before i take roll, let me remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or any other electronic device that may sound off during the proceedings. roll call, commissioner moore,

commissioner sugaya, commissioner antonini, commissioner fong, commissioner wu, commissioner borden is expected. item one is case no. 270189d for 721 beach street proposed for continuance and you might want to consider changing this date but it's currently proposed for continuance to march 22, 2012. item 2 a and b, case no. 2011.0 304dv for 147 andover street proposed for a continuance to april 5, 2012. and that's it for your items proposed for continuance. >> do we have an alternate date for beach street? >> i would not put it on the 5 but i would put it on the 12. and commissioners, i hate to second guess myself, but because i have not talked about this

with staff so they haven't notified the project sponsor, you might need to continue it to this date and on the 22nd, continue it to a further date out. and for the record, commissioner borden is here. ok, so those items are before you. i don't have any speaker cards to speak to the proposed continuances. president fong: any public comment? >> if you can speak directly? president fong: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: move to continue items 1, 2 a and 2b to the dates proposed. >> second. >> i think there might be public comment. >> i didn't know i needed to make out a card. president fong: would you like to speak to one of the items on the continuance? >> and you're speaking only to the proposed continuance, not to the merits of the case? >> yes.

>> my name is robert coolie. i own a couple of rental houses across the street from 147 andover. my only reason for appearing, i don't understand the delay with this case. this thing's been going on for a year and a half. i don't -- i'm not addressing the merits, i'm not taking any sides to the actual case but i would ask that the commission hear this case and make a decision one way or the other. i fully expect that the losing party will go to the board of appeals, a further delay. in the meantime, the house looks terrible. the sidewalk is inaccessible for people in the neighborhood. they have to walk out in the street. two parking spaces are lost and the whole block doesn't look good at all. so i just would ask that the commission hear this case and

decide one way or the other. thank you. president fong: thank you. any other public comment? so there was a motion and a second? >> mr. president and commissioners, if i may respond to mr. coolie, the speaker, on the continuance of 147 andover. it was not the request of the project sponsor or staff. it was the request of the commission secretary because we had proposed joint hearing with rec. park and your calendar was going to be so unmanageable that we, that i, took the prerogative to continue cases on your would do accommodate that joint hearing. in this case, it was not the project sponsor nor was it staff that proposed this continuance. president fong: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: secretary avery, it would appear there were no other dates? before the fifth was the

earliest? secretary: no, yes. the motion on the floor is to continue items 1, 2a and b to the dates proposed on the calendar on that motion. [roll call vote was taken] secretary: thank you, commissioners, those items are continued as they have been proposed. commissioners, you are now on -- i have 30 seconds. you are on your consent calendar. the item 3 makes up the consent calendar. this week it's considered to be routine and would be acted upon by a single roll call vote of this commissioner. there would be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff would so request and in that event, the matter would be removed from the consent and considered at a future hearing. we're talking about tase

2011.1283c for 4028 24th street, a case to allow a small self-service restaurant within the 24th street noe valley neighborhood commercial district and a 40-x height and bulk district. following any public comment which would remove this item from the consent calendar, this item is before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment on item no. 3? seeing none, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. secretary: commissioners, on the motion for approval of 4028 24th street, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden? commissioner miguel, commissioner moore, commissioner wu, commissioner fong]

roll call vote was taken] secretary: the item was approved as proposed. you are on your regular calendar beginning with item no. 4. consideration of adoption of draft minutes from the regular meeting of january 26, february 2, february 9 and february 16. i have no speaker cards but following any public comment on these items, any modifications and/or corrections you may have, these matters are before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment? seeing none, commission miguel? commissioner miguel: i move adoption of the draft minutes of january 26, february 2, 9 and 16th. >> second. secretary: thank you, commissioners. on the motion for approval of the draft minutes of january 26, february 2, 9 and 16 -- [roll call vote was taken]

[motion was passed unanimously] secretary: draft minutes have been approved. you're on item no. 5, an informational presentation on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study, en trip. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm john sway, staffed with the department's plan implementation group and i'm going to be joined shortly by timothy papdrao to provide a short update on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study work going on. the area plans adopted by the commission in 2008 identified further transportation planning work to support land use change and create complete neighborhoods. shortly after the plan adoption, a team of city agencies including the planning department, san francisco municipal transportation agency and san francisco county

transportation authority obtained grant funding to conduct this further work. this project, no one as en trips, has been carried out by the city team, consultants and in collaboration with community stakeholders. the study's final report was released recently and is now available on the planning department's website and timothy pappendrao is on schedule to give the presentation and i spoke to him earlier so i know he's planning to attend and i apologize that he's not here at this time. secretary: thank you. commissioners, we will come back to item no. 5. in the interim, we'll consider item no. 6, case no. -- >> is that right? secretary: i'm sorry? item no. 6, case no. 2012.0068d

for 55 jordan avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm david lindsey, department staff. case 2012.0068d is a request for discretionary review of a project at 55 jordan avenue. the subject lot is 30 feet wide and 120 feet deep in a neighborhood of similarly sized lots. the buildings on the jordan avenue frontage of the block are almost all large, single family houses while the buildings on palm avenue, on the palm avenue frontage of the block are a mix of single family houses, two-unit buildings and small apartment buildings. the two-story over raised basement single family subject house currently features a one story over raised basement extension that extends almost 30 feet from the building's main rear wall and occupies approximately half the lot width. the project would remove the

rear most 20 feet of the extension's first floor and replace it with a deck approximately 6'6" above the rear yard. the project also includes an approximately 10-foot, one story over a raised basement extension from the building's main rear wall with a deck proposed above this at the second story. the d.r. requester is gregory leon, son of the owner of 50 palm avenue, a three-story, five-unit apartment building located immediately to the rear of the subject property. the d.r. requieter's certain is the effect of the project's second story deck on privacy in three of the apartment building's unit. the new deck would be 45 feet away from the rear property line and the apartment building's rear wall is 15 feet away from its rear property line so a total of 60 feet between the two buildings. the residential design team reviewed the project and

concluded that the project appropriately reduces the building's existing massing at the rear. the rdt found the project would not adversely affect the d.r. requester's rear yard in terms of privacy. the recommendation that the project be approved as proposed. president fong: g.r. requester, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm greg leon, the landlord's son and i'm a concerned individual and i also have tenants up in arms and concerned about their privacy into their bedrooms, more specifically, from 55 jordan's second floor deck. i called the architect, yakov askew and he made it clear he didn't want to talk to me about the project and made it clear that he didn't want to put me in touch with his clients. when the plans were originally

submitted, there was a large tree on the property abutting the property line. that was blown down in a recent windstorm. it screened both our properties. a few photos. first photo is a vantage point from the third floor bedroom. second photo is from the first floor bedroom. and this last photo is from the ground floor bedroom. bedrooms on the second floor, first floor and ground floor will lose their privacy to this deck as well as a rear yard. we have a postage size yard 12 feet deep roughly and planting a

tall tree to screen first and second floors is not feasible. i am simply suggesting that the proposed three to four-foot solid handrail be added, tempered opaque glass screen above it a total of seven feet so they maintain their privacy and our tenants maintain theirs. thank you. president fong: are there any speakers in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm yako askew, architect representing our client, taylor walker, jane timberlake and their three children hoping to relocate to this residence. i'd like to thank you guys for agreeing to hear this tonight as i know you are trying to continue most of these items.

i'd like to turn your attention to the first couple of pages in the booklet we've prepared for you. we have letters of support from both adjacent neighbors. we worked with both of them and met with both of them at several meetings to talk about concerns with privacy because we are proposing to do a deck on the -- above the first floor, which is -- goes beyond most adjacent properties so we wanted to make sure any privacy issues were being mitigated with the neighbors. they're both supportive of our proposals and we've included those letters in there. i think -- how do i get this to turn on? >> it's on. >> i think this speaks volumes to what the -- what the lack of

concern, i believe, is, for the merits of this d.r. requester. the deck we are proposing, as mr. lindsey pointed out, is 45 feet from the rear property line. our proposal is to reduce the overall mass of our building. the d.r. requester's building is the largest building on the block. it's the largest building within the immediate context and has a rear yard of only 15 feet. if there's a building providing privacy concerns, i think it's that building at 50 palm, not at 55 jordan. this is a photograph from the rear yard of 55 jordan with the invasive privacy that my client has to live with. but just to address it numerically, as well, this is the existing elevation of the building where we're actually

showing about 115 square feet of window openings on the floor that the d.r. requester is concerned with, and on the following page, we're actually showing that with the new guardrail we're proposing, up to 42 inches, we're reducing the amount of glazing that is visible from 50 palm to our building at 55 jordan. and i'm available for any questions if you have any. thanks very much. president fong: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is taylor walker. my wife and i own the property at 55 jordan that we are trying to remodel. i just wanted to amplify what our architect said. we've worked very hard with the neighbors to ensure that the massing in scale of what we are trying to do in our rear yard is

appropriate and neighbor-friendly. quite contrary to what the d.r. requester said, he called us with an ultimatum the day before he was going out of town for two weeks and said that if we didn't agree to raise the wall from approximately four feet up to nine feet, he would file a petition. so there was no effort on his part to make any sort of outreach to us. we, in effect, were threatened with this process. we believe, if you take a look at the notes, that we are reducing the glazing and also the footprint of the house and we hope to live in this house for many years and to be good neighbors to all around us. thank you very much. president fong: d.r. requester, is there any other public comment in favor of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requester, you

have rebuttal of two minutes. >> this was no threat that was made to this gentleman. i was going out of town and i suggested that we talk and the architect did not put me in touch with them so i said i would file a petition and there i did. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? you have a rebuttal opportunity. hearing is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i find the proposed alteration completely within means that is modest and does not raise even a discussion in the scope. i think it is, what do we say,