also to go back a moment, the d.r. requesters are asking that you take d.r. and remove the roof deck on top of the building and also that you shorten the depth of the overall addition by 5 1/2 feet. this concludes my presentation. and didn't want to show you any renderings because i am sure you will see a bunch in the presentation and i am available for any questions or comments. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. secretary avery: before you move on, we need to note that commissioner miguel was not here for the hearing. if you would like to state for the record whether you have reviewed this. president miguel: i have looked at all of the original hearings proceedings. secretary avery: thank you. vice president olague: and we'll hear from the d.r. requesters first. >> is the overhead working? >> i'm pam hill with the delores heights improvement club which is a residential neighborhood organization. membership is open to all persons residing in the area bounded by castro, 18th, dolores and 22nd. our board and our design review committee are composed o

>> the d.r. requester, can we tell you how far back you are from the second floor on your third floor? >> 35, 40 feet. >> you're quite a ways back. thank you. that is a factor. and then the other question i have -- i don't see a lot of detail on the windows. they do go into some detail on the window replacements for the second floor. they look like they're wood windows, hopefully of high quality that of course would be the same as what is on there now. i expect the same thing would happen on the third floor. architect, is that the case? >> actually they need to call me and told me about the hookup to tell me the window -- we changed the style. that's how we want to do it. you pay the exact same style and window back so it is not going to change the style. we going to put exactly the same window back. >> sure. always the same one that is are 24r -- there -- on the second floor. you put new wood windows, replacing in the same as the existing ones. on your third floor, dot same type of window that b

the d.r. requesters third floor roof deck and third story. the d.r. requesters third floor roof deck has direct southern exposure and are expected to continue to mid-day light reception. private views are not protected by the planning code. under the commission's pending d.r. reform legislation this project would not be referred as this does not contain or create exceptional circumstances. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. commissioner olague: d.r. requester? >> i'm mark zucker. i'm the adjacent neighbor at 444 greenwich. i'm also a design professional and design custom homes all over. i have a lot of expertise in this matter. a little history on this property and my property. i purchased my home roughly 3 1/2 years ago. it was in dire need, everything needed to be replaced. the first thing that we did was to reach out to the neighbors and the telegraph hill dwellers and understand the neighborhood and the intent of the neighborhood and how -- how things work. and what people's ex

>> regarding the d.r., they had tabled at the package of the legislation. so, we will be talking to supervisor mar. and they will bring this back to us later. >> are you interested in getting the voices from the volunteers? i am interested in volunteering and helping as much as i can. >> and there is one last thing. if you look at the review guidelines, the second item has a simple routine that is complex with very little description. and possibly, through the task force, we can look at this with examples of what the sample application looks like. and this may be helping with that to eliminate duplication among those people. >> commissioner antonini? we may end up doing this, however this works. and we will bring the city attorney -- and we will talk to them about how to set this up. i would like to open this up for public comment at this time. this is for the rules and the discussions. >> in respect to the changing hours on thursdays, and i would ask that you tread very carefully about this expansion. it is very important that this process be acceptable be

are there speakers in support of the d.r. requesters? all speakers in support of d.r. requesters. seeing none, project sponsor? you have up to 15 minutes. of course, you don't have to take all 15 minutes, but you have up to that. mr. paul, do you need assistance? >> thank you, president olague. jeremy paul for the project sponsor. you have heard quite a bit of comments that i'm going to do my best to respond to as much of it as i can and give you a bit of an introduction to the build in and the private architect will do that further. first of all, i would like to say that mr. copp who is completely continually vilified as being some sort of outside developer who is having his will with the neighborhood, he eat lived there since he bought in it 2008 and hired an architect who lives across the street and this is a very site sensitive project that was designed for this to be appropriate for this particular site and the particulars of this special use district and this location. it was mentioned that the 80-year-old structure next door is illegal and should be discounted. it is not il

president olague: d.r. requestor. >> the owners of the property. the rear yard her face is the rear yard of 235 francisco that is located, slow down held. one of the issues we are bringing out today is that there is a very interconnected relationship between these buildings. it was initially built in 1930. the area behind the building was open space and a parking area. they decided to build a condominium complex on the lower portion of this property. this came before the planning commission in a very specific decision. under the decision, several things were considered including the reduction of the rear yard open space and the parking issue. because of the detriment, losing their open space, losing the rear yard, also, at the area where the living space would be. it was required that a data set back be replaced. it specifically states in the 1980 decision that although the rear yard halfback is proposed, the building is quite small. it has the effect of providing needed separation between that building and occupying floors. we have a situation whe

now we return to the d.r. request terrorist for two minutes. >> the argument is not against connectivity and cell phones. we all love our cell phones, we all use our internet and we want to be on the cutting edge of technology. we ask that you stop this practice of reviewing these proposals one antenna at a time. this is not working out for our neighborhood. this is a dense neighborhood. there are concerns about the placements now and what is coming up in the future for our small neighborhood. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> thank you. i want to say that this accessory use process directs the industry to put up the smallest, most diminutive facility possible. it is a five-foot chimney that is 10 inches in diameter. this is the kind of policy that you want to encourage. these are the kinds of things the other communities are clamoring for. you have to think that this is working. you have heard the demand and some sort of major master plan. the carriers are obligated under injured guard by to provid

i would ask how much a d.r. costs in comp time or overtime. that is for a larger discussion. we would like that take nup. -- taken up. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: to respond, the attempt is to get all of us to perform more efficiently and better. our own efficiency goes down here late at night. it comes as a mutual obligation to work closer together. instead of having everything come here and take much longer, then participating in the more critical cases. if we scheduled morning meetings aho -- if we scheduled morning meetings, this is obviously affecting the public. we have to look at the sunshine law piroplasmosis -- we have to look at the sunshine law. we would work to formulate this whiff the requests and whatever, these are. -- and whatever these are. these long statements make it hard to keep our focus close to midnight. >> commissioner sugaya. >> did the director want to touch on this? >> a couple of thoughts. this has come out and the staff raised this as well. the length of the hours we get into. a couple of things we could try to do. linda and i spok

i would certainly be supportive of taking d.r. if we improved -- approved the demolition, a significant redesign. commissioner moore: i want to step back a little bit and talked to mr. paul. there is a missing link. how the building is not code compliant because it misses a sound in this report that tells us in this building has outlived its useful life. we don't have that. we're having in noncompliant building. we're going up against what we have spent a lot of time on last year. that is the strategy that gives very specific instructions to us unless there are really clear reasons to protect the housing stock. having saidt hat, -- that, i personally do not feel we'd engage much in appreciating or not appreciating the buildings that have been designed. the analysis and the drawings are very thoughtful. they are all responding to the most subtle elements. that is primarily the scale. i can see a contemporary building, but it looks quite different from what is in front of us. the basic premise, i am not even sure what we are talking

commissioner sugaya: i think is to not take d.r. a long time ago, another one of these antenna things, i asked for staff to try to work with the companies to get whatever their master planning efforts are at this point or were back then, what ever it was. i cannot believe that the companies do not know where their weaknesses are and where their strengths are and what their next move is going to be with respect to building antennas or whatever else the next form of technology is going to be. we already have a different form of technology in the city through clear wire, which is associated with sprint. their technology is a little bit different than the regular cell phone towers we are looking at here. there was an article, i did not read it. in the future, we may not have antennas as we know them now. who knows where that is going to lead? the other question i asked a while back to the staffers to those who know quite a bit about cell phone and tennis was about the differences in the kind -- and tennis -- antennas was about the diffe

d.r. panel has stated, quote, history has shown the only reliable price reduction is competition between dual sources. this amendment ignores that history. it will not save money and risk the combat effectiveness of our air forces. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does oregon rise? >> move to strike the last word. mr. defazio: only inside the washington, d.c. beltway could we be having this debate. the taxpayers are demanding that we tighten our belts and save money. the pentagon says, let's go ahead with the single engine procurement which resulted from a competition, which is, you know, a quality engine. now if that engine has problems, someone at the pentagon should be fired. if there were problems with the competition, a lot of people should be fired and maybe we ought to look at overhauling procurement process. but to say now, we have a good engine and want competition but we have anot