visits with the commissions for certain days you may set a time and then - we have loud later hours on the weekend i can't think of specific for this area. >> so a proprietary discoveries that monday, tuesday, wednesday nights could you than choose to have those days short and take advantage of the other ones. >> i think that is up to the business operation if they are not having clientele coming in on a monday evening it is routine to close shop at 12 o'clock they know the pattern of their clientele and their operation but give them that flexibility. >> that's correct. >> so commissioners is there a motion and a second to approve that matter with conditions as amended to allow the hours of

operation commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> good luck to you. >> commissioners that places you under our discretionary review calendar at 981 a discretionary review grove street. >> good afternoon. i'm defied lindsey of planning staff that is a conveys case for a discretionary review to counteract a two story over garage single-family home the project includes a sub graded garage level and horizontal one story and work at the driveway and front stairs the 3 feet at

the rear of the first floor is within the property rear yard and the zoning administrator granted a variance to allow the condition on 2015 subject property is within the alamo historic district and the commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on august 6, 2014 neither the certificate of appropriateness was appealed it is on the ceda of grove street east and downhill of steiner street the house occupies a 20 foot widest by 27 dope lot by the ladies houses that are perpendicular to the subject lot the single request for discretionary review was filed

by two appellants concerns expressed for the discretionary review include the following potential loss of light and air by the vertical addition and the mid block open space for this privacy caused by new windows on the subject side of the prop the incapability of the flat roof that with the slope roof forms of the adjacent buildings and the excavation on the dr requesters property residential design team look at the concerns raised in the dr request and concluded the height of the massive is sensitive articulated with the offer 3 and a half set back from the west property set back that was noted that the addition is separated

from the rear yard within a 20 foot separation between the emission in a approximate 12 foot rear wall and a at the rear of steiner the adjacent properties to the west including the dr requesters house are uphill in the subject property and the shadow impacts will be minimal the rdt found due to the existing yard between the dr requesters and subject property that the project proposed west facing windows will not create a problem with the privacy of the interior spaces the residential design team said the project does meet the standards of residential guidelines and does not create an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances

it is the departments recommendation that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed that concludes my presentation. >> thank you dr requester i have five minutes. >> hi, i'm france can you tell me came intoer living on steiner on alamo square our concern is the lack of light i have the sun study for winter would basically taking our sunlight from 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning that maybe minimal to this person but it is not minimal to us there's here this is the

probably have this; right? >> this is the existing. >> ma'am that you could pull your microphone. >> this is the existing condition and 720 on the proposed one will have no sunlight even at 922 and this is june 21st 8 o'clock and 840 as proposed as now we both have some sunlight and the proposed one takes all the sunlight away if you look at this little this is my window here my kitchen window and the sunlight is just gone they take it now i do have a solution i figured out i could get up an hour or two later donate not a solution i like

and this here this is the window where this sunlight comes in can you see yeah. there - >> in addition they're digging down against my garden which is 10 or 12 feet i planted disaster trees that are thirty feet tall trying to reach the sunlight their trees and it goes up another 3 nature feet from the beginning that is really 8 foot up from the current ones we said if you kept the slant roof that's okay. but he went up straight and we do have a problem with that this is aaron and john. >> thank you for listening to

us and thank you, commissioners we're on steiner i'm going to try to be quick we have a substandard yard it is 17 feet and 9 inches from my home to the property line this is near at adjacent property and 137 nature from fran's property and that height is one quarter inch height directly in front of our house and the roofline is 8 feet 10 inches will essentially block out our light sunlight is minimal only during the morning it is minimal you only have a few hours i have sunlight in our main breakfast room it come into and heat our home so to lose

that is devastating, and, secondly the windows are offset in between the houses that doesn't account for the second-story and the approximate it of our hours are so close you can see in the windows the fact they're off set doesn't mean you'll not been able to look at my daughters room or and fran's is boxed in no light at all adjacent to the property losing a lot of sunlight by having the wall directly we asked for the is that possible for the planters or the architect will show you open the last page a design and naturally that is to design the slope through a better preference and -

>> 60 percent of the houses in the areas have sloped roofs it is consistent with the style the victorians in the area and basically, we appreciate the offers from the gentleman the monetary offers were linked to yielding 3 to 6 inches of the property and - can i finish that one statement 3 to 6 inches the proposed and not challenging him on anything we if feel that was adequate. >> ma'am, our time is up. >> thank you for your time. >> speakers. >> that's the 5 minutes for the dr team there's a two minute rebuttal you can speak. >> any speakers in support of dr requester. >> okay project sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jim west over this is we are or with the arithmetic this our clients how'd house on grove and the dr requesters adheres on steiner the vertical edition is set back address i'll notice in 9 i believe that the dr requesters housing hours are bigger than our clients house this is the existing plan our guys house is one of the smallest in the neighborhood we're excavating the basement and taking a portion of the existing attic and listing the pitched roof and flattening that out for two bedrooms and two bathrooms we're replacing the area in the basement but need to get 2 of

the 3 bedrooms on the upper floors that is the proposed site plan the new houses will be roughly the same height as the adjacent neighborhood the dr requesters hours are in green and the existing spaces is between the building there will be no effect the only intrusion of the mid block space is the non-conforming existing space in steiner our clients house is set back from the property line that side yard will be maintaining this set back in order to provide as much separation between the two buildings the next is the dr requesters view of our project existing houses is on top of and the proposed on the bottom and then the dark red lines shows the dr requesters window 1971 the for ground the green area the basement and the orange is

the first story and the yellow band is the attic and down who the 3 feet will 8 in question it is set back 15 feet from the front of the of the houses it is fairly a minimal edition that is a cross section and the dashed red line shows the original roofline and above the understated roof we're changing the height by 3 foot 3 and the side wall is 4 foot 5 and quarter the next section a cross section at 718 steiner 3 foot 8 and a half and flattening out the roof this is 8-by-10-foot and a half this is a lightwell for the basement and that will include a new remaining i

retaining wall and fence the dr requesters edition is 17 feet turn around our clients highway and there's plenty of separation for light and ventilation and light we found that other than a 90 that minute period in the morning no difference between the sunlight hitting the neighbors and during that it is limited to 3 windows on the first story this is the top an existing and at 837 the change is limited to the bottom 3 windows and thirty minutes 2 windows and 15 one window and by 1007 no difference and we ran this for the summer soltice it is pretty much the same things is occurs a half an hour later

and two then one by 934 no difference between existing and proposed the residential guidelines say quote in areas with a dense building pattern some reduction of light can be reduced unquote we have minimal and credential reduction for 90 minutes limited to 3 windows on the first story and again, that's just direct sunlight it is ambient and reflected light the dr requesters ask us to use a flat roof or a sloped roof the problem is gives ceiling heights that don't meet code that is a section through the walk-in closet shown in red number one, the rooms have legal ceiling height the next through the bedroom and bathroom this is not

a legal room and the manifest room if the clients walk outside the ceiling we feel this property design has been. >> sir, your time is up. >> planning and we request it that about approved that design. >> thank you very much arrest - speakers support of dr requester seeing none dr requesters two minute rebuttal union thank you i'd like to point out the morning hours that the 90 manipulates is our morning sun so that is what concerns us that's what we're losing we've lived in our house for 14 years and ann has raised her first name and lived there for 40 years we consider it to be valuable like the gentleman

considers his usable space on his new edition important we consider the sunlight material and it provides heat to our home morning light anything beyond 9 or 10 in the morning that is that direct sunlight it heats our floor our living space by suggestion to so there a sloped roof on the current design 0 that's not a compromise that is not how it will be made you'll have to be cleaver anything that will bring more light and ambient light explicit create warmth i appreciate your time i know you guys have had a long day. >> drerts a two minute rebuttal

i wanted to touch on the privacy concerned this is a view of the project with the dr requesters houses in the for ground our windows are blue as the dr requesters are red and yooel yellow all the windows at the basement are the lightwell are covered by the retaining walls they're not an issue all the first story window except for two are existing and the bottomed half are blocked by the if he has they'll have curtains that at least the 3 windows one of them in the master bathroom that will have obscured glasses and we don't have windows open that portion not a privacy issue i wanted to touch on the structural concerns that were mentioned this lightwell is and

retaining wall is not an unusual excavation it is engineered and reviewed by dbi and tdr they'll be a shoring engineer so we're using all the jerry best practices so we don't think that should be an issue. >> i think the other thing we wanted to touch on the neighbors mentioned a boxed in feeling i think - oh the planning code didn't deal that that but that deals with the set back and the lightwell we request this be approved as designed thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. the public hearing it closed opening up to commissioners commissioner moore

i believe isn't it so a skillful edition and lots of people watching over our shoulders none of the issues rise to me to a level of disagreement what is the residential design team is finding i want to emphasize the requesters regarding lights for the 4 weeks each hearing we'll have small business speaking about the same concerns whether theres an additional and in some cases we deal with 4 feet separation sometimes 6 photo sometimes 8 feet this one give us a feeling in a city there is indeed a shared feeling about the impact on light, however the architect has shown the

cumulative effect of light is minimal and credential an experience you have awhile you're in the room and that i could see if this is like a static pardon me conditions i need to tell us with you in experiencing this new change of light in the room as the planning commission can't take the consideration of light into judging about the dr we have found situations an additional was to criminally lacking in skill and sensitivity we asked the architects to go back and resdients this they were not separated and didn't pay attention to the windows how they line up and lightwells need to be matching or approximately

matching in our case are there's no tough conditions i need to support what is in front of us and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second not take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero oar commissioners that places you on item 16 >> commissioner president fong can we take about 2 minutes. >> we're going to take a two.

>> good evening and welcome back to the planning commission regular hamburger for march 19, 2015 commissioner we're on our last agendized items for d on auto street a mandatory discretionary review. >> thank you planning staff the item before you is a mandatory discretionary review for two permits for one twenty-four hour and the first building permit will involve the addition

antennas on the tower itself and radiation the location of the higher power actiony tower to be higher on the tower the second will permit ground floor the 6 foot retaining wall and other manufacture to reduce the water run off into the adjacent neighbors and 9 eucalyptus tries with other trees and driveway the addition of a 42 satellite dish near the basis of twenty-four hour no proposed changes to the overhead tower the building or lighting we held a meeting after novelist the residents within one thousand photo of tower and concerns

included arithmetic concerns with emissions and the private property outside the fence line the type of fresno trees being replaced and the notification process at the discretion of the hearing officer to the environmental impact report that was used for the last you want of the site addendum and prior to the last scheduled hearing community members were concerned about the site how it has evolved with the roosevelt contribution building and including the requests by

the fire department to have the tree 39 and removal or the addition of generators on concrete pads that were provided within other discretionary review and addiction direction the staff the conditions were routed in your packet the copy of tower conditions are available on the table to the left for the public and those conditions included those included by the family members and by the departmental staff and to be provided between 6 months of doctor powerful for this trees along the eastern property line with the puc on reservoir and other on the

innocence and the additional conditions is the screening conditions and full rooftop elements and keeping the driveways open and equipment and bull dose and insuring the hours of operation that has generated noise concerns the staff pbldz the standard tower conditions the conditions in the supplemental document a separate neighborhood documents to have the engagement are ones that are placing more positive trim line allowing a major broadcaster facility to serve the area and also be a better neighbor and therefore staff recommendations that the planning commission take dr and recommend approval

it thank you. >> okay opening it up for public comment did he did he workman. >> is there a project sponsor sorry. >> ms. workman opening up for project sponsor. >> good evening commissioner president fong i'm on behalf of the owner and operate of the tower the tower supports 2 hundred and 50 antenna the project includes the state reserve and erosion and improvements 15 of the antennas for san francisco broadband network and others questioned by

the city of management and to broadcast in foreign language broadcast including 2, 3, 4 spanish and several apologizing languages and antenna to insure accessibility for public broadcasting the antenna will not effect the safety of the tower all antennas are status quo state of the art and we have our colleague from the tower to address technical questions you may have with regards to the installation the tower commission is. >> frequency for the installation of those new antennas the study has been submitted to the public health department and evaluated for the projects even in the most

extraordinary condition when the antennas were turned on the emissions from the antenna will be less than 1/5th the allowable level established by the fcc b mr. bill is available here to answer my questions you may have with testing protocol or standards an environmental impact report in 2008, found no significant impacts associated with the operation of the tower and an amounted to the 2008 eir was issued december 19, 2014 and analyzed the impact of the current project this addendum similarly found no significant impact with the the erosion equipment and the tool of hd h is here to answer questions about the ground floor enforcement