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 the motion to continue has been withdrawn. and motion to approve is withdrawn? >> yes. >> we have no motion on the floor? >> the motion is to take d.r. and revert to the 1998 plans. >> second. >> well, this is even worse. i was going to vote against a continuance because our job is to take d.r. if there are unusual and extraordinary impacts. there are no impacts. what we're doing is punitive, which should not be our place to do. we should be deciding whether the d.r. is warranted. i don't think it is. present plans are extremely well done. we have spent a lot of the city's time to get this design the right way. this is one reason why people get frustrated because this is a very frustrating process that i'm sure happens elsewhere but it certainly happens here ofte

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 to the neighbors. if you look at the project in planned view, there are, i believe it's a three-foot side step back along the property lin

d.r. and denying the permit would put them back at square one requiring a new building permit application to revert back to the 1998 permit or some other modification a year from now th that is -- or within a year -- significantly different than what is proposed today or a year from now. commissioner borden: the one thing that i was confused about, it sounded like the 1998 permit was questionable because of the property line issue. correct? >> the 1998 permit inaccurately demonstrated the property aligns long the east side, tkraoegt greater width -- creating greater widths than were actually there as far as i know. and -- yes. commissioner borden: so it was brought up that the 1998 permit because of the lines may or may not be valid. that is why i'm confused. >> it is not valid but we have required a survey and did a couple of site visits. to the best of our knowledge, we believe we understand where the building should be placed on the lot at this point. commissioner borden: so my point is in the process as we take d.r. and deny the project, the current permit, would there be an addendum

like the electrical box wasn't shown, that's a new breaker panel, we also have what happened in san bruno and pg&e. >> are there speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? i believe i have one speaker card. mr. barbee. john barbee. >> good afternoon, i'm john barbee. we have no problem with the interior renovation. the problem is with the trash containers and the design of these bin enclosures. we're very beset by scavengers in the neighborhood, they're very bold and resourceful. when i set my trash out, i get six competing parties who come by that night and raid the bins. some are responsible and kind of pathetic, others are visibly crazy or obviously substance abusers, they drink out of bottles that still have something in them, so that's unmistakable. the temporary enclosure these people have is still open at the top. the scavepjers can come in and raid. it's terrible for us because when they do this, they empty the general rubbish bin all other the sidewalk, things fly all other the place they don't clean them up, we are responsible for doing that. and it's an ongoing problem to have bins exposed seven days a week. that's awkward. you kn

to the freels that their adult children live in a safe new home that they may enjoy with their families. i ask you to please not proceed with the d.r. filing allow the freels to build their future generation.

to the freels that their adult children live in a safe new home that they may enjoy with their families. i ask you to please not proceed with the d.r. filing allow the freels to build their future generation. >> i don't have any fancy architectural sketches but a photograph of us growing up in this city. i'm michelle freel and i'm the daughter and myra's twin sister. i was born in san francisco and lived in the 311 house and i lived in 309 while attending san francisco state and i later came back to live at 311 with my brother patrick. and when i moved to the peninsula and married and had my first child sean, my dad and my brother built our home on the peninsula to start our new family, much like we would like to have for claire and mire ra to support their growing family. i firmly believe that the plans proposed are reasonable and well within the guidelines provided by the city code and include generous concessions offered to the neighbors to try and satisfy their concerns. >> i feel the unsole is ted inaccurate alternate plans are unreasonable and would directly deprive the lower unit of natural light. that is a theme i have hear

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 th

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