. >> and if the data which is constant, so telephones obviously come and go depending on your calls, but the data that tends to be streaming like someone watching net flix while waiting for a bus it's extensive and broad. >> commissioners, if i

may interrupt if there are three interstate items and we can call on them all. it would be great to acknowledge that in the motion. >> commissioner moore. >> we will see if the public has any other items. >> we are calling them together. >> so the motion includes nine, 10, and 11. >> second. >> great. thank you. >> on that motion to approve items nine, 10 and 11 commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes commissioners unanimously five to zero. >> next item. >> commissioners that places

you on item 12 at 2121 19th avenue. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am mitchiel planning staff and this is located at 2121 19th avenue and between quintara and rivera street. it's a request for conditional use permit. through at&t this facility is the regular cellular antenna facility that we see most often and antennas on the roof top and equipment within ground floor area and location preference seven site because it's residential two and the height limit is 40 feets. just a few things to add in 1997 sprint was approved for a project at the site which they were approved for antennas on a very similar

office building just south to the site but the equipment wasn't installed so that expired on this particular building. there is a micro site on that building that will be removed and staff received a petition with 154 signatures opposed to the project and a couple phone calls and i am available for questions. >> any public comment on this item? calling one more time. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none the comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> the reason it was point the out was the type of zoning there and there are no tall

buildings. however this is the top of the hill and make it a desirable site and you have geographical limits if it's up the a higher installation and i move. >> second. >> on that motion. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. that passes unanimously four to zero. that places you on item 13 at 1515 sloat boulevard. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners want i amric crawford from department staff and this is to legalize a retail restaurant sushi avenue located in the luckies shopping center within lake shore plaza sud

districts. the 120 square foot stand is located near the northern door of the store and replaces a starbucks. they began operations prior to filing the application for conditional use. the project sponsor was unaware of the requirement that they needed it when replacing another for another classification. they did not intent to circumvent the process and a stand alone building and doesn't require the permit. the project is considered a limited restaurant because of the sum of the floor area of the super market autopsied by take out food uses including a deli counter and chinese food restaurant exceeds the amount under accessory use. the department recommends approval of the project with conditions and replaces a retear limited

restaurant. would not replace existing retail tenant providing goods and services to the nairvegd and limited restaurants in the district and advances the policy of the general plan. i am happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya. >> move to approve. >> second. >> with conditions. >> commissioners on that motion to approve with conditions. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> and commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously five to zero and places you have item 14 at 1265-1267 bay street request for

discretionary review. this is approved discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am david lindsey of department staff. this is a request for discretionary review of a project that proposed to add a third dwelling unit and a horizontal addition at the building located at 1265-1267 bay street in the marina district . the subject property was is located midblock between go and frank street street and across from ft. mason and anchored by four story apartment buildings and a mix in between. the building immediately to the west is a three story building which extends deep into the lot. the building to the east is a condominium building which is 4 feet shorter in-depth than

the existing subject building. the horizontal addition consists a three story component and a two story component. the three component extends beyond the subject buildings and setback 3 feet, 6 inches from the west property line and approximately 5 feet from the east property line. the two story component which includes a covered deck at the second story and open deck above extends approximately 11 feet beyond the three story component and is setback 5 feet from each side property line. the project also includes the partial infill of a light well along the east property line to allow for the installation of elevator and partial of the adjacent property but the project maintains the light

well adjacent to the light well. the requester is buena shaw who represents the two owners of the condominium at the subject property 1265-1267 bay street. the concerns are the following. negative impacts on the midblock open space including shadowing and massing, negative impacts to the residents of 1265-1267 bay street including privacy, light and ventilation. concerns regarding the accuracy of the plans submitted with the subject application. in response to the dr requesters concern regarding the plan's accuracy the department planner for the case christine lamorena visited the site and found a minor discrepancy and 6-inch reduction in the three story component. the project was reviewed by the

planning commission design team and found the massing to be appropriately scaled with the setbacks and transition of depth from the deeper building from the west and the shallower building to the west. the residential design team noted that the two story of the project and inhabitant space and open deck above wouldn't affect the light at the rear of their building. it is the department's position that the project complies with the planning code and with the guidelines. the project doesn't create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends that the commission approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. the dr requester. you have five minutes.

>> i have to turn on the computer. it was off. [inaudible] thank you commissioners. my name is jeremy paul. i am here on behalf of the owners at the adjaisessent property at 1269 and 1271 bay street. i want to get what what the critical

concerns are and that is the midblock open space. we can go to the overhead. show you some pictures. you see the blue arrow indicates the subject property. the property to its west projects significantly into the midblock open space as does the adjacent property, or the property on the adjacent street. you see the intrusion into the mid-block open space. this is a pretty significant protrusion into it. the residents of 1269-1271 understand this view that see from their deck is going to change significantly from this project and a project will be built and they are accepting of that, but the question is how far into the

open space does this project need to go to achieve its programmatic goals? . you see the adjacent structure to the rear of the property line, and this view from this deck we expect will be closed off with any measurement of projection. you see a varied mid-block open space here. this is the view out the backyard. following -- but you can see how broke out that space is. this is adjacent to the area north waterfront park lands of ft. mason and chrissy field. these trees and green area are critical habitat which should be retrained if

possible. i believe this project can expand while still protecting this space for both the wildlife and the resident was area. the resident guidelines show a block and mid-block open space pattern, the lower plate. however, the subject block is considerably more impacted than this irregular midblock shown here and this intrusion on the diagram and expanding about 24 feet creates an exceptional projection into the border of the midblock open space. there is a grouping of homes there that retain one corner of the mid-block open space, and this program can be achieved without

all 24 feet being built. again from the rear of the project sponsor's property facing back you can see that the project sponsor is demonstrated this really isn't an issue about shading or shadowing, but what it is about loss of open space. the project sponsor has said that they have given a concession to the dr requester by changing their 3 feet setback to 5 feet setback. preferly the project sponsor prefer there is zero setback from the rear of the mass forward. the widening it from 3-foot to 5-foot allows windows to go in, and that's fine if that's what this

property owner wants to do. the question is can this generous floor plan be achieved with a building that is 10 feet shorter? and i believe if you look at these plans and the size of the rooms proposed you can see they will be able to achieve this additional dwelling unit and still maintain the open space that this mid-block really need needs to a hailty environment for the wildlife and the city as a whole. thank you very much. you will hear from res didn'ts of the building explaining their experience there is. >> thank you. >> speakers in favor of the dr. i don't know if we have any cards. >> hi. my name is rich niece. i am co-owner of the property adjacent to the project in

question here today. i am here to voice my concerns over the project. i lived and worked in san francisco for over 20 years and i love it, and some of the reasons i love it is the fact it has open space and it has great neighborhoods and for me a great neighborhood is about the quality of life it provides to the people that live and work in that neighborhood, and i do believe that the people in the neighborhood are also responsible for maintaining that quality of life, and that is really important when it comes to your neighbors because when you interact with your neighbor you have the ability to have a large positive or negative impact on that person's quality of life. living next to a rental place like this is tough and the ternover and with the owner out of town is takes time to resolve issues. we are still resolving issues with homeless people on the stairs of the property, but when i heard

about the improvements of the property i was excited and improve the quality of the neighborhood. i thought there would be opportunity to talk through our concerns and find a joint solution and our neighbor to get to their goals and us to main ain our quality of life and unfortunately that hasn't happened and all i'm asking today is i come to ask to you find a solution that is bcialg to both parties and maintains the quality of life in the neighborhood. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. any additional speakers in favor of the dr? >> hi. my name is dena shaw. i am one of the owners of the

building. i lived in the city for over 20 years, and i love it here. i love the open spaces that the city provides, and i work in the arts, and nonprofit organizations. i run a business from my home. i'm a event planner and the nonprofit organizations that i serve such as the san francisco maritime association, california trout, hunter's point family and so on, so i am very passionate about the work and the local nonprofit community in san francisco. i love living here and serving san francisco. and i came to live here from london over 20 years ago i was just so excited about the uniqueness of san francisco, and how we are able to enjoy a city life as well as have great

garden spaces attached to our homes. you don't get that in most big cities, so i would like you to all really consider modifications that will help enhance our lives and our neighbor's lives. thank you for your time and your support. >> thank you. >> any additional speakers in favor of the dr? >> good afternoon. i'm a little out of breath. i just got out of the hospital to be here. i am jas lynn lynnin. i am the co-owner of a home adjacent to the project in question that we're are here to dus today. i am a director of the lung transport program at ucsf medical center. i trained at harvard medical school. i came

to san francisco nine years ago to -- and choose to stay in this city if you not only the job and the career and the opportunity its presented, but one of the most appealing things about my job was the city itself, and i've really truly enjoyed my experience here. i work very hard and very long hours as a transplant surgeon and under this program we have made ucsf1 of the top places. as you can imagine as a surgeon my phone and pager are on 24/7 but this schedule whatever time i have for myself or my husband we really truly consider that as a very precious time, and in this

limited time when we are outside the hospital we like our neighbors like to spend time in our garden. we love to listen to the birds chip and i didn't know was possible in an urban environment and loved the sun and having living in boston and high rises i don't know that was possible in a equally cosmopolitan city like san francisco so this was one of the first things that really truly impressed me about our home, and i don't know this experience was possible like i said and san francisco is truly unique to afford that luxury for us. this past summer i was heavily recruited by harvard medical school to return there to be the director of the program but i chose to stay in san francisco

and this was truly because of this unique combination of the science, arts and the culture and the urban green space which is essentially non existent in the city where i was being recruited to, and this combination is really uniquely priceless, and i hope you preserve it at all costs. the project we have here in dispute today -- i'm not objecting to the project. what i am objecting to is the scope of the project, and i think this will significantly impact our quality of life. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please in support of the dr. >> good afternoon. my name is [inaudible]. i am one of the co-owners of the house adjacent to the project in question and i am here to voice my concerns.

when i came to san francisco nine years ago to pursue my career as a researcher and physician at [inaudible] i was driven by the desire to live in one of the most progressive cities in the country. i think san francisco stands for innovation progress, all things smart, smartphones, smart car, so what about smart living? and i think san francisco should be all about new ideas, about efficient use of space, about urbanization, and about architecture, how to combine that with preservations and making sure that the character of the city will remain with all the green spaces -- open spaces because this is very unique. this is very precious to san francisco and sets us apart from any other city in the country and this is likely the reason

we live here in san francisco because we love it. along the same lines what about i living? and if there is a city that should promote smart, efficient i-living this would be san francisco. now i'm not an architect. i'm not a city planner but i think you will agree with me when you look at the plans this is not smart architecture. this is not smart development of buildings. this is simply just a big box with no considerations to the life we live in san francisco; the life we want to live in san francisco. now, to be very clear we happy that house next door is going to be remodeled finally. we support that. however, i think what is important that we feel that the owner would be able to

accomplish all his goals with less impact on our lives and on our property. we love the house. we love the property. we love the area. it is something very special. please let's not kill it. please give some chance to smart urban i-living in san francisco. thank you very much for your time. >> all right. thank you. any additional speakers in favor of the dr? okay. project sponsor. you have five minutes. >> if we could vtd over head? good afternoon commissioners. i

am mark [inaudible] and the architect for the project. my clients are here this afternoon. they actually grew up in the subject property and their family has owned the property since 1924. it most recently did have tenants in the two existing flats, and the property has been in the family ownership, and the intent is to maintain it as a family owned property with the hope for some day for them and their children to return to live in the city. mr. cosgrove lives in st. louis and his sister lives in the vicinity but not the city. the dr requesters have talked about the love of the city and one thing to think about is the long-term owners want to maintain the property. it's in

need of updating structurally and they need to look to the future for themselves and make sure it's a viable entity. they're adding a unit to the ground floor and horizontal expansion to the rear and also adding a bedroom and bathroom to the existing flats and those units being really truly family size homes. you can see that the applicants are talking about the open space and one thing to keep in mind we're not talking about being in the heart of north beach or mission where there isn't much open space and this is opposite ft. mason and there is considerable open space on the other side of the street. the existing interior block does have a lot of variation in terms of the depth of the buildings. most notably the building right here goes into the rear open

space and looking at the ground study this is proposed change with the new addition and this is the existing, so it gets to be very hard to see what that impact in terms of the open block is. the other issue that kind of came up that we heard a lot about was views and the occupants of the building next door, the dr applicants at the two meetings that were held they came to both of those. their objection they weren't have the view into the subject property's rear yard and primarily they're talking about view and that is not something covered in the planning code. we have tried however to be sympathetic and scaled the proposed addition and setting it back from the side property. we were initially three and a half feet from the property line and we increased that to slightly over 5