commissioner antonini: second.commissioner moore: i just wanted to say that a letter was written that the owner does not provide mailboxes can knock affect our decision. the only thing is there are other venues in public comment, the item can be brought forward as a complaint. i just have to say that it is not affecting how this body decides on this matter. commissioner antonini: i know in some private apartment buildings, they all have their own mailbox, of course, but much of the male is too large, too bulky, impossible, and they're put in a common area where people know to pick up, so i think that is generally about all you can do, so it is not before us how mail is handled, but that would probably be the case with some items. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval, including the board of supervisors proposed amendment to the guidelines. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> the item passes unanimousl

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would like to withdraw my motion with the permission of the seconder and make a motion to continue to mid february, late february. does that sound reasonable to project sponsor? >> well, i guess you would need to ask the project sponsor how much time we need to address -- commissioner antonini: project sponsor, can we look at the last week in february? or do you want to go into march? because you'd have to be doing some redesign to make it more con textual. let's go sometime in march. maybe mid march. >> let me get a calendar. >> you can go mid march? >> the idse of march. march 15. commissioner antonini: that's my motion to continue. maybe other commissioners can weigh in. >> i think it's a good idea to let them know what you want them to do by march 15. commissioner antonini: ok. is there a second to my continuance? commissioner moore: there is a second, yeah. commissioner antonini: what i have in my mind, i think what i've heard from other commissioners is

president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: he makes a good point. when it is merged, it is a single unit, a single address, and that is how it is. if we put some sort of nsr on here, which i am not sure if we can do, but if the -- and if the commission wants to try, i will vote against it anyway, but i think we are going iection and t more time on this than it deserves. we should allow people to take care of their own property and do what they want to do with their homes. that is one of our problems in san francisco. we are too involved in dictating personal choices on things that involve them. i do not like this type of thing. that is the way it is. whatever the commission votes, that will be the decision. commissioner borden: there are several things -- we have a housing element and that is what we have in our housing element that you voted for. this property is zoned rh3. if, every time have a proud sponsor, we decide that the housing element does not matter and we should not do it this way, there is something special that they are asking for tha

case number -- president olague: commissioner antonini has -- antonini snen because of the location of part of this project -- commissioner antonini: because of the location of part of this project, i would ask to be recused for the same reason earlier at 180 which is like right next door. so one would assume it's still the same distance from a property interest i have. so i would ask for recusal for both projects. because they're linked. >> thank you. >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye commissioner fong: aye commissioner antonini: aye president olague: aye vice president miguel: aye commissioner borden: aye commissioner antonini is recused. commissioners, again, item 11-a and b for case number 2002.1302-u. for 2235 third street in-kind agreement amendment. and 178 townsend street in-kind agreement amendment. >> good afternoon, president olague, and commissioners, i'm matt schneider of department staff. again before you is an amendment to two in-kind agreements approved by you, about two years ago to provide a chi

commissioner antonini: we would probably have to go for that one. it is looking like we will have as full a commission as we can get by the 16th. >> i am not sure if you have a seventh commissioner appointed. commissioner antonini: we probably won't. >> you will have the six commissioners that currently here. commissioner antonini: that is my motion. commissioner borden: second. >> with the public hearing? commissioner antonini: yes. comissiomer sugaya: i do not even know if i have to do this. given conflict, i should say that mr. baker and i have a remote relationship, if you want to call it that, because he did published a photograph of mine a of one of his buildings on his website. there is no monetary exchange or anything like that. it was a favor that it is up there. i guess i am supposed to reveal things like that, since he is the applicant and i am on the commission. it is not going to influence my decision making. >> thank you. commissioners, on the floor is a motion for a continuance to february 16. president fong: wait. commissioner moore:

antonini? commissioner antonini: i want to thank the public for their comments. while staff did a great job of the then apply the legislation and working with modifications to make it better legislation, the public brought up a few things that were not covered in the staff report. particularly, the issue that was alluded to by commissioner borden about this instance of trying to set up legislation that would try to keep private operators, parking op going to e their product. i understand there was an illusion that this was in the early legislation that is now in place, but i am wondering how dispensable this is. first of all, on whether it makes sense. some of these things, such as early bird, incurred people to come in earlier, which helps us from having a rush of traffic. i would hope that staff is able to work with a presidentchi chi to eliminate or modify this provision to keep with what would be good public policy, but it does work with the existing plan, clarifies. thank you very much for

commissioner antonini: thank you. i agree with d.r. requestor that this particular house needs to work. it is a little hard to tell from the renderings how it will appear when it is finished on the front. the photos in our record are discouraging. it does not look like it has been cleaned in three years, and there is a car parked in the yard, which is not what you're supposed to be doing. i would hope that is all going to be stricken up a little bit. the way this was designed is an odd looking house, with an entrance coming from the staircase, and the deck in the front of it is pretty strange. the other question comes to mind is it appears the neighbor's house and many of the others have a third floor or upstairs over the living quarters. it seems that might have been the better way to go, up rather than out. but i guess that decision was made. aesthetically, it would probably have been better looking. the other problem i have is a look at these plans and i want to make sure -- may be staffed and fill me in. the lower floor, there is n

commissioner antonini: as long as that is consistent. i did not want to do an nsr on this space. >> they have an interior connection. commissioner antonini: mention was made of the windows. i hope the windows would be contexture with the neighborhood and of the quality be specified. >> that are identified as a would sash. -- they are identified as a wood sah, aluminum-clad wood trim. commissioner moore: the building as it is proposed, and we might all have other ideas of what it should be, is fully compliant, correct? >> correct. commissioner moore: that spirit is somewhat not in our purview to discuss how someone wants to lay out his interiors and get in and out of his building. what we should be concerned about is how this building presents itself to the outside, given that we have the normal dimensions of a lot. the expansion goes to the rear. the only thing, although that is not the purview of this commission either, i would encourage the owner why he built -- while he built the addition to find a better way to have the building meet

president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions. it looks like if i am reading the ordinance correctly, in addition to excluding the square footage required for disability access copulation, maximum allowable space-bar footage that is allowed for these establishments -- maximum allowable space-bar square footage that is allowed for these establishments, leasing to small business accommodations to bring in ground floor entrances, compliance with federal access laws. is that part of the legislation, too? >> it is, it is not part of the planning code, but it is under the san francisco campaign and government code. commissioner antonini: okay, it is my understanding, and i may be wrong, but i always understood that these accommodations were to be done at the time that there were certain amount of improvements done to the structure and it would be a percentage of the total improvement cost with the most important access being done first. obviously, entrance access would be the top priority, and down the line, restrooms later, but it was

commissioner antonini: great. my final question for those that were preparing this in regards to redevelopment, i think the obvious question will be how far along as a project have to be before it is allowed to move forward? that is something that everybody asks. second, when did the legally binding contract have to be enforced for this to be considered in process? those are the questions everyone will want to know. thank you. >commissioner sir guyugaya: sin treasure island has its own separate agency, can you give us a status report on that? >> when this all started a year ago, treasure island decided not to go direct of being a redevelopment area. it had been designated by the city as the redevelopment agency, so they would automatically dissolved without particular role on february 1 as the redevelopment agency. that happens automatically, and essentially it is a moot point is it we're going that way anyway. the legislation that the mayor introduced does take away their right to be a redevelopment agency as wel

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: vernal heights lots are pretty shallow. that is part of the dilemma we have here. what was convincing for me was the testimony about the exposure and the fact that east is to be left in the picture we're looking at. you're going to have light coming through there all day long. this addition basically encloses the spaces around what is now the sun room. that is what we used to call it, where it is entered from the other rooms, not a real practical passing. there are not a lot of things you can do on 25-foot frontage s, except to create some space to make it more livable. i do not feel that, in this case, we need to have it notching to take it out of there. it is a little bit problematic unless you use the entire 25 feet to make it more livable on the second level. i would be in support of approving the project as presented by the applicant. >> second. president fong: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i am not as concerned about the notch and the parking space as i am about the requirement of yard variants. that is a gr

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: if -- i am going over these conditions. my understand me and staff, correct me if i am wrong, these things that were done absent permit and could possibly need to go through permitting process. we should let me be -- maybe we should let them go through again. the removal of the window that was put to the west side and the siding restored. >> that was correct. commissioner antonini: there was some talk about the curb cut. >> replace the curb cut with the materials that would be seamless on the block. they had not destroyed it. it would be seamless. we want to make sure that the materials that are used would be seamless throughout bloc. >commissioner antonini: and not just poured concrete. >> they have been ordered to restore with proper materials. commissioner antonini: i am seeing removal of the dekema is that correct? >> it is two? . one on the north side. it is only half. they left calf. and on the east side as well. >> i hear there was a stairway that needs removal. it is interfering behind the property line. >> from as

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree with the testimony we have heard for a number of reasons similar to what has been said. there was the one gentleman who is the contractor talking about the fact that there are three criteria in favor in addition to owner occupied and no renters but the functionality of the unit that is being merged is questionable and it is fairly narrow. because of the way it is not quite as good a unit, it could be used but not the best. i agree there was a consideration of the rush and the square footage figures which looked to be more accurate with what the project sponsors have said. also the overwhelming support. 11 letters in support including dr. eileen [unintelligible] that is good to hear the support. they have stated the reasons, creating an opening. we're not talking about affordable housing here, either. we talked about units that are not helping us meet our needs for affordable housing but they might help us meet the needs of a family that is growing and we

commissioner antonini: and i would accept that as par m

commissioner antonini: we could in this action approve those for this project, and then decide whether to approve this project. i would be supportive of approving the draft conditions as presented, and also approving this project. it has been pointed out but a couple of speakers there will be a big population gain occurring in the area. buildings have almost completed construction, so the demands will be even greater, especially with the proximity to mass transit available there. many people will come from other areas, passing through here. as far as overshadowing -- i have never heard that before. i believe many deficiencies are of a particular carrier. as we know, they are on different wavelengths, the exception being the t-mobile and of horizon -- and verizon sharing the same wavelength. i think the have repaired that. additional antennas should not impact carriers on other wavelengths. the question about the rf wavelengths that are cumulative -- the findings conclude all of the existing antennas were still less than 4% of the public limit at the difference of 41 -- a distance of 41

commissioner antonini: i did not read that. >> condition 30.>>commissioner antonini: presidt miguel help us understand the basis for the numbers we're seeing. the zoning administrator point out that number of events per year vary greatly between 2003 to the present. there was one year where we had as many as 77 live events and one year where we had up to 332 total events. other years were close to that same number. as was pointed out, there are currently no limits. what ever happened to be able to sell in that particular year was the number of events that were going to have, both live events and total offense. now we're putting restrictions on. there is no rule that says you have to take the average. the average for the median is somewhere in between. but i did not hear a lot complaining during the years when they had the highest number when they had the highest number of events, not there could ha

commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i want to thank ms. gish -- commissioner miguel for bringing up the thing that i forgot, about the elimination's. i can speak from personal experience, we have often times had illumination on photoelectric cells, and there's advantages. for example, security. if you have a lighted area, you are less apt to have problems because anyone intent upon criminal activities, it is very visible to people in the area. of course, advertising is another. ultimately, this should be a decision made by the individual business owners and the city should not be making decisions as to how a business owner wishes to spend their investment of this double funds in running their business. if they want to eliminate it, it should be their decision to do it. without getting into the details, this is an important detail that we did that go into too much detail. restrictions in the van ness corridor. i think it has ramifications for the other areas too. where we are eliminating the minimum requirements for parking, but what are we

commissioner antonini: second. >> public comment? president miguel: is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion on the floor is for continuance of item one, as proposed. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> those items are continued as discussed. that takes you to commissioners questions and matters. are other matters to be discussed? commissioner antonini: i wanted to mention that i was fortunate to be at the forty-niner game. i think i saw a crowd that was the most passionate and focused that i have ever seen. some commentators on national television commented on the enthusiasm. there were a few fans wearing new orleans gear that work there. i think it is important that we are respectful to those from other cities and those rooting for other cities, because these bring revenue into our city. there is common kindness, but also we do not want to b

commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you to everybody. monique from the port and albert and to all the staff. not only to the staff but the great collision of contributors who corporated to produce a very good final environmental impact report and demonstrated and do at all on record time and demonstrate what question do as city when we work together. and this is very impressive. and i was also very impressed in reading the comments and responses that some of the concerns that had been voiced in response to the d.e.i.r. were answered and mitigations were put in place and i think that was extremely well done. and it was evidenced by, i think overwhelming support from the comments tonight. i see we have other commissioner who is want to comment but i was going to move approval but i think we'll get the other commissioners commissioner comments? commissioner olague: commissioner miguel? president miguel: president miguel: i think this is a -- commissioner miguel: as far as as the attention that the city will receive, i can't think of another

commissioner antonini: before we act on this, project sponsor, there was a question about definitions of good in terms of this particular project. what do we mean by those general terms? just so we can have something to hang our hat on as far as those definitions. >> at the pleasure of the chairman, i am the designer of the system. these maps with the berries covers -- colors you can see, i generated. they are based on engineering data and drive test data. we have backup drive test data, and buried in thousands of drug test data, for olympic canoe -- thousands of drive test data, for alembic ave. these are engineering maps. the red means there is poor to no coverage. in this area, driving in your car, you will probably get a drop call. the yellow is called marginal area. you will probably get ok outdoor coverage, but no in-building coverage. in the green, there is good coverage. you will have in-building coverage also. do you have questions? commissioner antonini: i think that gives us a pretty good understanding of what the colors mean on this map. >> i am available if you have any t

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i had a question about the jefferson street plans, which i think look very good, but there is probably going to be hopefully an extension of the line that goes into fort mason and merrida green that i am sure that you are taking a dip for the consideration as to figure out which way you were going to either eliminate or direct traffic on jefferson, the fact that that line will probably continue along jefferson in the future. >> we have been in very close coordination with the national park service with the informal review for the historic project with fort mason. we think it is a tremendous profit that will bring vitality to the city. at the same time, we are cognizant of making sure that any proposals to the extension are in the best interests of fisherman's wharf as well. we were working on a line that is actually with the national park service that maintains on turning up jones, then turning onto the beach. so the integrity of jefferson street the last two bl

>>commissioner antonini: i would like to make a motion to approve with some conditions added. correct me if these are part of the motion or if they're not appropriate to add. i think we talked about the concept that the police would be informed of the calendar ahead of time. there would be able to disapprove of an event if they felt it was inappropriate for the venue. and also i would also add a condition. they should have whatever the appropriate advance period of * other note what events are coming. no. 2 that the off-duty police officers or other security officers would be required, if we have over 1250 presold tickets, the number would be what is a program. this would be the province of the entertainment commission to decide how many officers would be necessary for the size of the crowd. already i am hearing that there is no use to put a condition about ending alcohol sales. it is in there. that would be a marker would be put in the line, if someone has been waiting for five minutes ago for. however there would handle that. also policing of huntington park is in there. tha

commissioner antonini: great.hopefully we will come up with something contextual, but i am sure it will be attractive when it is finished. >> we certainly hope so. commissioner antonini: my other question is about the extension to washington square, which the boring machine will have to get out, as illustrated, so the total will be there. i guess -- - standing, we have already had our environmental impact report considered on the entire subway project, but for an extension, you would need a supplemental environmental impact study? or what steps would be necessary to make that a reality? >> as you mentioned, commissioner, the current layout of the t-line extension, the second phase, the central subway piece that this body actually cleared in -- i believe it was august 2008 -- essentially would provide revenue service up to washington street, so the proposed chinatown station is actually the terminal station of thet-line. hopefully there could be an extension of that line. where this concerns would be part of its ow

>>commissioner antonini: maya understanding is this is not included in here.the carriers are obliged to do alternative site analysis, but to have the>u evaluator have to do that sounds like a lot more expense and work. >> it would be evaluating whether it be alternative site analysis is accurate. we tried to transpose the language as it was read into the record. >> we have to begin with one step at a time and not make the process more burdensome. nobody wants to put up a site -- nobody wants to pick the worst side when others are available. i don't know if this has to be part of the motion, but there should be a list of evaluators by the city. is that included already? >> , yes. i read that into the record. commissioner antonini: then i would think it is fine. >> we're also seeking your advice on how to handle pipeline projects. commissioner antonini: thank you for reminding me of that. what we have been doing is ok. we approve a process and ask them to go and have this after the fact. if it turns out it wasn't, we by have to look at that again or

commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner moore talked about umu zoning which doesn't apply because this was grandfathered in. i know you were talking about where to put what. i don't buy the argument that because someone is a certain income level, they should be excluded from the neighborhood. that is just as bad as the other way around. i don't like that kind of argument. i would have a lot more respect for those that want this property to think that our use is a better use, maybe we would be able to afford to acquire it. it is argument about, is that what these people really believe? people that own condominiums are somehow less desirable people? that is really hard to believe in my mind. it is something that speaks badly for san francisco. i am very much in favor of this project and the hope that everything does work out. i think the conditions are very important. if it turns out the rental property, that is a possibility. whthey would have to understand the conditions. commissioner borden: i think we have to

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: ok. thank you. i agree. i might be more concerned about the comments regarding whether or not we will have jurisdiction over the liquor situation or not. if this were a freestanding, separate, new liquor outlet somewhere a distance away from another one, there might be some concerns. but a few steps away from another establishment that is going to be open the same hours and if someone really wants to buy beer and wine, they will simply, if they do not buy it at cvs, they will walk a couple of steps and buy it at trader joe's. i do not see how this will impact a number of people on the street creating disturbances. it is not an issue for me whether or not we have jurisdiction. there were some comments made by commissioner moore about packaging. i think commissioner miguel also commented on that. we approved this on california street, if i am not mistaken. it did come up separately. it ended up the same kind of thing even though it underwent a different kind of hearings. it was a very similar situation. the re

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions about the legislation. my first question deals with the surface parking lot. maybe i did not follow your comments correctly. it sounded like, on the one hand, you are saying surface parking lots would be grandfathered. on the other side, you are saying that they would be subject to cu approval every five years to remain in operation. which are you advocating for? >> both, but they are different zoning districts. c-2, we are asking for conditional rather than prohibited. that would allow parking lots to operate in perpetuity. c-3, we are asking that the temporary use permit be extended from two years to five years, which will exist allow the existing parking lots to come back every five years. it would still make them a nonconforming use. if they do not get that temporary -- conditional use permit, they would have to go out of business. commissioner antonini: so one of the two districts would grandfather them and allow them as a legal, nonconforming use indefinitely. the other district, they would have to go