comments related to the continuance of this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: what is the specific request from the supervisor's office? >> i want to speak that. commissioner sugaya: because we don't have a representative from the supervisor? >> i will just say that, you know, kathrin the supervisor, she's often contacted us that he wanted the project continued because the neighbors had an idea about a transit pub. so this is the time for you to speak about the continuance. we're continuing it only for that purpose. if we're not going to think about that, then there's no reason to continue this item. that was the purpose of the continuance as was expressed by supervisor's khu's staff. [inaudible] >> well, we're just speaking to

the won't -- continuance. i made that clear. he spoke in favor and he spoke against it. we closed the public hearing on the discussion of the continuance. we heard comments from the both sides. >> matter in front of us is whether we should continue. do you think there's anything valuable that's going to happen between now and july -- the supervisor seemed to indicate that there was some other alternative tooze why he wanted to continues. >> excuse me, i just direct it to commissioner. >> and this came when? >> yesterday. yesterday. yesterday. >> i mean, personally it's a little frustrating when something's been noticed on the calendar for quite some time and in the 11 th hour someone contacts you about the idea of doing something. i'm supportive because of the project sponsor agreed to it. but they wouldn't agree for it

to be in july but there's no way we could hear it before -- >> if any of you want to look at the calendar, any of the commissioners -- i mean. i just don't see how we could fit it in before july 7th, i don't. >> it's a question about whether or not we think continuing will change the conversations. are >> that's not for us to make the call. the supervisored asked then i don't think we can question it. it would have been niced if there would have been somebody representing the opinion but i don't think it's up to us to second guess what the substance of the supervised discussion with his district is. >> 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 acome dating some

of the -- accommodating some of the neighborhood needs. these are things that can be done, probably. >> commissioner miguel? >> i think to continue this item, i will probably vote to do so because of the commissioner, a supervisor's request. the information that i received from his office yesterday with the request seemed very little to do with the project. it seemed more to do with a citywide concept. i am not going to discuss that now because i have some very definite feelings about that, which in my mind would take that concept somewhere between five and 10 years into the future. and i can detail that one. but in the interim i will support it.

commissioner alan: -- commissioner o laly: commissioner more? >> we have five thursdays in june or can we do a special meeting? or do we not do that for a specific project. i'm posing a question rather than saying that's what we need to do. >> just a couple of things about that. if you want a special hearing you probably want to hear more projects. i'm scheduled to take some time thauf week. we base our calendars on your calendars. >> so june 30th would be the only time -- date in june if you look at the event calendar, we all have copies, you can see that the calendars are not light in june.

>> does that mean we're also going to extend the meeting times like starting at -- starting even earlier than 12:00? >> like june 9th we have a se qua meeting and then we have a regular meeting. and then june we have items set for specific times. >> i understand. >> so we're a little concerned with even the way the calendar looks even. i mean the 16th could -- well, we don't want to -- we have moved a lot of smaller items, d.r.c.'s around. so a lot of project sponsors have been waiting to be heard. i don't want to inconvenience

projects either because a lot of individual projects have been pretty patient with us given our, you know, very -- our calendar that's involved a lot of really lengthy projects like partmore said and all of these have forced a lot of projects to be moved off. the 16th might be one where one might consider adding it. i think that's about the only day in june -- >> only if we start it earlier. >> did you want to do that? >> the other suggestion, there are a couple of items on the 16th that are staff items that we could conceivably -- >> that would work. >> that we could conceivably put off. >> so june 16th. june 16th would be it. ok. >> do we have a motion for that? >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i'd like to agree with

commissioner miguel. i think i know what the overall issue -- well, the city policy issue and etc. is with respect to that has triggered. and i'd have to agree that it's going to take a lot of vetting and so -- but i -- at the same timely support the continuance out of deference to the supervisor. commissioner fung? >> thank you. i just wanted to point out that again, i think i know what maybe the ideas is. i will say the project sponsor in my opinion has made some pretty significant changes to the project to try to accommodate the nubs. it's a little bit krgeso concerns at this hour that there are still difference ises of opinion within the neighborhood. but i'm supportive to hear it. i want to make a mention because we had another project not to long ago i was not

supportive of continuing. you were suddenly changing the rule on a particular type of use midstream where the project head sponsor had jumped through all the hoops we asked him to do, paid all the fees and at the last moment changed. so if we're going to study a larger citywide kind of program, i'd say that, you know, we get through the projects that are being proposed right now and you know, if you want to stop it tomorrow, that's fine but don't stop it yesterday. i'm not sure -- you know, if we want to put a moratorium and do a study then do it tomorrow but not today. >> commissioner antonini? >> i agree with commissioner fung entirely. it's sort of those grandfathered or pipeline project, you know, that this is something that commissioner miguel is going to take a long time to vet out and study. so we have to continue where we've already spent a lot of time and money on this project

and consider this not necessarily looking through the prism of whatever may come from this study. >> yeah, because there's overwhelming support from the commission. in the past there always hasn't been when the supervisor requested a continuance. i never received one either. and the commission didn't either. but since the majority of the commission is going in that direction, then i'm willing to support it. june 16th. >> commissioners, i just want to be very careful because you made a very strong point in the recent past about your calendars an your hearing days and the impact of going -- having long hearings and going late into the night. it's very important that if you continue this item to the 16, that items come off that

calendar. >> well, -- i think because i was studying -- i was sort of reviewing. there were a couple of informational items. >> i think that will accommodate what you're trying to do hear. i just want to be on record that i'm reminding you of your desire to have your hearings more managed. >> and it's us making that decision. >>s that you making that decision. and i thank you for that. yep. i agree. >> so with that commissioners, the motion on the floor is to continue this item without hearing through june 16. sit june 16 -- is it june 16? >> commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. are -- commission olague?

>> this motion will continue on june 16. commissioners, you are now on item 18, a, b, and c. case number 2009.0685 b and 2010.05.77 dd. all from 309, 311 eureka street. >> good evening, commissioners. sofey heyward, planning staff. the request before you is a request for discretionary review for the demolition of the two-story, two-family dwelling and the construction of a new three-story garage located at 309, 311 eureka street. i'll put an imagine up of the existing structure. the lot is zoned rh 2 and it

sloped down from the north to the sourt. the existing structure showed on the screen, whenever it comes up, is a -- provides two -- two bedroom units on two stories with a -- with approximately 2,425 square feet of living space. as proposed the new building will provide two dwelling units. so this is the proposal of the demolition of a two-dwelling unit. and the construction of a new two-dwelling unit. there will be one three bedroom unit with a total of 3,045 of living space. the new structure will provide two off-street parking spaces from the single garage. there is a mandatory discretionary review.

an addition three requests of d.r.'s were filed. one of those requests were withdrawn after revisions to the proposals were made. there remains two publicly filed d.r.'s. one by the northern to the south and one by 20th street which their rear yard abuts the rear yard of this prompt. the to pop gi is such that the d.er is to the south than that of the subject building. and the subject building is higher than on the slope than the second d.r. requester who's property is on 20th street. i have images that can show all of that. the department's recommendations will be to improve construction as opposed. the d.r. requesters are here to

speak as well. the shared concerns include impacts to light, air, and privacy primarily due to the rear of the new structure. the d.r. requester to the south the proposed demolition of a building may be historically significant and impacts to the large cypress tree to the north of the property. the proposed project has been reviewed four times by the residential design team. the proposed project has been proposed four times which is determined after the publicly filed d.r., that the existing property is mixed and that the proposed new building is consistent with the residential

design buildings. it looks like we're having trouble with the image on the screen. it's ok. i can summarize if you have questions. i wanted to draw your attention to specifically are the fact that the proposed structure includes setbacks to the front and rear for the upper stories, set back 15 feet from the front building and 12 feet from the rear building and that's specifically to address impact to the neighbors. if you look at the project in planned view, there are, i believe it's a three-foot side step back along the property line that exactly matches that to one of the neighbors, one of the d.r. filers. in regards to the question of whether or not the existing structure is a potential historic resource, the project has been issued a categorical

exemption. the department determined that the existing structure is not eligible for the california registered. it's not historically significant structure pursuant to sequa. as far as public comment, as of this morning, staff new of three property owners in opposition to the proposed project in addition to the d.r. the owner of eureka which is south of the property. 4431 20th street which is north of the subject property as well as the documents of 261 chenry street. staff has received two letters of support for the demolition and i have those additional letters to distribute to you. i believe that both the project sponsor and the d.r. requesters may have additional letter that came and factored in. the department recommends that you approve the demolition and the new construction. it will provide two family

sized dwelling units. although no new dwelling units are added to the sights, the additional units will be upgraded and provide greater access to air. the idea is that they're more suitable for families. no tenants will be display placed. and that concludes my presentation. but i'm certainly available for quo. i know that the project sponsor and the d.r. requesters have presentations as well. >> thank you. we ve two d.r. requesters. so we'll hear from each of them at this time.

[inaudible] >> do we have time to put it?

>> we're going to ask for a five-minute recess so they can set this up. at five till we'll start.