d.r. requester to pull the d.r. or not. i wouldn't want to put the d.r. requester in that position today. it is up to the d.r. requester whether they want to continue to have the item calendared or pull it. that is up to him obviously. >> ok. commissioner borden: i skwrjustd of -- you know. president olague: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i am prepared to support the continuance but what i would suggest is we ask the two parties it spend time talking to each other so a d.r. might not be necessary. spend time talkin each other so a d.r. might not be necessary. spend time talkin each other so a d.r. might not be necessary.t spend time talki each other so a d.r. might not be necessary.o spend time talkio each other so a d.r. might not be necessary. i don't care at all for the windows over the garage but i'm not going to get into it. the other thing i would like to remind myself and perhaps all of us the reason we are here is really to look at cases and this falls way, way out of it and i think resolving this in the residential design team is inapprop

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

d.r. requester has several issues. first, the building is not combat believe with the surrounding buildings. second, light and air to adjacent properties is not provided with adequate set back. the building permit application plans are incomplete and four the project warrants extensive due process. to mitigate the issues the d.r. requester suggested to eliminate third story addition over the garage, improve the seconds story addition by increasing ceiling height and eliminating the setback requirement or provide a 6 1/2-foot setback over the garage articulate the third story and lower the third story addition by four feet. they also suggest eliminating the window looking directly into their master bedroom and any construction into the east side setback and eliminate any encoach. s on the neighboring property to the east. as stated this has been reviewed several times by the residential design team and there was strong consensus the proposed alterations have been found to be compatible with the scale and development of

d.r. requester. secretary avery: the motion is to not take d.r. and continue with the encouragement that the project sponsor should continue dialogue on softening some of the issues that have been raised. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> i am just returning and i

an addition three requests of d.r.'s were filed. one of those requests were withdrawn after revisions to the proposals were made. there remains two publicly filed d.r.'s. one by the northern to the south and one by 20th street which their rear yard abuts the rear yard of this prompt. the to pop gi is such that the d.er is to the south than that of the subject building. and the subject building is higher than on the slope than the second d.r. requester who's property is on 20th street. i have images that can show all of that. the department's recommendations will be to improve construction as opposed. the d.r. requesters are here to speak as well. the shared concerns include impacts to light, air, and privacy primarily due to the rear of the new structure. the d.r. requester to the south the proposed demolition of a building may be historically significant and impacts to the large cypress tree to the north of the property. the proposed project has been reviewed four times by the residential design team. the proposed project has been p

d.r. requester. secretary avery: the motion is to not ta

d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john arden and i am the architect of the project and we have one of the owners here at the hearing. so allison surreal and the owners of the property approached me and currently have a two bedroom house. one of the bedrooms and they also have a daughter and the bedroom is 7 by 9 for the daughter and when she puts a bed in there, there is barely any room to move. we looked at how to come up with an addition to the house to seven them and they wanted to have a larger family room area and a third bedroom upstairs, and so we looked at the most economical way to do this and the only way to do this would be to add a small, very discrete addition in the rear to add on to the existing house would have required a full seismic upgrade and numerous upgrades to the foundation and they are on a very limited budget. when we did approach her at the pre-ap hearing she brought along her council which i was very surprised about but there was a lot of issues that were brought up. one was abou

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

d.r. request after we agreed to not lower the building? because he owns the big tree that blocks a majority of the sunlight in the neighborhood. and so to get that d.r. removed because of the concerns of the roots of the tree, the elevation could not be lowered. we had ann arborist check this and confirm that the roots of the tree are coming up to the bottom of the foundation. so it really would be -- we would be facing another d.r. if we lowered it further. there was some concerns, i just wanted to show you actually the scale of the rendering here with mr. howser's property here. just to show that it actually is not, i don't believe, out of scale and i think it's in character with the neighborhood. thank you. president olague: public hearing is closed. commissioner sugaya: this does not have to do with the project in question. i've been struggling here for the entire time since this started whether or not i should voice a potential conflict of interest. it doesn't have to do with the project sponsor so i'm not quite sure if it is a conflic

d.r. requester pulls their d.r. and nobody files a new d.r., it wouldn't come back to us. that wasn't my intent. my intent was to find a way to solve it today. so if people have an interest to see the plans built out and want 100% certainty on that fact, the best approach would be to take d.r. and require that and then we would be done with it today. i'm fine with that. i withdraw the motion if people want to do that because my goal really was to see this get resolved today. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: that would be the direction i would like to go. >> nobody made that motion initially. that's why i brought up the two options, take d.r. of the 1998 plans or take d.r. -- or continue rather. i'm fine to withdraw the continuance motion if my seconder doesn't mind, if somebody wants to make a new motion on the floor to take d.r. >> commissioners, if you withdraw the motion to continue and take d.r. deny the project is on the floor. >> well, i will withdraw it or change it. >> i will withdraw the continuance motion. >> the motion to continue has been withdrawn.

d.r. request? no snr project sponsor. >> gr evening, commissioners. i'm here to speak on behalf of my family in support of our project. i live at 311 eureka street, a building owned by my parents since 1964 and i have lived there in the past 16 years and also my sister. the reality of the building is that while it's two units, only one unit can be considered family-sized. the lower unit is small, cold and dark due to lack of access of light. we would like to have two family units to allow me and claire to live cufflely. improving this plan is a long-term plan. we engaged with our neighbors to gather their input and had many meetings, phone calls and email exchanges to make sure we were providing the opportunity for feedback. as our drawing will show, our plans have changed significantly to provide concessions that will address any concerns that have been raised. it's our opinion and that of the san francisco planning department staff that the objections put forth by the d.r. requesters feel to meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances. it i

i request that you do not take d.r. and approve the project as submitted. thank you for your time and consideration. this is my babies when we were living there. >> thank you very much for your time. i know it's late. i'm a licensed general contractor and working with my father and sisters on this project for the last seven years. i would like to address three claims that mr. haaser has made that are neither exceptional nor extraordinary. light and air, aside from the fact that his house is wrapped with windows, our building is situated to the north and shadowing is impossible. in order to address his concerns, we have incorporated a light well on the south side of our property that matches what used to be a light well on his property. our light well runs 32 feet towards the rear yard and is clear from the ground up to the sky. any negative impact to light and air is self-induced to the fact that he build his ground floor out to property line and has an overhanging walkway that runs the full length of his north wall. massing. we feel the massing comparisons

d.r. requester, you have two minutes of rebuttal time. >> thank you, commissioners. we're talking about an antenna proposed for a prominent location that makes this installation visible to residents and visitors in north beach and discussing an antenna within tloo two blocks and discussing a site that even according to zoning guidelines is not preferable and we are discussing the installation that according to t-mobile online coverage map is unnecessary. surely the commissioner cans see the disadvantage of this particular location for a cell phone antenna considering all of the other an the men antennas that have been approved in close proximity. and san francisco is at the cutting edge of technology that we need overall something else planned. the supervisor chiu is looking to the planning commission to draft this plan for your guidance. but meanwhile, he has asked that conditional use authorization be required for all cell phone antennas and that is what we are asking you. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> we very muc

d.r. requesters that it only go down a little bit instead of a full floor but it might help and in terms of massing in scale, there's the whole issue of how much square footage you have and some consideration there also combined with massing and what not might also be something to take a look at, especially on the upper level. we just knocked a whole half a floor off of a previous design. so we're not adverse to taking some action like that. i'm not suggesting that you do that here but if you sat through , was it pleasant street? we did take half of a square footage away on the upper level. >> thank you. i think we've gotten some fairly good direction of areas that we can work and study with the architect concerning the areas of massing in the rear, cosmetic work in the front, studying how low they can conceivably excavate without necessarily damaging the tree roots. looking at a design that's perhaps a little bit more in conformity with the neighborhood and a little bit more modest. these are the terms that i've been taking notes of from your dialogue. i think with this direction we can wo

d.r. requesters, or people in opposition to a project, making sure that they know in a timely manner if they want to submit things when their deadline is and how many packets they need to provide and how much advance notice that they can get. i understand that sometimes dates change and the department's working primarily with the project sponsor. but to the extent possible, if we can get to people we know who have been vocal -- we're not saying that people have not identified themselves as being related to a project must be notified. but at least for those people who have been identified to be interested in the project, to get notice about deadlines for submitting materials in particular. i think it would be very useful and would prevent continuances and a lot of strife that people feel their issues are not heard adequately. so that is my other thing. and finally, i think that in terms of the last item, i think it would be useful after our closed session to have an open session to talk about the issues around palmer. and i know that there's a hesitancy with legal opinions to release them bro

it's a request for discretionary review. please note that d.r. has been withdrawn and this item is no longer before you for your consideration. and item number 17, case number 2010.0987 c for 2055 lombard street. staff has informed me that this item should be continued to july 28 2011. with that, commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on this calendar being proposed for continuance. >> for your information, we will be hearing item 11 today, but i believe that we will make our ultimate recommendations in august. so i'm not sure how -- i mean, just for -- >> after the hearing we'll continue the items till august 4. >> august 4, yeah. ok. >> ok, that's just for information, that's not for an action. >> exactly. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i move to continue items one and two to the dates proposed and item number 17 to july 28, 2011. >> second. >> thank you. >> item 17, 2055 lombard street to july 28. on that motion, commissio

d.r. requester. secretary avery: the motion is to not take d.r. and continue with the encouragement that the project sponsor should continue dialogue on softening some of the issues that have been raised. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> i am just returning and i have no idea what the motion is. >> we will mark you absent on that one. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> aye. secretary avery: thank you. that planned unanimously. planning commission is in recess until 5:00 p.m.