it is up to the 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

is there any comment in support of the d.r. requester? >> i am rodney grevey the west neighbor to the subject property and d.r. applicant. a couple of comments with respect to the substantive issues in addition to the procedural issues you just heard about. we have heard that the mass and scale are consistent with the neighborhood. but the neighborhood does vary quite a bit and this house, this structure as proposed, is very, very large. it is approximately 5,000 square feet of living space where month ago in the immediate vicinity is more than 3,000 square feet. the three-foot setback at the front is small by some measure. my setback is the second smallest at 6 1/2 feet. you actually have the proposed third story above the garage, the residential design alleghenies actually recommend that -- guidelines recommend that be 15 feet from the front and articulates at the front. that is not the case and the subject property is taller than my property. it sits down slope. then with respect to the rear s setback requirement, mr. ionin showed you t

the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requester. >> sue hester -- pardon me. >> rebuttal, two minutes. >> two minutes, yes. >> again, the only issue that is before the commission is knocking off the sloped window that goes up 3 feet. this is from the perspective looking down from the stairway between the third and second floors on the stairwell and so it is distorted. but it's this area here that is 3 feet in the rear, and getting rid of the clear story and a flat roof. that is all we are asking for. that spans the light coming through the opening and it's unfortunate that the planning department wasn't -- these issues were raised with staff. i'm sorry they were raised with staff. the staff said we do not protect light wells if there is a roof over it which there is. this building was built around 1900, 26th street was built around 1880. these buildings have been next to each other for an awfully long time. and it was taking into account the existence of the 26th street building. so they were factored into the existing building. th

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 proposed four times which is determined after the publicly filed d.r., that the existing property is mixed and that the proposed new building is consistent with the residential design buildings. it looks like we're having trouble with the image on the screen. it's ok. i can summarize if you have questions. i wanted to draw your attention to specifically are the fact that the proposed structure includes setbacks to the front and rear for the upper stories, set back 15 feet from the front building and 12 feet from the rear building and that's specifically to address impact

>> 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

the d.r. requester's documents which led to their conclusion that the issues present -- the issues don't present exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. we ask you to approve our project. >> i'll go through the merits of the reduction and what has happened from the project. i just wanted to show you this diagram here that showed the proposed plan as it has been modified from the planning and through the neighborhood process. this is actually what would be allowed per the planning code. i wanted to go over that. the building has been reduced in height from 40 feet to 36 feet. actually, it is eight feet so there is no place to lower this building. in the rear here, the building is not extending the full distance that is per where the rear yard would be. it is two feet less and sets back six feet over what we are calling the second floor and additional four feet on the third floor. in the negotiations with the neighborhood, the site has been set back an additional three feet and also on the top floor, an additional two feet. there is a five-foot separation there. and in speaking with the fords

september 22, if there is an alteration that is somewhere in the middle that can be achieved that the d.r. requester is satisfied with and the d.r. is withdrawn, that it doesn't need to come back here. that's what i'm hearing. commissioner sugaya: if that's part of the motion -- >> it's not part of the motion but what would happen if it occurred. >> if the d.r. is withdrawn, you wouldn't have any jurisdiction. >> that's why i'm not going to vote for the continueance. >> you take the d.v. and take the plans and get that or choose this process and they can do whatever they want. unless somebody files a d.r. commissioner sugaya: that's what i mean. it doesn't work for me. >> we have a motion before us and we will vote on it. >> but your motion was to take d.r. and have two alternatives? >> no, my motion -- i said initially i either would support take d.r. and require that the project be built to 1998 or a continueance to allow that work -- the plan to come back for us to see it and do all of that sort of stuff. it seemed like people were more in favor of a continueance than to take d.r. and require tha

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

we will hear from supporters of the d.r. requesters and jane seigel and others. [inaudible conversation] >> good evening. i am present today to relay my thoughts about 309-311 eureka project. i own a house and the two properties or these two properties to the south, 309 is two properties to the south of me and i'm here to support an alternative or alternate design for 309 that is being proposed by some of the neighbors. a few years ago, huta and george remodeled their house at 313. they could have obtained more space by going up vertical but that would have greatly impacted my light. and instead what they did was they proposed to side yard addition that was shaded by trees and that were very important to me and they were pretty careful to preserve and constructed a basement that was entirely below the lowest level of my house and this left the upward levels of the house with no impact. i really seriously appreciated their consideration. the neighbor's design is based on a similar strategy. instead of exceeding the height of 313 eureka, it would step down, thereby

but it has to do with the d.r. requester. and mr. howser's firm hired a company a number of years ago to perform his historic resource evaluation on the strand theater and that was a number of years ago. it turned out not to be a good situation, i won't reveal what that situation is because it's somewhat irrelevant to the public, but i think i feel that i can continue on and have an objective opinion about this unless commissioners feel that i should recuse myself. all right, thank you. commissioner antonini: this is a hard one, definitely. the one thing in trying to judge the height accurately is really difficult. i've been looking at the pictures over there and there is quite a difference in height among the various structures along that 300 block of eureka on the same side as well as the opposite side of the street. however, the one thing that really strikes me here is the design and we have a almost very uniform looking type of pattern of housing in existing, fairly traditional, and i don't see any of those elements here even usin

i don't know if it will appease the 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 te

but i would love to have a conversation about the protocol for inform smfing the 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 issu

>> in the interest of time, we're going to forego our additional comment. president olague: thank you. 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 ola

you can continue to work with the project sponsor or with the d.r. requester to get some of these things resolved, then it would certainly be something like commissioner antonini mentioned we would encan you remembering here. -- that we would encourage here. and this is an awkward space and there is part of me that wishes it would be brought back a little but i am not sure how you do that. i am certain there is a way to continue conviction with the 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.