commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: yes, that is a good question on the advanced calendar regarding that item or any other item. i think it is possible, correct me if i am wrong, that between now and the time the final calendar is generated, there could be a change in the time of an item. correct? not earlier, but it could be later. ok. the other question i had is nine west portal, i think it is. indefinite continuance. just wondering if anyone knows what the reason for the continuance was. item three, 9 west portal avenue is the address. >> we can try to find out. commissioner antonini: i mean, i do not need to know that right now, but it would be good to find what direction that is moving in. so i am going to move to continue items one, 2a, b, c, d,e,f, g. to the date specified -- well, there's no date for three. that is indefinite. >> second. commissioner miguel: on that motion -- commissioner antonini: yes. hite commissioner borden: yes. commissioner fong: yes. commissioner moore: yes. commiss

commissioner antonini: mr. baker, sorry. i am hearing and my interpretation is that you would like to have 44 if we can do that. >> i think everybody -- we are happy with the idea of sacrifice. we are coming down from the 7, 6, 5 to 4. that is in the spirit of san francisco. we do not followç the book exactly hear a lot. commissioner antonini: your design -- you are going to have that space in there for some years or another use, whether it be tandem parking -- >> i think it becomes a storage closet. commissioner antonini: it might keep access -- accidents down, because there is a little more maneuvering for people who might be parking, have invented a lot of cars in narrow spaces. >> san francisco garages should get a prizet( for the spaces to get these vehicles in. commissioner antonini: i am goingw3 to make a motion. i willxd make a motion and see f we get a second. that would be to allow the 44 total, which consists of the following. çç32w3 single individually accessible residential parking places. 7 which would be co

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i have a few questions. i think i know the first one.ere were comments by the d.r. requester that there has not been a variance. but the hearing has to happen before the variants. that is a procedural question so that answers that part of it. the other question that has been brought up is the replacement of the stairs in its existing format, which would be kind of inside the building, back and forth on itself, instead of coming outside the building, which requires a variance. are there safety reasons why it is better to have it in the new configuration? or could you do it in the old manner? ñr>> as the engineer outlined, t is so rise overrun standards can be met in the building code. under the building code right now, you cannot have that stair configuration. commissioner antonini: as written now, there would not be a solution that would allow you to replace the stairs under the configuration that exists at the present time. is that true? >> that is my understanding. commissioner antonini: my next question would be, it seems like the mos

ç president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you.ks. i guess when we're looking at eastern neighborhoods and percentage of p.d.r., i'm not sure if we're also including the yaren that's east of 101 and before 280 around cesar chavez. i'm not sure if that was technically part of eastern neighborhoods. maybe that still is m-1. so our percentage might be higher. as partç of my trim yesterday, drove along valley lane and brisbane and saw lots of p.d.r. businesses there or a lot of office uses. those are some ones that we would like to have here. iti] seemed to be kind of a blended situation. they had a combination office and manufacturing. it was kind of interesting. in the context of whatç we're looking at we have to figure out what we have to do to attract those businesses to san francisco.ç >> ok, commissioners. thank you. we cani] move on to item number- president miguel: let's take a 10-minute break at this point and then we'll move on. >> the commission is taking a 10-minute recess. thank you. >> the planning commission is back i

commissioner antonini: -- what is that? >> march 1 >> i would like to make one point before i make the motion before your consideration. the expiration date for your action is tomorrow. if there is no action today, it is disapproved by the commission and that doesn't mean you could not have a later action and of the board has not already taken action on the ordinance, your later action would be to convey to the board and be part of the record. commissioner antonini: i would favor the later action, though i doubt they will take action by march 1. i will move to continue to march 1. >> your motion needs to be to continue item 15. all of you can participate in that vote and commissioner fong cannot participate in that vote. >> on the motions to continue -- people still want to talk on this? commissioner sugaya: could i understand what we are going to do on march 1? why are we having another hearing? >> it would be helpful if you could identify the elements you are wanting to concentrate on. >> if we are going to continue this,

commissioner antonini: there is only one more item left.let's take a 10-minute break. >> ok, the planning commission is back in session. the item before you at this time is item 18. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. before you today is a discretionary review of a proposal that would expand its structure located at the end of the residential structure. it would extend approximately 7.5 feet than the existing structure. the expansion -- the expanded footprint is necessary to allow the stairs for the building code. a letter from the senior building inspector for the district has been included in your materials. it states it can be built to meet current building code standards. the steer expansion is subject to a variants that occurred in may of 2011. designing minister took matters under advisement. the conclusions regarding the replacement have been summarized in the met -- in the letter. it will be issued after the commission's decision regarding the request. the request is raising several issues with the application in regards t

commissioner antonini: thank you. >> good afternoon.ams, a longtime cal hollow resident. i did the original consensus planning for the of reach on the metro. we presented to you a report showing 20 interviews with 200 merchants and business owners. we had hundreds of business others signing on for approval. we kept in touch wkt merchants along the way. and with all the changes, we have verbally done it. we still have universal support throughout the year ahead for this project. i think it shows the consensus development is a very important component in the additional use process. and it stands for a very long time. i urge you to approve this project on behalf of the merchant community.>> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from the san francisco neighborhood theater foundation. i am here to express that we have spent quite a bit of time on this project over the years, working with the project sponsor to develop a compromise, and we believe that there are times when compromise is important and in these kinds of situations. there is meanin

commissioner antonini: thank you. >> good afternoon.irector of livable city. i was here last week and spoke about this big change[ to they we do ceqa and ceqa impacts. my emphasis was on the observed by the department of models the generation and they do not take into account the amount of parking or thingsç like a parkg structure. as i said last time, we hope you will go the rest of the way and say, all right, those uses to generate automobile trips and we need to account for that. so that the fees are paid, and that is a principle thatç was w3well-established. there is language in the planning code that is a follow- up to the impact fees in eastern neighborhoods and a better neighborhoods, and the department was instructed to follow up with the study to calculate, what would it look like and how can the nexus reflect the amount of parking? into reducing vehicle trips have an impact, positively or negatively. we hopei] that will be part of . the other thing i wanted to talk about was the role of the community, community participati

commissioner antonini: thank you. i'm surprised there isn't more comment, but i have questions for the project sponsor for the staff, maybe. the first part of this was the shadow allowance. i was reading this over, and i'm not saying this is a very good project, but we have to analyze all projects equally. if i am reading this correctly, they say that this will increase the shadowing about 5.4% of the total potential sunlight annually on the buchanan street mall if i am meeting that correctly, bringing into a situation where the new total shadow coverage would be approximately 30% of potential available sunlight. and i know that the 295 restrictions are very strict. i just wonder how this is being applied, and i know we have had other projects were there have been minuscule increases, we have had long discussions over it, so i wanted to talk to you about what the staff's feeling is on this. >> you are correct, in other parks, there are minuscule amounts that we allow. in the memo that was issued to staff, it spoke to

commissioner commissioner antonini:?ç commissioner antonini: thank you.epor it's veryç enlightening. just a few comments on what was in there. i think inç regards to the dege of commercial that weç see, i thinkç tft fairly smallç givee vast amount of land that is included inçç these eastern neighborhoods and even with what we are seeing, for example, the facility at 650 townsend. i guess it could be considered to be new commercial but it's sort ofi] more of a conversion d of course, general hospital is more of a public facility. i'm not saying these aren't very good things btd in perspective we probably need to see more commercial. p.d.r. grorktse retail, or office fwrothe in the eastern neighborhoods. a few things we might be ableçç do to appropriate those are to go back and look at some of the prescriptions that we have in regards to preserving p.d.r. there was a situation where we went 1/3 p.d.r. to allow 2/3 office retail in the innovative p.d.r. that we passed. i think that maybe by interpreting that more flexibly and while reaching the same

commissioner antonini: think you. basically the difference is the planning commission and the approval process. i think having some flexibility is very important. >> just to be clear, this agreement is over who improves the local interpretation of the standard that you might be able to produce. it is about who might approve the local interpretation. >> one thing i forgot to mention -- commissioner olague has informed me that she will be co- sponsoring these at the board, so i do have a co-sponsor. president miguel: -- commissioner antonini: we are talking about the planning commission being involved in the creation of the local interpreted the guidelines. and the recommendation from the hpc is that they solely do that. once the guidelines have been worked out and adopted, so to speak, i do not know the exact process that will take place -- once that is done, whether it is hpc or planning commission, and then subsequent projects that require certificates of appropriateness would then still be within the purview of the

commissioner antonini: what you are up there -- sorry. i think we are dealing with is uses prior to eastern neighborhoods. they could have office. there was not a lot of restrictions. these are nonconforming in regards to the eastern neighborhoods said in which as been passed. >> correct. specifically, that are situations with m1 and m2 zoning. the were requirements to establish office space, including impact fees and other things that would be triggered through the permitting process that these projects did not go through and pay. the u.s. would have been permitted. that is the concept of the amnesty program. you would have been permitted, but now you have been rezoned. if you do not have this outlet, bad deals with this issue. commissioner antonini: i was part of the eastern neighbor of discussion. many of us felt the demand was not as great as was allowed in the eastern neighborhoods. i think that has proved to be true. we are been more than accommodated in the area set aside for pdr, especially in neighborhoods to the south that are a

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. i see a lot of good things and a couple things a lot to comment on. i have been around for both the the previous permutations. the state building, which much of the workforce is not here anymore, and we have to look at that, losing companies that provide for the type of middle- income jobs that are not here. the company has to have their headquarters in san francisco, i think, by law. i like the fact you have more open space. i guess the project sponsor architect had a question. i know that avalon -- if you want to come to the microphone, please. avalon bay is predominantly rental, but i believe you always work, aere condo -- to be able o have condos. >> we build apartments. condo mapped. commissioner antonini: there is a slight difference in the way buildings are built that they are designed to be an apartment as opposed to ownership. i know in the beacon, when the move from rental to ownership, they had to make some changes but i do not think there things that are insurmountable and

commissioner antonini: one question. i believe we already have language that allows some flexibility in the secretary's standards as part of the legislation and has been drafted. commissioner sugaya: my understanding, if i might, is the secretary standards are there. but then the department, the commission, and the hpc will enter into the process of creating new guidelines -- president miguel: interpreted guidelines. commissioner antonini: so it is already in there. i think there is a 4-2 vote on that, with a modified language, so that is fine with me. >> may i ask for a brief clarification? do you want to add a time limit to statements in article 11 that you added to article 10, that if the proposal interpretations have not been approved by both commissions within 180 days, there will be deemed approved? lastly, for the last line, do you want to accept the hpc striking "if it is found the demolition would significantly damaged the district"? well, i understand the position. this could substantially diminished. on the ot

çw3commissioner antonini: thank you. my opiniont( -- sort of using a technicality to try to limit the ñrparking, whereas we did twice approve something that the parking was there in may tan -- in a tandem form. nobody spotted it, perhaps. the only language i can't find it is no moreç than 35 independently-accessible parking spacesok. even in their ask for 44, there are only 32 independently- accessible parking spaces for residents. another seven would be tandem, 3 would be car-share, and three would be commercial. a little history. in 2008, the project we approved was 61 units with 39 parking spaces. the project that came back was differently configured than that. but it did in fact have all of those parking places up there. under market octavia, but conditionalñr use, planning commission can grant up to three out of four, 75% parking. that would be up to 48. the 44 is still below what can be granted. but i think our granting should be only procedural at this point, because we already have approved it. what we are doing

commissioner antonini: i wanted to ask about 376 castro.have any information on the request coming from project sponsor, staff -- ç president miguel: i will try to get back to you on that if we can. çcommissioner moore: which plee let the public know that if this item is continued that items 15 and at 16 what not close the public's participation at the çótime when it is being heard? >> my only intent on calling that item is to make some comments myself and here if others have any particular comments. a fur of -- a full hearing will be held in the future and it is my understanding that the board president who is proposing this legislation is willing to accommodate that. >> i appreciate your summarizing that. çthe reasonç i asked for continuance is the explanation from the supervisor's office only came in last night, after closing time. that is 7:35 and since the study of both items are quite extensive and require going back and determine where we were last time, where are we going -- that requires more timeç. i got support from the supe

commissioner antonini: ñrçi wod like toq again. experience has been that a lot of the traffic congestion and problems happen and has to do with people looking for parking places, passing through neighborhoods, frequently will go by residential buildings and i rarely see anybody coming in or out of the garage. a lot of the cars sit there=) l week. while we are hoping to do is have a reasonable policy. and approve as much residential parking as we can that is reasonable. it will not change people. çit will select out people with cars. they say, i am not going to buy this because i have a car. i am not going to rent this because i am going to search around for a parking place for itç what this policy does is select out people who might be good for the area. the parking excludes them. we need to try to be as flexible as we can with parking. xd>> there is a motion on the floor for an approval of 32 singlu,ó independently accessibe parking spaces. >> for a total of 41. >> on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner bord

commissioner antonini: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners.using coalition. i wanted to shareç with you soe data released by the mayor's office of housing on monday, and it is not good news. in fact, it should cause concern to all san franciscans. if i could get the overhead here -- çum, this graph shows the effects of the economic recession and the demise of the redevelopment agency. and it is in pretty stark terms. you can see the red line and in the middle is the redevelopment agency that next year converges on zero as it goes out of business. most sources, the bottom line, is converging on zero. and,ç not good news. this is what we have got coming for housing. it is pretty stark. here is an even more startling one that shows the effects to the city's funds for affordable housing of the economic recession. if you look at the top one, you can see the affordable housing fund balance. but the one that is really quite unusual, if you look a the bottom one, there is brown, and it actually goes into negative fora couple ofxd years. they're giv

commissioner antonini: thank you.nk you for giving me the opportunity to speak. i have been a client of the green cross since 2005. at that time i had an opportunity to meet mr. reed after his earlier location had to close. i continue to be a client. i came to admire his methods as being as good as any dispensary i have ever visited. not that i visited a lot but the ones i have. i am here to speak about kevin and hisç -- the way he runs his cooperative. b.i appreciate the comments ofl the people who are opposed to the dispensary. i think if anybody can address their concerns and make them comfortable with thisç business in their neighborhood, it is mr. reed. thank you. >> hello. i am a medicalç marijuana advocate. speaking right now, to cover a couple of topics that have not been adequately covered. one is clustering. as you are aware there are several neighborhoods that dispensaries can operate in and we get natural clustering. more importantly is the idea that the competition is good. t(we're talking about organ

ççcommissioner antonini: 0 yee have.lose. çfor the audience, it just maks the decision a little bit strange. that is why we are having in the problem here. at least with these two. the previous one was down the road a little bit. it is a little bit difference attrition. that said, i don't think i added anything. commissioner fong: just a technical question. i am not necessarily suggesting it. this is not a conditional use. but we have the ability to control hours and days of operation. for example, rather than picking one over the other, if you let them go alternate days a week of operation. i am just curious. ç>> i do not seeç why not, ife commission chose to take discretionary review and approve for certain dates of operation. it is not usually done. i do not know of any restrictions. you can put a condition on any type of business operation. commissioner fong:ç i would not dare to think to do that if it was a restaurant, controlling their business in that way. commissioner moore:ç i am not going to suggest days.

commissioner antonini: i have a couple of questions.he plans, i think this is a veryñr good adaptive reuse. my understanding is it is some but reversible. obviously we would hope it would remain in its approved use for many years, but if there ever were the interests or to return it to a theater, either single screen or multi-screen, at that site, it probably could be done. i know there are some seismic changes being made, and the configuration would probably have to be a little different. >> right, they are inserting the special flores. right now, it is a one large volume without floors. as part of that effort, they're pulling the floors back effectively from the side walls to preserveç some of the histoc columns that were mentioned before. obviously, if the use of a single screen theater were to be desirable in the future, it would be required to demolish the speciil!force to bring it back to a movie theater. i am not an expert in the construction component. there is most likely a way to do it. they are constructing within the buildi