more we're coming to a critical mass where i might have to before you negotiate with a work owner whether you can resolve your technical issues. it would be time to create a library of what works and what don't work. i think there will be an increase public voice about how they look at the cumulative aesthetics trying to shape the roofs in san francisco. i'm making that as a positive suggestion to start creating a library for yourself what works and what doesn't work and what's itself critical trigger for this commissions feedback >> is it doesn't look - can i address your comment? we've stent a lot of time with

the planning department and engineers and addition trying to come up with designs. every building in san francisco is unique. it requires something completely different so to say if the difficult were to tell you we want you to facade mount every one of your antennas or put evidentially in a penthouse we'd love to distribution but unfortunately you can't provided that to you to us so we work with the planning department way beyond the limitations in trying to find a solution. i think we brought a very scaled down version with a pipe that matches with the characteristics in this surrounding area. good i'm happy to bring back the original design in a couple of week and we can further the

conversation >> what ultimately the commission has to between the department and user there has to be a boarder conversation that is in tandem with the public east and we're at that pointing point so far as i'm concerned. >> it's time to take a step back. they're not stopping those maintains their coming at us every week and my concern is on a great old building that congressman's the facade of that. the golf street side you've got a deck up there and on the roof would be a better place. that might be impossible

>> commissioners there's a motion to continue this matter to october 3rdrd. on that motion (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 16. at 5 9z 7 monterey billboard question for authorization >> planning department. sprint takes approval to modify an existing facility. the project mass a mixed use the site is commercial and located on the intersection of forester street and it houses 3 antenna open the roof and instead plaza

larger antenna with three vent pipes. they'll rise 6 feet above the roof and it would remain in the back. staff supports the facility harassing as it meets the wireless guidelines and recommendations the approval of the land use authorization >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim maria miller here on behavior of sprint. thank you omar for working with us. and i don't have a presentation. he gave a good explanation for our application. and we're upgrading to 34 l g

service. i can answer any questions >> not at the moment. any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner - don't all jump in at once. moore >> move to approve. on that motion to move (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes unanimously and places you on item 7 at 725 street request for authorization >> at&t provision seeks to develop is making restraining order project. this project has a mixed use 3

story building along the commercial corridor between 17 and 18 avenues. is it will allow for electric equipment on the building. it is intended to screen the view and the box will be painted to match the penthouse. the remanding 3 antennas will be attached to the stairwell penthouse. the staff did revelers in opposition of health concerns the need of the fatality and the design of the facility. the staff supports this and recommends approval of the recommendation. thank you >> project sponsor.

>> good evening with at&t external affairs. i'm joined by my staff with k d u consulting. we're seeking your approval for a 9 antenna. once we get this site on air we'll decommission at 901 carr very well. it's a preference 5 building and at&t has conducted a theory analysis which is included in your packet. at&t attempted to go on the brick building that was the original lion which is not a historic building but we were not able to find a solution for that on 919 avenue. this is necessary to close a gap

in this area obviously 19th avenue is a very busy area. we ask for your support in this conditional use of the application today and i'm happy to answer questions >> opening this up for public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to speak in opposition to this item 17. i'd like to raise 3 points. number one the notice of the september 19th planning commission hearing on this project was posted on the subject property at the 725 carr

very well only 13 days prior to the hearing not the required 20 days. second point the san francisco fire code riders a 10 foot clearance from the roof access door at 725 korea very well but at&ts proposed equipment will be located within 10 feet of the door. and lastly our san francisco planning code on neighborhood commercial districts requires that a public use such as a wireless facility must be located within and enimposed

building >> any additional public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed >> if i could speak to the representative to speak to the points that are made by the speaker just now in regards to 3 things she said was the posting i'll have to check with staff. whether or not this has to be enencompassed >> i'd like to address the question of posting. we did require posting to be placed before the hearing. the hearing was proposed last month and the poster was pulled down. so we believe the applicant could see the new poster >> so the new poster was up.

>> yes. and continues from a prove hearing. >> and the second question i guess she was talking about the antenna by it has to be closed i'm not sure about that that. >> this is an issue i'll try to find the code i'll come back to that but public uses are allowed to believe outside of on enclosed believe for the planning code. >> seems to be what i permed because many of them are not enclosed and i think there was a third point. >> with respect to the fire code. >> yeah. and it's a road map, however, in other words, to

construct that facility at&t would be required to submit building plans and rereviewed by the san francisco fire department and department of health to make sure that met all the requirements. >> so the roof has to be fire rates or whatever would be the case. >> well, the fir rating would depend upon on the roof in terms of mortgaging and alarm systems. generally they have all the requirements based on what's in front of them >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i would move to approve. >> second. >> if there's nothing further commissioners on the motion to approve

(calling names) so moved commissioners that passes unanimously and placed you on item 18 for the next case at the 645 dunn can you think street and this is a full discretionary review. >> good afternoon. doug with staff. you have the discretionary view to construct a 5 thousand 8 hundred and four feet family dwelling on an unapproved lot. it will be set{not the garage. it's in the nova valley neighborhood and is surround by residential uses.

their zoned rh one and to the east rh two. the owner owns the property to the east and is concerned the building scale is too last year. he's also concerned the proposal doesn't meet the set back provisions of the planning code and that will project too far forward and leads to light impacts. the building lacks earth features a will enhance the neighborhoods character. the requester has suggested the remove of the top story and setbacks felt second and third store to mirror his home and creating additional landscape

areas and selecting more nature material and designing a smaller facade with a design preference. the opposition has received a total of 3 hundred and 36 signatures and 10 were written signatures. invasion the neuberger association has submitted a letter in opposition it's out of context with the neighborhood. they've received a letter from the neighbor on the west and has met with the owner and is in strong falsify. we recommend you approve the project because the scale is comparable with the surrounding buildings in a neighborhood that has a mixed visible character. the garage will providing

provide a setback and the second and third story as a 15 foot set back and the fourth floor has a 50 foot set back. this is adjacent to the requesters property. the first, he story wall is set back and there is recess glazing at the second and third stories. the articulate along the east and west evaluations and the court yard and a - this will result in a higher percentage than set back properties.

and finally, it will have balconies and vertical opening windows and guardrails and compliment the character of the neighborhood. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions >> requester you have 5 minutes. >> president fong and commissioners aim tracing i tracy and i'm representing the requester. please let me highlight two important points and i'll yield to the architect. first and foremost the project is in the guidelines with several reporters and most importantly it's out of scale

with the neighborhood which is prominently 2 and 3 stories. here's a map of the neighborhood. which we hopefully, will get on the screen here that's also in exhibit d but as you can see the project sponsor is the red in the middle and you can see there are no other 34 story homes in the neighborhood. now you maybe printed with other pictures or representations this map is accurate. the project sponsor as made no substantial modifications to the project in response to neighborhood concerns. he offered several last december and then moved the ball and

refused to honor his plan. we ask you look at this >> i give you the team architect. >> hi i'm an architect consultant and the proposed design on duncan street is in and out of scale and the project does not reflect the architectural plan. this particular neighborhood is defined by duncan street you can see that here in the image we have. the intersection has a sense of place by a nature hallow. this unique place is established

by 7 lots with 653 being the loan eyesore. at 625 duncan has been designed and it's pulled back 6 feet and it's been adjusted on the north and west. those adjustments were considered and similarly by working with the 1 hundred and 40 feet guidelines they're here to help us to captains their better qualities. although adjustments were that made those adjustments does not address the sense of place it will diminish character of the duncan neighborhood. i represent fully ask the commissioner to take discretionary review. thank you for your time

>> i'm bruce. the dr requester. the two big concerns i have with this project is the height and the number of levels which is unprecedent ed with our neighbor which is paramountly over a garage and then the proposed building which is a 5 level building. so we're going concerned about that it doesn't fit and would set a new precedent in the neighborhood. secondly our setbacks. my lot is zoned rh two it's a two unit building. my feeling is the bigger the structure the bigger the setbacks. there are 5 lots nearby that are

set almost to the rear of the lot. so the western part of the level steps back. and our real concern here is the proposed project is straight up at the block phase other than the 3 by 5 no such it's hard to notice. so those are the concerns we have. >> now calling in speakers in support of the dr i have several cards here. (calling names) >> if your name's been called

he can approach the podium. there are more there are quite a few if you want to line up on this side. whoever feels compelled to start >> i'll start first of all, i want to put thirty to rest this is not just bruce's complaint about this particular building. we had him file it but we belong to the duncan association and we're against it. base when we're saying we are against it we bought several years ago. this building would be fabulous

south of market it's very at all 5 feet tall. i would like you to - and i'm going to turn to those maps again for you to look at carefully at those moopz. there's noting none 5 stories at all. it's very narrow. i'm a real estate agent and being a daughter of an architect i think the design is ugly. since i do sell and do know what people like it's not always will square footage and design something. it is going to just i feel

really ruin the beautiful a. ambiance maybe he should go downtown or south of market a lovely neighborhood stroller nova valley. >> hi ladies and gentlemen, i'm mike miller i live four houses down from the subject property. this builder shows no interest in the neighborhood he has some kind of yoga thing on the top of his building but it it trying to maximum misses this space and he can only put up 0 at all wall.

it doesn't fit with the neighborhood and it's disappointing that a builder could come up with something like that. he wants to throw in whatever he can get i please review this property. thank you >> headline commissioners i'm diane. and i'm one of the co- directors of the new berg association. we're often get asked to help negotiate between neighbors and, you know, a house that's coming in for development. this is our first discretionary review. the firgsz first two we were able to negotiate but we weren't able to work with the developer

at all he was pretty much unbe available. you know, a lot of times we get bilaterals who hate developed but we have it constantly going on we're only against people trying to get as much as they can and not consider what's going on in the neighborhood. in this case, the developer is putting a lot of square footage in heel sell it and leave and we're stuck with this big building. and then the next lot and others around. we're just trying to contain in this case a 5 story building is so outrageous and to start with a 6 story and come down to 5 we're not dealing with someone 0 who is wanting to have this building fit in.

we looked at the plans with bruce but the whole neighborhood has been in support because those things are going to work w in the neighborhood. we don't want a fifth story to set precedence in the neighborhood. this doesn't set back and this is on a steep hillside but we want no fifth floor and the third and fourth floors to set back and step up the hill. we wish the planning department had done that ahead of time we want those changes made and we're fine with going ahead with this building. thank you very