supervisors and the commission can help you get there. if we deny the conditional use, you can appeal to the board of supervisors and you can all go and talk there. i don't think there's any problem here at all. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: and to the music-playing students who are going out this summer, good luck and at that age i went and did the same and it was amazing. secretary avery: commissioners t motion on the floor is to approve. that motion passes you unanimously. [cheering] .

secretary avery: okay, commissioners. we are still in session to item 10a and b. 10a is a mandatory discretionary review and 10b is the request for noncompliance structure variances. as you consider the mandatory d.r., the design administrator will hear the variance request.

>> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. the case is a discretionary review with planning code session 317 to allow the merger of two units into one. the proposal includes two lots located in the middle of a block bound by scott, pierce, push, and pine street with access to bush street by an easement. the project includes merging the two lots into one and a horizontal addition between the two structures and a 4 foot long by 6 foot wide at the rear of the building to the north and with the zoning administrator and the science of the proposed project is three of the five criteria and the project will

rehabilitate the defining features land not displace tenants or remove rent controlled housing. staff recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve as proposed. that concludes my presentation. thank you. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. i am represents the project sponsor. as aaron described to you, the project before you today proposes to merge two small single story mid block cottages that are currently locate on two separate lots in a block bounded by bush, pine, scott, and pierce streets. these are the only midblock lots in this block. tlot line adjustment application is currently pending. these cottages are unique that they are locate on undersized midblock lots that have no street frontage and are not visible from the public

right-of-way. they are accessible only through an easement with a single family property at 2454 bush street which grants access through a breezeway to the two properties behind it if small, flat front italian cottages are single story with wood siding and wood sash double hung windows at the front facade. the interior finishes are undeck ratted over lap and plaster walls and ceilings and the appliances are modest, older, and in need of reparis and upgrades. while the foundation of the northcottage was replaced in 2000, the foundation of the south one appears to be nothing more than wood skids. both show signs of differential settlement indicating they had inadequate foundation before the 2000 replacement of the northcottage. they both sit on small, nonconforming lots that are 1600 and 1100 square feet and with the cottages themselves providing less than 600 square

feet of living space each. they are set back slightly from a common side property line with a total separation of 3'3" and based on the findings in the h.r.e., the cottage appears to date back to the 1870's and have both been determined to be eligible for listing on the california register. therefore, they are considered to be historic resources. they are not, however, located in a historic district. the buildings appear to have been minimally altered from what appears to be the original configuration and maintain rustic siding, bracketed cornices and flat window and doorways. and development of the neighborhood as shown on the sanborn map indicates that the block was developed as single family dwellings and appear on the maps as part of a single lot with three single family dwellings fronting bush street and the subject properties behind. it was divided into the current

configuration since 1993. since that time they have been owned together. the zoning on the block is currently split between rh 2 and rh 3 and rh 3 and the lot fronting scott and pierce is rh 2. there are 12 single family dwellings, two family dwellings, four three-family dwellings and six apartment buildings on the block. the proposed project as described in the architectural plans submitted called for merging the two lots and connecting the cottages through a glass hyphen spanning the three-foot space. these are blank, tertiary facades and do not contribute to the defining structures. and this will be set back and diven shating it from the cottages themselves and leaving the two original volumes distinctive and separate. the cottages will be seismically upgraded and seismicry separate and will reconfigure the

interior floor plans of both buildings. it will remove the rear window, wall, doors and porch and replace with flat panel doors and new wood siding and a new deck. it will also remove the rear entry porch and windows and fill in the southwest corner of 2454 a. these proposed changes are limited to secondary and tertiary facades and do not include any changes to the primary facades that would damage or destroy any materials, features, or finishes that define the historic character of the cottages. rather, they seek to preserve the primary facades with repair and incline replacement only as needed. as such, it is in compliance with the secretary of the interior's standards, a categorical exemption has been issueed. the cottages are currently owned by the same individual and purchased from the former owner who also owned both buildings. at the time of the purchase t previous owner occupied one of the cottages and the other was vacant.

both were delivered vacant upon sale and the project sponsor and have been vacant since the purchase. both cottages are currently single-family dwellings and therefore the proposed merger of the lots and the dwellings will have no net effect on the status with respect to the rent control ordinance. in conclusion, while they are eligible for listing on the california register t proposed project would presooefsh the buildings as -- would preserve the buildings as historic resources and connect them in an appropriate manner with the between yor standards. >> thank you. >> may i finish the last paragraph? >> we know you are here and if you have questions. >> i'm available for questions if you have any. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, generally i don't like mergers, but this doesn't seem -- president olague: i don't either. commissioner sugaya: i am quite in favorover it. i have one issue given the small historic nature of buildings and

i understand the concern is about the primary facade and i would like staff to work with the project sponsor on diminishing the amount of glazing in the rear. i understand the desire for a lot of light and sunshine and whatnot, but i think to have the entire rear elevation turned into three sliding glass doors is a bit excessive and i think by reducing the amount of void and increase the amount of masting in the back would help be more in character with the historic nature. i will make the motion to approve with the condition that staff work with project sponsor on something more inline with french doors. >> second.

president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner sugaya for all the reasons stated. thing makes perfect sense and the cottages individually are less than 600 square feet and the separation is small. i would like to see the addition in the passageway or a connector between the two and perhaps cut down the amount of glazing a little and try to make it blend in a little bet we are the structures and certainly in terms of how much of it is window and how much isn't. but i am supportive and satisfied with most of the criteria and brings it into conformity with the neighborhood which is 50% single family. secretary avery: commissioners, on the motion for approval with the condition that project sponsor continue to work with staff on reducing the amount of

glazing in the rear and to produce something more like french doors in the rear, on that motion. [vote taken] thank you, commissioner. that motions passes unanimously. >> subject to standard conditions for the variance as well as the conditions offered by the vision today and clearly a lot that poses the hardship and clear difficulty and created a difficulty for us in figuring out where to put the poster even and with that we close the public hearing and the variance will be forth comeing. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now on item 11, 2010.0566d for 1500

grant avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners. before you today is the discretionary review request regarding the t-mobile microwireless telecommunications service facility consisting of a panel antenna shrouded inside a faux vent pipe structure and equipment cabinets at 36 feet and the diameter would be 10 inches approximately. the full vent pipe would be set back a minimum of 7 feet from the edge of the building and to the wall and the existing penthouse structure from the northeast corner of the building. the microwireless facility is defined for the individual letter carrier and letter of termination as issued by the zoning administrator. the micro wireless facility meets specifications defined in the letters of determination and the facility is considered in a

residential commercial use district from 311 or 312 modification. this has been included in the packet. neighborhood groups held meetings for the subject proposal and the concerns that were outlined in the d.r. including that t mobile not showing that there is an existiexist ing coverage gap and permitting this as an accessory use and the krps regarding upgrade to the site. staff received phone calls and

emails in support and in opposition. and written correspondence have been included in the materials. staff does not believe that extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist and ask that the commission does not take discretionary review and approve the project. project sponsor has provided coverage maps and the kovj in the project area and propose the use with the gap. the project sponsor has proposed the sitar to minneapolis-st. paul minimized and would be considered an accessory use of the micro wireless site from t-mobile. and this concludes the staff presentation and lib available for questions and comments. president olague: thank you. d.r. requester?

>> hi, commissioners. i have additional documentation which i would like to distribute. i have this documentation and filled out the d.r. which includes 300 signatures from residents and concerned neighbors in support of this d.r. request, many of whom confessed to having previously signed a project requester's petition under false pretense and not completely understanding the issue at hand. i live right across from the proposed antenna location. here is the view of the proposed antenna location from the building across the street about 50 feet away.

if you could show this, please. and the photos are also included in the additional packet. ed the rooftop view before and the mock-up was installed and i would like to please note that the stairwell where the equipment build is to be installed is the stairwell right there and this photo is from across the street and the same level from the antenna is from my window on the second floor. when the mock-up installation was added. here is a photo from the same location about half a block down on union where you can see the mock-up antenna and can also clearly see the stairwell where

the antenna belt will be. and here is what we have receive ed showing where the antenna belt is going to be and even the planning map doesn't quite show the mock-up and that is quite significantly larger than the antenna. this is not exactly incon spikous. this is a prominent building in the popular corner of north beach where san francisco's well known icon the hoyt tower is seen right next or directly behind it. please note that the project spot is a residential building with a ground floor retail space and making the proposal site less desirable to begin with. the planning commission hearing on february 17 in response to our d.r. request for proposed t-mobile cell antenna at 1663

grant avenue, at that hearing the commissioners requested a letter to the board of supervisors requesting a comprehensive city plan and how to handle the increasing number of cell phone antenna proposals. among the long list of reasons for this request was concern for the amount of time wasted by the public departments on hearings and the consideration of the antennas one at a time. yet here we are again having to go over the same argument. the planning department rejected the d.r. request for 1663 grant avenue which means another t-mobile antenna is being installed only two blocks away from this antenna. commissioners, is there enough justification for this additional antenna in such a close proximity to the one just approved? and in close proximity to

numerous t-mobile and within a two-block radius. please review this documentation prepared based on the information providing by the planning department showing 44 antenna sites within one-mile radius of the proposed location for t-mobile alone. with 121 existing antennas and an existing 128 proposed antennas. and please also note according to the t-mobile online coverage gap, there is extensive coverage for voice and data in this area. where is the hard data providing that this antenna is necessary and desirable at this point? during the board of supervisors ceqa hearing at 1663 grant avenue, supervisor david chiu directed the planning department with a request that they require microcell sites to meet the same

permitting review as macro cell siteses as they did before 2006. [bell ringing] president olague: thank you. i have only one -- we're going to limit public comment to two minutes. is there any public comment in support of the d.r. requester at this time? secretary avery: state your name for the record. >> i am a 14-year resident of north beach, julie long, and i live at grant avenue and also at the d.r. hearing in february. this is the latest list by at&t even though we are dealing with t-mobile about 55 new antennas they are going to install and this is in "the chronicle "of may 1 to increase network

coverage and capacity. what it feels like here is that the cell companies are choosing how many antennas they want to install and it is not up to the city. and they suggest what they want and that is what happens. this is an industrial commercial installation and people use the rooftops for entertainment or viewing the blue angels or fleet week or having barbeques in san francisco. it seems that the antenna companies feel that slapping a sign on the door to the roof that says you might be close to radiational levels is going to prevent people from being affected by these, but i don't believe that's the case. most fires are caused by cigarette butts and this

building will have a battery belt around the stairwell building as was pointed out. a lot of the batteries at least on two of them will be ignited from sparks and this is an issue with a commercial installation around people who do smoke and hang out on the roof and drink beer and smoke cigarettes. i think that is a problem. and right now i think it's significant to mention there is a permit for the 1663 grant antenna and this is only two black box away. [bell ringing] president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment in support of the d.r. requester? >> i am mark leach and i live in long beach and i am here and have a cell phone.

anybody who doesn't have a cell phone raise your hand? >> are you hear to speak for the d.r. requester? it was a d.r. request and we're hearing from the d.r. requester at this time. >> that is the person who is opposed to the project. >> no, i am on -- president olague: i wasn't of that impression. is there any additional public comment for speaker who is support the discretionary review requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. here to speak on behalf of t-mobile and i wanted to show you a quick photograph if we could. this is taken from above grant avenue a little bit and the mock-up of the antenna is here and i don't know if you can see it among the existing rooftop and it blends pretty well, i think. and it is only one antenna and

only 5 feet tall and a 10-inch full vent structure that is designed specifically to blend with this kind of environment and we think it does that pretty well. it is really a minimalistic design that is the smallest design that we can do. and there isn't much we can do and we have made efforts to try to hide it in the full vent environment that will go in well with that existing environment you see there. regarding the coverage map, i think you will note in the coverage map that was submitted there is a pretty significant gap that is illustrated in those maps especially along the grant avenue corridor and this facility even though it is pretty small will do a great deal of work to improve and fill in the gaps. we set out the find the least intrusive means of filling the gap and identified only a few in the neighborhood and a couple of other higher preference sites and identified why those didn't quite seem feasible

alternatives. i believe i have five minutes, correct? >> yes, you were only given two. >> thank you. >> ultimately we chose this building because none of the other buildings were found to be any less intrusive in this proposal. the minimalist design represents our best effort to improve the coverage issue that exist in the area and this will result in exposure levels that are less than 1% of the public levels. and the project will not result in anything that you can consider exceptional or extraordinary. and in fact t design is similar to literally hundreds of other micro cell designs that have been approved by the city over 12 years and including one that other people have mentioned up the street at grant avenue. the 600 petitions and letters of support speak to the neighborhood's desire to improve the quality of communication coverage that is available to

both residents, business owners, and visitors. we respectfully request q the planning commission not take the d.r. given the lack of exceptional extraordinary circumstances and just a follow-up, they will speak about a couple of legal ramifications here today. thanks. >> paul albert, outside council and will just take a moment. and first, i want to ground you and remind you this is a d.r. request and we are look at one specific building permit and you are looking as to whether there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that require you to take you through your utmost restraint and take discretionary review to the building permit and staff said no and weld concur that there aren't the impacts to the community that require you to take the extraordinary step of discretionary review. we wrote a legal letter and i won't go through the legal and federal impacts of the decision and we did cover areas as need and intrusive means and so forth, but i want to focus you that that is not the subject before you today. this is the building permit and

the discretionary review and you are not looking at the 303c findings that would be required. finally, you made the ceqa exemption on the last microcell that went on to the board of supervisors and they upheld that ceqa appeal meaning this site similar to it should be exempt under ceqa and there are no cumulative effects or master plan effects that should be considered on the cell by cell basis and the planning department reached out the industry in terms of how to work bet we are the city and in response to the board president chiu's request and t-mobile looks forward to doing that and encourage you to focus on the one building permit and not take discretionary review. thank you very much. >> speakers in support of the project sponsor. [call i [calling speakers]

is there any public comment in support of project sponsor? i called all those names and people should be coming up to the mike. we do have a 5:00 time certain item and we are trying to get through this item. and if you get up, start speaking, please. >> hi. i am a native san francisco resident and born and raised and actually born in north beach. i am a real estate professional and i think it's very important that you put up as many cell towers as needed and as possible and whatnot just due to the fact