying its overall massing. i am not really quite there, one way or the other. i am interested to hear what the other commissioners are saying. vice president miguel: i think the building i

on that motion, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice-president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> we cannot close the public hearing and take it under advisement and continue to work with staff on the final design and the rear yard issues and the connections between floors. >> commissioners, we are going back to items 11 a and b. 11a is an informational items fort department code amendments related to student housing. 11b is actually your initiation of the same legislation. >> good evening. i am from the planning staff. the item before you is informational and does not require action by the commission. it does give them the opportunity to explain prior to your action and as to whether to schedule an adoption hearing for student housing in november. this has been approved by the city attorney's office. we hope we can be engaged about the concept of the ordinance prior to the adoption. we are seeking to inform the commission about the policy intent. i will give a brief overview o

commissioner antonini: thank you. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye. commissioner fong, aye. commissioner moore, aye. commissioner sugaya, aye. president olague, aye. >> good evening. before you today is a request to install macro wireless 8 -- inside a structure that is currently used at the church. this would be included inside an existing steeple and equipment cabinets located in an internal room. this is considered a preference one location, the most preferred for this installation. the department has received correspondence in support and opposition to the project. the department received a petition containing approximately 24 signatures. the department has received opposition from local neighborhood group, the russian hill neighborhood association and the petition contains 350 signatures. the concerns include radiofrequency exposure and structural stability to the steeple. as you are aware, the project must be complied with fcc radiofrequency exposure requirements by the department of public health. additionally, please

commissioner antonini: i will make a motion.i am not sure if this is the proper way toward it. -- to word it. i would take dr and approve with the condition it is in conformity to the planning section code 2092 reference to a period of time of occupancy. i do not see that as the original motion. is that already in the motion? >> the project sponsor has agreed to file within the planning department specifying that the property would be considered -- would operate as group housing for section 209. which implies more than seven days. >> my motion should more properly be to not take dnr and approve. the agreement is the filing of this declaration and agreement of restrictions. >> which he agrees to. commissioner antonini: we had agreed to make it a four-year period if that is agreeable. that would be my motion. to approve subject and the motion includes a declaration agreement of restrictions. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i will vote against the motion because i think we are losing affordability. it bothers me if we take action t

commissioner olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i want to thank commissioner snyder in particular because of a meeting that i had with our architects, and it was in regards to project candlestick cove, and i think under certain circumstances that when you have an untitled project that has been titled for signature in the past, and there has been a change, sometimes it is brought back to the commission for full review. others are brought forward with the understanding that they incur rich projects and architects to contact the commissioners. -- and they encourage projects and architects to contact the commissioners. another commissioner has spoken to them on this. i think this is a really good policy. in fact, i would encourage wherever possible that whenever projects are being planned, that whenever possible we have really early input as to design on projects, because we have seen many projects, and we have one today that came out very successfully that we will discuss later, but it took time and redesigned b

commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner moore. the unit merger that has been presented as the fact that it has been used as a single unit from the very beginning, and probably the issue that was brought up was more about the entire handling of live work units and whether or not their business is taking place in those that legitimize their status. it is a much broader issue, and probably many of these have businesses going on. but what is before us is whether or not it is appropriate to legalize this use that has been the use of the situation since 1996. and as was pointing out, we are not costing affordable housing in making these -- legalizing the units into one legal unit. much of the permit has already gone forward from the city on this so it would seem to me that this is something that we should do. commissioner borden: i agree with commissioner moore and commissioner antonini. i have a question for staff about the annual filing that happens with live work. i dunno if the zoning administrator can answer that, but who lives of

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: excellent as always. i think you said the supervisors had asked for a hearing. was that a public hearing they were having? >> it will likely be scuttled before the land use committee. at this point we do not know anything more than the sentence in the introduce request, which is a hearing on the status of 8 washington. commissioner antonini: that seems rather odd to me, because both of these items would not go to the board of supervisors if it were to fail, but i believe both of these projects are of a size that there would be other affirmations of entitlements that would have to go before the land use first and then the full board. it seems as if this is a duplicitous process come in my opinion. this is where the public wants to hear these items. they can certainly be updated on them individually or through memos, but to have a public hearing it seems to be an additional process. that is just my opinion. maybe i will learn more. commissioner olague: thank you v

president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you for a very interesting presentation. i am pretty much on board with many of the things and the flexibility on how the 1% is spent is a good thing. and i think that the expanding of the requirement seems to be outreach or a lot of people spoken in favor of that. and of course, dictated by the size of the project as the project has to be a certain size for it to be required. i think maintenance is important. that part would go into the fund and could be used for maintenance and fine for using it for the dome and is beautiful and was a good use and unfortunately stiement san francisco does a good job of building and a poor job of maintaining. it is important for things that we have with our classic buildings and classic works of art that they be maintained and that may be a perfectly good use of those funds. the specific use of a specific nonprofit to utilize the funds and a little bit of caution on that. we have to have a lot of oversight to make sure it

commissioner antonini: m. my understanding then that if they do not satisfy the requirements, then it would have to provide inclusionary housing? i do not understand why we have that in there if they're converting something that was a non-housing use to student housing. it is not residential housing. >> it would depend on the form that the student housing takes. if it took the form of dwelling units, studio units, then the inclusion rehousing he would be applicable depending on the number of units if they did not meet the definition of qualified student housing and qualified financial need. the onus would be on the institution to apply for and inclusion rehousing feet. if they apply for that, that after show that 20% of their students received pell grants. 30 percent of their students. commissioner antonini: if you want to encourage the building of student housing, the more you can examine them -- they are building housing for students who are going to come and go. many times, the format is almost like sro's,

president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i did check with the interest that i have, a very small interest in what is classified as a live work unit. it has occupied my family member and is more than 500 feet away and we have already established that. i am not quite sure if that is what she was speaking to, but i believe that is the only reason why i would have to recuse myself from these proceedings. president olague: pat o'tellni? >> we are a building

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i want to weigh in on a few things from your presentation, which i thought was very good. just some general concepts. i hope we are looking at a best practices of other cities, large and small, throughout the united states, with particular reference to those in the bay area. it is disappointing when we go around to our parks and open spaces and compare them with other cities, some of which are not necessarily wealthy cities, but they seem to be able to take care of their parks a lot better than we do. this is where this whole question of privatisation comes up. we are always told that we cannot afford to have enough gardeners. i remember when golden gate park was a pristine, when i first came to san francisco 45 years ago. it was manicured. it is not quite that way now. it is still trying, but it does not look as good. there is a little park where remember my oldest child had their first soccer game 25 years ago and i went there the other day and there is no gra

commissioner borden: i agree with commissioner moore and commissioner antonini. i have a question for staff about the annual filing that happens with live work. i dunno if the zoning administrator can answer that, but who lives of those records? >> we will have to take additional research and get back to you on that. >> there is an issue not just in these sort of buildings, but not filing a final occupancy. what are the requirements around that? people can move in, but you never have to file a certificate? >> deregulation of the building department, they allow temporary certificates of occupancy which you typically see in larger construction. and they're moving people to lower floors, you have a temporary. commissioner borden: there is no deadline? >> i think i have requirements, but it is the building code. commissioner borden: i think it would be useful to have a joint hearing with of the department of building inspection because there is an issue around fees and we have changed the process to deal with that issue. it is a big problem that they don't fly all fo

president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i did check with the interest that i have, a very small interest in what is classified as a live work unit. it has occupied my family member and is more than 500 feet away and we have already established that. i am not quite sure if that is what she was speaking to, but i believe that is the only reason why i would have to recuse myself from these proceedings. president olague: pat o'tellni? >> we are a building code and permit consulting firm. we are brought on project to investigate anomalies and permit histories. this building is one of them. but briefly, just to address her comment, this has been properly demonstrated as a live work unit. if professional author, employed as such, she does her business out of here. we're here to talk about the dwelling in a merger. hopefully you were given copies of this and if not, i am happy to provide copies. there was never a consistent unit accounts. there is not a significant final completion. a lot of stuff was lost in

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: the project came before us quite a few months ago. i saw one of the things we were going to do was some design work. they did do something as far as matching light wells and a couple of other elements that were addressed. basically, i feel it is not very contextual with the neighborhood. it might be a little late in the game to change that now. it certainly would be good. let me give you a few examples. you have a vertical element that are emphasized and that makes the building look taller than it really is. it is already taller than the holmes who either side, which are all victorians and have been there 100 years. certainly, if there is a way that those elements could be horizontal elements rather than vertical, it might help to mitigate, to some degree, the imposing nature of the building, at least from my point of view. secondly, doing something with the top of the building, whether it be a cornice or whatever to make that terminate, we are not trying to copy something from 100 years ago, but by putting an element at the top of th

commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner borfong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> it passes unanimously. you're on the final calendar item. mandatory staff initiated requests for discretionary review. >> you have before you a mandatory staff initiative request for discretionary review of a building permit to proposing to convert a ground- floor dwelling into commercial space and merging with adjacent commercial property that was formerly occupied. this new space will be approximately 1000 square feet and occupied by an indoor children's play facility to be known as the little lounge. the project for the conversion of a dwelling unit to a commercial space. the subject property located on the southwest corner within the twenty fourth street neighborhood commercial district. the subject of growing at the ground floor on the southeast corner of the building is approximately 500 square feet and comprised of two rooms. it has received no opposition to this request. the

commissioner antonini: i am also in favor. as was testified, it is really one space that was combined into two with hope of attracting retail clients. it has not been successful. it is counterintuitive that you would put a branch in if people were not going to use the branch. you do not spend money for no good reason. it makes sense to me. despite the talk about leftover banking, between business by business and other entities that i am involved with, there are a lot of different banks involved. we almost always go personally to these banks, and i are my staff, because we want to make sure things are done the right way. we need to get to the right account and have the personal interaction. i have had a lot of positive experiences with banks having some aspect of banking. that is why they have people at the branches, as well as officers. it is not what it was years ago, as far as each branch of an ultimate authority, but there still is a certain amount of authority. i would be in favor of approving this. commissioner moore: i w

commissioner antonini: i had some other comments that do not need to be translated. there is a huge gap, as we can see on the maps. as we have been hearing all along, with the huge increase in demand, we need more sites and we need sides closer to the area, say you have to take what you can get. i guess there are no sites above preference 5 on what he you evaluated. i see no aesthetic impact, which is not one of the things that was brought up, but that is sometimes a consideration. just a couple of general comments here. some commentators came up and one gentleman made a comment about who owns the land, which is irrelevant to this discussion. there was also a comment about some of the commissioners are not being here. we are often here at 10 hours at a time and we do not have breaks for eating. we go out and watch it on the television in the back. those who were not here were hearing the discussion and in no way was meant to be disrespectful. we is have to eat like everyone else everyone's awhile. this may be worthy of translation. forever -- for whoever is in charge

commissioner antonini: to be compliant, it must be insulated? >> exactly. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> the motion on the floor is for approval. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. >> the motion passed unanimously. now you're at item 10, mta sustainable mobility strategy and presentation. >> victoria wise, planning department's staff. i know you are interested in transportation and what the city has been doing to support sustainable mobility. this presentation is intended to give you an overview of the mta sustainable mobility strategy. i am pleased to introduce the deputy, who will share the presentation with you. >> hold on. just give me a minute. there you go. >> good afternoon. i am the deputy for planning and policy. we have been asked to give an overview of the sustainable mobility strategy. i am going to run through a few topic areas and try to do a snapshot of this comprehensive program we are currently working on. it touches on every

commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would also like to hear more about that item. i remember the discussion, and if there is a significant change, i would like to know that. banks. commissioner olague: my sense from the speaker is that