slightly wider sphere -- stair. some of the common features of the building, which includes closing two skylights, are being suggested. we are not discussing that. it is properly and architectural discussion. but i do not believe that adding 47 square feet in what i consider to be a violation or misinterpretation of the early variance is something i want to consider. i cannot support this. i am asking that we take dr and deny this project. commissioner antonini: i have a question for ms. kirk, please. -- ms. kerr, please. we spoke earlier today and you had some concerns about parcel months. i assume those are the averaging you were talking about earlier.

are there other concerns? >> i think providing the parcel mapping shows there are two parcels next to each other and that one was skipped over for the purposes of rear yard average and. that was an issue we have brought up. i do not know if that has been resolved. commissioner antonini: i will ask stuff a question. my other question is that i am looking at this wording by the za in 82. he says the rear deck has that effect of providing a separation. there are no conditions, but it is a finding. >> correct, but in the sense that there is a requirement that the building be built according to the plans that were presented at that time. when wilson, as he mentions in his declaration, building to those plans, did require that

to be provided. it was a finding that the deck space needed to be provided for the open space. commissioner antonini: the proposed some room is taking up all or part of the deck? >> it appears it is taking up a portion of the deck. commissioner antonini: it is not the entire deck? thank you. >> i have one other item to bring up regarding the interpretation of the rear yard average and. here is an interpretation dated 3/87, which states that excess rebuilding is cannot be considered as one lot. only if they are merged and placed on the property records. there has been no margin of these separate lots for purposes of rear yard averaging. commissioner antonini: i would ask staff to look into that, whether or not these parcel maps are correctly being reinterpret

-- are correctly interpreted. if we cannot get that decision today, we may have to continue. >> why don't i jump up and put this on the overhead so you guys can see the actual image? commissioner antonini: sure. >> this, 6465, is the subject lot. this is the subject lot. basically, what occurred is that they are condominiums. the parcel -- the land has not been divided. it is two condominiums on one lot. the rear yard average and -- we

are using 42 and 40 and these parcels. does that make sense? that is one parcel and two condominiums on one parcel. commissioner antonini: is that your interpretation? i am not familiar with the averaging period if that is corrected in average, i will have to base it on what they did. >> mr. cochran and myself both worked extensively with scott chancellor's -- scott sanchez on these calculations. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner moore: i am good to get on a slippery slope, but i want to talk about condominium law. i have not seen the second owner as part of this discussion. in condominium law, your ownership goes from single line of property to single one of your property. however, all external spaces are part of the common area.

having said that, the change in one part of the building needs support by the association, in this case formed by two parties. aside from being members of the association, and they are the association, or they have a management company. there is another element missing from this discussion aside from the comment i made relative to altering the building itself. i feel there is something missing. i do not see the other party here to support are not support this change. commissioner sugaya: aren't condominiums subdivided usually? >> it is unfair right. it is not a ground subdivision. commissioner sugaya: i would like to make an observation that this may be 47 square feet, but it is fully 1/3 or more of the

usable? face. if there was an opinion -- of the usable deck space. if there was an opinion in 1982, which i am reading under the variance decision, he had concern about the amount of rear yard and open space that existed with regard to this particular development. even though he may not made it a condition, it is clear that he was concerned about it and made a comment about it on his findings -- finding four. that is why i seconded the motion commissioner moore just made. commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff. i guess you mentioned that the commissions would not have been brought to us under a pending dr

reform legislation. i assume the position you are taking to not support the dr is based on the fact that the addition takes up only 1/3 of the usable deck. it is being used as an offset. am i correct? >> every time there is a dr filed, we look at the residential design team. this sunroom did not adversely affect the mid blocked open space. it did not rise to the level of an exceptional or extraordinary use. commissioner antonini: this is one i am kind of torn on. i certainly see the arguments being made. if this were to pass, i would encourage the product sponsor to try to minimize the impact as much as possible. the only reason i might be supportive is that it is not

taking up the whole deck. if it were, i would certainly not be in support of it. commissioner sugaya: i think from my perspective, it is not the rear yard that is the issue. mr. passmore's examination when it came before him for a variance had to do with the relationship to the other buildings. i have not seen the area, but i did look at the stuff online. it is probably pretty jumble up as it is. i do not think that is the issue. the issue is the relationship to the other buildings, and the building across the way, and the fact that this deck is being reduced substantially in size. i would like to stay with the original variance request approved. i think the issues mr. passmore

dealt with them are still the issues before us today. commissioner moore: i believe this sets a precedent for the second unit, not the vertical air right, but the horizontal air right. i think that further compounds us to create variances on top of variances, when variances should be the last-ditch effort to make something work. this double building is an example of innovative in fill design. no variance on top of a variance. commissioner sugaya: i should have continued on. i have a question for staff. if this is in the rear yard already, the required rear yard, because the variance was

granted, why isn't this considered an intensification? >> the proposed sun room? is that what you mean? it is actually just short of the rear yard. it is not in the rear yard. so it does not require a variance. it is" compliant -- is code compliant. >> the issue on the floor is to take dr and does approve the project. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner fong: no. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: no. president olague: aye. >> the motion fails on a 3-4 vote.

commissioners, in the absence of a successful substitute motion, this project is approved as proposed. commissioners, you are now on item 12, 41653 grand avenue, also known as 501 greenwich street. >> good evening. before you is a discretionary review request regarding a proposed t-mobile telecommunications facility that would consist of an antenna shredded in sideway --inside a

faux vent pipe mounted on the rooftop of the subject building. it would be set back from the edge of the building. the equipment cabinets would be mounted to the wall of an existing penthouse on the northeast corner of the building. this is defined in individual letters of determination. the microwireless and cannot is considered an accessory used in a commercial district. it requires planning code modification. macro sites require conditional use authorizations in residential and commercial districts. during the 311 notification project -- a process, a ddr was

received from telegraph hill residents. they cited concerns regarding blockage of views. there are concerns regarding the upgrades to the site. during and after the notification, staff received phone calls and e-mails from neighbors in support and opposition of the wireless installation. petitions received by the department have been included in your material. yesterday, staff received a letter from the north beach neighborhood group. i have it here if anyone wants to see it. after considering the issues raised by the dr requestor, staff does not believe exceptional circumstances exist and recommend the commission does not take discretionary review and approve as proposed for the following reasons. the project sponsor has designed the facility for the site, to be

minimally of visible -- minimally visible. it meets the conditions to be a microsite. there are coverage gaps in the area. the excess reuse would fill these camps. this concludes the step presentation. i will be available for any questions. thank you for your time. president olague: thank you. dr requestor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have been a resident of north beach for 20 years. with sponsorship of thd, i fought for the dr, and i am here to speak on behalf of the dr applicants.

commissioners, you must see antenna proposals in north beach cumulatively. the cell phone companies are declaring open season on north beach. your stuff record fails to review and discuss these antennas selectively, and take into consideration other antennas within blocks of the proposed location, and hundreds of others already installed by various companies, all within a small, densely populated residential neighborhood. in order for this to be a meaningful hearing, the commission needs to consider the number and location of all cellular installations by t- mobile in the same area, and all of the ones planned for future installation. these things need to be looked at comprehensively. up until now, cell phone antennas were not raining on our neighborhood. now we are looking for your

help as they locate an unusually large number of antennas in a small radius. the planning department determination that these antennas are excess reuse that do not require a conditional use permit is based on an old 2006 zoning administrator's determination in a letter on behalf of t-mobile. no member received a copy of this letter, -- number of the public received a copy of this letter, and therefore it was not appealed in a timely manner. this is an abuse of the summit in venice traders determination. -- of the zoning administrator 's determination. these must be considered as a

single project. there are a rapidly increasing number of microsites that can no longer be seen as accessories. we respectfully request that you take discretionary review and require a conditional use authorization for all antenna's collectively. considering how many of these are being proposed for the city of san francisco, please take into account the cost in hours, the cost of lost wages, and miscellaneous costs to the public, the cost to the cell phone companies, and to the city government, as each of these antennas are going to be disputed and brought before you. one other point for the record -- this department has segmented or piecemeal the environmental review defining each site

individually as exempt, instead of doing environmental review of antennas cumulatively. ceqa also requires that the cumulative impact of all proposed and tennis sites and locations -- antenna sites and locations reviewed. this was not done. for these reasons, please take dr. president olague: thank you. mark bruno, christine brown, kathryn ismay. >> are we here for two minutes? president olague: 3 minutes. >> thank you for your time. i want to think commissioner miguel for speaking with me. my name is mark bruno. i have been in this neighborhood for over 25 years. communication and accessibility is the way you have made

yourself successful for us today. these are the new virtues of our high-tech society. so is connectivity. the question for policy makers is how much conductivity we need to increase our communication. communication and accessibility were always virtues. they are virtues in a democracy, virtus between friends. what we have here is the presumed need by corporations for as much connectivity as possible, without any consideration of the detrimental effect on the inhabitants of the neighborhood, because they want to be able to argue that their company is the best, offers the most and the biggest, is the most frequently located wherever you're going to go in the world. what is interesting to me as a 52 year-old is that a young man who is quick to testify on behalf of t-mobile told me

something i never knew. i asked how t-mobile is in our neighborhood, as far as conductivity. "it is really good, but always could be better." this is the mantra of people with sell funds and connectivity on their mind, including the cellphone proponents and makers of intense -- of antennas, and the building owners to profit. there is a lot of money in it for them as well. it always can be better. does that mean the city of san francisco should invite 25 antennas on each building? to me, that is cutter. to me, who lives 40 feet away from one of the proposed sites, it is cutter to have an unnecessary and come on that side. -- it is clutter to have an

unnecessary antenna on that site. no compelling case has been made for the need by t-mobile to have an antenna on the site, or any of the size proposed. they are doing it because they want to increase conductivity, because it always can be better. we all know it always can be better. but it is city government's job and will hear -- and role here to figure out, as was well articulated earlier today by commissioners miguel and moore, to come up with a policy for north beach. that is the prospect we are facing. please accept dr for these proposals. thank you. >> good evening, president olague and commissioners.

thank you for hearing us. my name is christine brown. i have lived in north beach for over 25 years. i am going to hit some of the points of th people have mentioned before. we all recognize the importance of communication and connectivity. growth is exponential. growth is great in this area, as commissioner antonini has noted. but this growth is not unpredictable. it is not something that cannot be scientifically mapped and planned for, as commissioner miguel has noted. we have over 1000 micro and tennis -- antennas in the city currently. we do not know how many hundreds are in the future. the planning commission can be forced to deal with each of

these one at a time, or a comprehensive plan approach can be adapted so that people will know where they are without a one-by-one or six-by-six examination of these towers. it is not as though three more towers are going to be enough connectivity. as mr. bruno pointed out, there is profit in putting up these towers, even if they do not add to the communication ease in any way. there is a separation between profit on these towers and the need for these towers. please do grant discretionary review, so that some kind of comprehensive plan can be adapted -- can be adopted for these towers. president olague: thank you.

>> i will be very brief. good evening. thank you for caring us all. my name is kathryn esmay. i have lived in north beach for 20 years at least. i am right across the street from where this tower will go. i will see it from my dining room and my bedroom. i am concerned about the way that will look. but i am more concerned about putting such a tower in such a high-density neighborhood. it is the highest residential density in san francisco, and i agree with the others that it is not clear that it is necessary. i am afraid that it is dangerous as well. i should also say that i travel frequently to sweden.

when my swedish friends and colleagues heard about this, the were pretty shocked. as a nation, the swedes would not have approved something like this in such a high density neighborhood. thank you. president olague: daniel marshall, julie acocks, kate wong, june wood. >> good evening. my name is daniel marshall. i am a resident in north beach for over 20 years. i have lived in the city for 35. we all know, whether our opinion is one way or another, that this is a band-aid solution to a

problem that needs a comprehensive plan that works for the residents and businesses of san francisco. please stop the current carpet bombing of the antennas in our city. this has got to stop. you guys have to make a stand and work with the supervisors to please stop this process. this is not a solution. one in town after another. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> by name is julie jacocks. i have lived on stockton. i have some information for each of the commissioners that pertains to some technical information about antennas such as cell phone antennas are not

needed for 911 calls in the city. they are able to go out no matter what the infrastructure is. i also wanted to show a map here of only t-mobile antennas in san francisco, as of 2009. these are only t-mobile. i do not know how many others there are in the city from other companies. what i wanted to read to you is about whether he should grant an excess reuse permit -- whether you should grant an accessory use permit. according to the guidelines adopted in 1996, supplemented by the planning commission in 2003, this type of the antenna would have to have a conditional use permit. but it has been changed to an accessory use permit. this location at 1653 grant is a

preference seven location. on page 7, it explains why this is a desirable location for an antenna of this type, this type of site. t-mobile is relying on the zoning administrator determinations from 1996 and engaging in an abuse of the accessory use process. there are commercial projects in a very dense residential neighborhood, as kathryn mentioned. as a t-mobile customer, i work directly across the street at 491 greenwich, the opposite corner. i have been a t-mobile customer for five years and never experienced gaps in service or dropped calls in that time, even in the back of our gallery. i would love it if you voted to

deny an accessory use permit for this site. thank you for listening. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. welcome, mr. fong. you are new to me. commissioner miguel, i was blown away by your remarks about the industry being confused and disorganized. i think they are also apprehensive. there are three applications before you, but one has been postponed and one has been withdrawn. commissioner moore, once again you have hit the nail on the head. we are way behind other countries in the way they handle cell phone technology.