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 expectations were. based on that, i worked backwards. as the -

d.r. requester. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i guess i'll let the professionals talk for me. but i want to go back to the beginning of the thing. >> state your name? >> i'm tim kennedy. okay. this -- mr. decker -- mr. beck bought the house next door to me. i immediately went and met with him in person. i -- i showed him my plan aths -- i showed him my plans and took him to my house. i told him the plans. he said at that time, i won't oppose you. i proceeded. essentially, mr. becker is going to lose his view. the building is directly across the street in front of him. my place is right over from the building. it cuts out his light. i agree. when i told him the man, he said that's the case, that is what you're going to do, then i'm going to do the same thing. he didn't want to go through the process i been through. i've been working on this since 2007 and they fought me at every turn. i think we have a brilliant design. i think it works well with the neighborhood. in fact, i think it would

d.r. requester and by the project sponsor side is that on the d.r. requester's property which is the adjacent property to the west on the renderings, there is a fence that has vegetation on it on the west side of that property so the uphillside of the adjacent property and that is not shown on the original wednesdayering that came before you on the 20th. -- of the original rendering that came before you on the 20th. the project was granted a rear yard variance back in 2009. that variance was appealed by the same d.r. requester through the board of appeals and where it was upheld. the department supports the project. we don't think that it is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. we feel that the addition to the design is done sensitively and steps down to the open space and is not a massive block that's encroaching into this open space. and also it is set back from the west side of the property line as indicated in the renderings to provide that view between the uphill building and the subject building. also to go back a moment, the d.r. reque

d.r. requesters. how far back is their third floor? do we know that? >> 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 bl

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 illegal. it is a structure that

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 provide a five-year plan for all of their proposed facilities for the next five years. it is on mine a

we request that the commission cannot hold this over for a full hearing and approve the project. [chime] president olague: d.r. requestor , you have two minutes. sorry, speakers in support of the project sponsor? ok, you have two minutes. >> we have an issue about how the rear yard averaging was applied. we have a francisco street property. the rear yard averaging, they used a larger property on the lot. we felt this was an inappropriate application as they skipped over the adjacent property in use a more and built property. that is definitely an issue. you can clearly see this as a fopho -- is a photo. any building out further

we request that the commission cannot hold this over for a full hearing and approve the project. [chime] president olague: d.r. requestor , you have two minutes. sorry, speakers in support of the project sponsor? ok, you have two minutes. >> we have an issue about how the rear yard averaging was applied. we have a francisco street property. the rear yard averaging, they used a larger property on the lot. we felt this was an inappropriate application as they skipped over the adjacent property in use a more and built property. that is definitely an issue. you can clearly see this as a fopho -- is a photo. any building out further than this deck encloses the open space of 124. what we have here is a continuing building in a very dense area. this might seem like a small issue, but it is big to a person who has lived there and seen firsthand the continued building trends in this neighborhood, to the point where they are feeling locked in and closed in in their own residence. that being said, we would like the commission to stay true to its prior decision. these findings should not be set aside. there is a reason t