to answer some concerns -- that is without the condition. we can talk about whether or not to include the conditions. i am in favor of the project. i think to answer concerns, in reading the literature, the same thing applies as always does with these. we had a mention of around a 40 foot area at which most of the radiofrequency emissions are. beyond that, they are negligible. i think for those who may have concerns at street level, the measurement is well below what is deemed acceptable. that is fairly standard with any of these. as always, correct me if i am wrong, but we go back and these

are evaluated against existing commissions to make sure the are consistent. you can answer this question, but i am pretty sure that is what is going to happen here. when there is testing after the installation goes in to make sure it is being presented, a cumulative effect is taken into consideration. >> absolutely, before and after. and after 10 days, we test the facility and report back to the department of public health. every two years after that, we are required to submit an updated report. cumulative effects are always taken into account. commissioner antonini: you can see if you look closely at the photographs that there are those events, but you have to know those are concealing antennas. i do not think that is a problem.

you did not want us to include the -- comissiomer sugaya: that was not in my motion. commissioner antonini: we did that with the other project, and it seems consistent the we do with this project as well. i make a movement to include the language by the zoning administrator. commissioner moore: second. comissiomer sugaya: that is fine. commissioner moore: commissioner antonini will summarize what i was going to add. thank you. -- well summarized. comissiomer sugaya: for the benefit of the hardware brothers, this commission and the city do not have jurisdiction to consider emissions as part of the decision. it has already been pre-empted by the federal government. so we cannot use that as a reason to deny antennas.

no local jurisdiction can use that, i don't think. dianne feinstein. commissioner borden: you can advise the hardware brothers that you are representing that they can have at&t come to their store and measure the emissions. likewise, you can have at&t come to your home. there is that process that you are allowed. >> [unintelligible] comissiomer sugaya: maybe you can have that discussion outside. commissioner borden: maybe you can address that with the microphone and he can speak to you. the law requires -- >> the law requires us to test radiofrequency emissions within 25 feet of any antenna.

we are happy to extend it. we have always extended it to anybody concerned about it in the area in which we're placing it. we are happy to connect with you and the harbors door and have them come out and do some testing. >> there is a motion on the floor for approval with conditions, including the condition offered by the board of supervisors, as recommended by the zoning in a stripper. on that motion -- commissioner antonini:aye. commissioner borden:aye. commissioner moore: aye. comissiomer sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> you are now on item number 18, case number 2,011.1327c for 401 grove street.

>> my name is kevin guy, with planning staff. the planning commission approved conditional use authorization for a project at 401 grove street to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a new mixed use development including 63 dwelling units and approximately 5000 square feet of commercial space, as well as 37 parking spaces. the plans presented to the commission depicted seven of the residential parking spaces in a confederation which would result in a total of 39 parking spaces. however, staff failed to identify these spaces, and the sponsor described an amount of parking which is principally permitted by the planning code. therefore, the conditions of approval or written to limit the total amount of spaces in an amount that did not account for the seven additional spaces that

would result from these configurations. therefore, the project sponsor request an amendment to allow the seven additional spaces, for a total of 39 parking spaces residential we -- for residential use. texas reporting is not required for residential use in mcp district, in respect of the transit-oriented nature of the district. -- accessory parking is not required for residential use in the district. staff believes the additional parking would incentivize travel by private vehicle over walking, biking, or using transit, and this would degrade the pedestrian environment. multiple policies within the general plan and specifically the martin and octavia area envision a variety of

transportation, and discourages automobiles in a transit-rich neighborhood. staff has received one letter regarding the request. it came from the hayes valley neighborhood association. the letter reiterates support of the project, but is opposed to parking beyond the principle permitted levels in the code. staff recommends the commission does approve the request to modify the existing conditional use opposition to allow the additional seven tandem parking spaces. president fong: project sponsored? -- sponsored? -- sponsor? >> i am david baker, and i am very unhappy to be here, but i am. i would say i agree with everything kevin said. in fact, i think i am one of the

primary culprits, one of the players in getting these parking maximums in place. i just want to explain to you what happened to us and why i think it is reasonable and that there be some adjustment. -- reasonable that there be some adjustment. there was a use permit to in 2008 which was modified. in 2008, tandem parking spaces were counted as one space. there were counted as one individually accessible space. the second space was not counted toward your total. this was approved just to make things really confusing. it was approved with five spaces written and six bases on the plan. we fumbled along and thought a tandem space did not count.

this shows the written part where it said five is six on the plan. it's a 6 on the plan, five on the written stuff. in between our submission for the modification and that, the planning department, i think wisely, changed the definition of a tandem space to be a two parking spaces. the then we applied that, and you must have looked at this, which shows seven parking spaces. our mistake. we were thinking tandems base was one space. 37 spaces. unfortunately, we proceeded along and submitted a separate permit, and people went, "you have too many parking spaces." that is what it is. we would like some consideration. i am not a developer.

i think there should be a wall around san francisco and you would pay $5,000 to take your car inside. that would be fine with me. i am not person. in terms of the general conditions, we were approved for 32 individually accessible spaces. each unit has -- half the units have parking spaces. five or six or seven would have an additional space. they could not get out without the keys to the other car. that is a nutshell. we are not asking for any additional spaces. we feel like the bad guys. i usually have the white hat. i have the black hat today. but with thinking of not even coming. -- we were thinking of not even coming. if you give it to us, other

folks might say, "you gave it to them." but it was in the original use, which was modified. it was knocked out with the change in the definition, but nobody said that anywhere. if you have any questions, elizabeth and don are here. i will make it short. thanks. president fong: public comment on this item? >> i am the developer, elizabeth costello. i just wanted to reiterate that we are really not asking for anything new here. the spaces were in the original plan that was approved. the neighborhood has supported us in every way. but this one particular thing in this development -- only 50% of the units would get parking. even though some of those bases will be tandem spaces, they will be controlled by that one unit.

we are asking you to reaffirm the approval we thought we got in july in last year. thank you. president fong: other public comment? commissioner antonini: i am very much in favor of this, as outlined by project sponsor. the approval was based on a situation that existed in the past. there was somewhat of a technicality. however, in general terms, there have been some objections to it. i have had experience to be without my car five days last week. i walked a lot, and it was very good. going to and from work was fine, but coming home and having to go shopping was another issue. i was not going to try to carry three bags of course respond muni. i used my wife's car, which was still available. i think this is a modest

request here, that is basically still staying very close to the amount which is principally permitted, which is 0.5. you have your spaces for the other reasons of commercial, and if you because of the technicality. i did the math. if we were to grant them 0.75, it would be up to 47 spaces, and they are not requesting that. we are talking about a total of 39, if i am not mistaken. is that correct? i would move to approve. commissioner borden: i want to wait to hear what other commissioners have to say. comissiomer sugaya: in terms of the staff recommendation, wouldn't staff recommends 0.5 originally? however many spaces were being proposed or overlooked? >> we talk about that a bit.

i defer to the director on this. but it is fair to say department practice has been fairly consistent on areas with parking maximums, or principally permitted parking maximums, to recommend 0.5. even if the staff oversight or lack of recognition of tandem spaces -- if we understood the project back in july, we might have recommended going back to the 0.5 amount of parking. comissiomer sugaya: i believe the commission voted on the assumption that it was 0.5, and not a number, per se. >> anything above that would have required a cu. >> that is correct. the plans show larger spaces and a tandem configuration, but the staff understood it as the 0.5

ratio. commissioner moore: i would call approval on this project. this is a key project with a very persuasive architecture, very much in the spirit of what we are trying to do here. but it includes a very specific commitment to the 0.5. we are in a very walkable neighborhood. we have everything else to get us everywhere we want to go, including grocery stores. i basically can really only commit to what i voted on and then, and not amend the parking as we approved it. and by the way, i really appreciated the thorough and objective analysis, and i want to acknowledge him on that. commissioner antonini: i am not

sure there is a grocery store that is a workable distance from this. maybe there is some. i am not positive. regardless of that, there are other needs for cars. i do not know the exact ratio, but i think we have cars per capita in san francisco fairly high, even though some people do not drive. many people have more than one car. i think out of my staff, currently we have 14 employees, and 13 of them have cars and use them frequently. and they are almost all san francisco residents. i think that to try to create something that is not grounded in reality is not the best situation. you have a very modest request from the project sponsor. i do not know if i can get a second for my motion. if we can, that is fine. otherwise, i would probably move

to continue. we are absent two commissioners today. presumably, will have commissioner miguel back to consider this. on the absence of a second, i would move to continue this. i am making another motion to consider this item to whatever time when we think we would have at least six commissioners, which would be a week or two. >> the next open commission hearing is february 13. 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: i am prepared to let that motion take its course. president fong: sorry. >> on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. -- no. comissiomer sugaya:aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passed 4-1, with commissioner moore voting against. commissioners, you are now on item number 20, 8 through be. -- a through b. the zoning administrator with your requests for variances. >> diego sanchez. this is discretionary review for building permit 2,010.08 0.2

0.9282 for an expansion at the rear of an existing single- family dwelling. -- 2020.08.02.9282. the proposed debt and still require eight rear yard variance -- their rear yard variance. the combined visible floor area of 200066 square feet requires an additional of street parking space. the proposal only requires one additional space. some in the department believes that the proposal fails to

minimize adverse impacts on light and air and privacy for the adjacent property. the residential design guidelines recommend the setting back of the upper floors to properly articulate building mass. in addition, one of the purposes of the planning code is to provide adequate light, air, and crevices. -- privacy. we have seen this a combined total of five times. the result of the deliberations -- staff believes we could allow a reasonable rendition with overarching goals of respecting the prominent mid blocked open space pattern and preserving privacy, light, and air, as practiced throughout the city. specifically, the department proposes one of the following alternatives.

if i can get the -- the first would be a 5 foot 7 inch southwest corner on the second floor of the building. the second would-be a 10 foot 7 inch by 3 foot -- if i can get that. there we go. that would be a side set back on the west side of the building at the second floor only. the department believes the modifications maintain an adequate level of access to light and air and maintain privacy to the adjacent property while allowing for a reasonable rear extension to the subject property. the modifications respect the existing myung-bak open space pattern, yet allow the -- made block open space pattern, yet

allow the expansion. this concludes the presentation. i am available for further questions. thank you. president fong: rh--- d.r. requestor. in this case, it would be the applicant. so, project sponsor. >> hello. i am the project sponsor. i have been a resident in vernal heights -- bernal heights since 2000, and have owned this house since that time. i am an engineer who owns a small business of about four people. i plan on staying here and continuing my business and

contributing to the city. as part of the response to the planning department question, i have brought in a -- bonnie bridges, and architect who has been helping me develop the project. -- an architect who has been helping develop the project. >> hello, everybody. basically, sean has a house that sits at the corner of -- i am sorry. it is up at the corner of massasoit and franconia. i am going to show it.

you can see from this aerial photo that this particular part of the colonel heights -- bernal heights has a muriatic of streets and hills -- has a myri ad of streets and hills. in addition, this particular block, which will be able to see on this diagram -- which you will be able to see on this diagram, has both the west and east and open -- end open. by not having houses on those ends of the block, you have adequate opportunity for light and air to flow through. the proposed addition the applicant has for a little area on the west of the property would have no impact on the

light and air. in addition, in this parcel, you can see the applicant and the next-door neighbor -- the whole bloc faces south. the proposed addition would have no impact on either of these houses to get adequate light and daylight. the neighboring parcel, to the left on the screen, currently is used as a covered area service porch, two stories high. it has no windows looking out to it. it has one door that is solid. the neighbor has written a level of support for this project, saying they would prefer to have a solid ball all the way to the property line, to continue privacy to their service porch area.

in addition, the applicant lives in a small house with elderly parents and visitors from vietnam, which is the heritage of sean's partner, who come and stay for a length of time. they want the flexibility to turn that corner back into a bedroom. if we have to do the proposed notches, it would prohibit the ability to turn that corner of the house back into a bedroom. i believe you have received all of these letters in advance, but i could to kill lee want to point out the neighbor -- but i want to particularly point out

the neighbor. he does not consider it to have any negative effect on his property. i am done. >> the staff get a rebuttal on this? president fong: is their public comment on this item? -- there public comment on this item? please, sir. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is terry mill. i am a member of the east slope design review board. you have a letter in your packet from us. we had two meetings with the project sponsor. looking at a little variation of his design, nobody showed up at

either of those meetings to express any dismay or disappointment about this design. in one of our in one of our letters, we mentioned that the notch that was at the neighbor's house directly adjacent has no windows. this fill-in piece would not have any effect on privacy, air, anything like that. despite the fact that it was a little addition to the house that might not be permitted by the planning staff, we thought it was ok, that it fit in with the character and context of our neighborhood. we also thought that it, because of the structural considerations, the variants for not having a second parking space, because the houses on those blocks are