d.r. requester. are you on-line, d.r. requester? we have been communicating with her via e-mail, trying to provide the appropriate access, and i'm not sure why she's having technical difficulties in joining us. d.r. requester, you've been provided a link and the phone call. are you prepared to submit your testimony? okay. apparently not. alicia, i'm sorry. we have been communicating with you via e-mail. why don't we take -- >> jonas, can she call the public line? >> clerk: absolutely. any way she can get into the public hearing, we'll accept her testimony. >> can you provide her with that number in case she's watching. >> clerk: it will be streaming on sfgtv. >> okay. thanks. >> clerk: and if it's not, i'll give it to you right now. the number, alicia, i believe it is, is 888-273-3658. enter access code 3107452, hit pound, then pound again, and then enter one, and then zero, and if chan -- >> hi, this is frederick knapp. can you hear me? >> clerk: oh, very good. you are part of the d.r. team. you have five minutes. >> okay. can you

d.r. requesters.the first, kristina fisher of 766 duncan, the adjacent neighbor to the west of the proposed project, and patricia ehland, of 655 duncan, adjacent neighbor to the east. mi miss ehland is concerned that the height and depth of the building will box her in, and that the excavation and subterranean construction will disrupt an underground spring, impacting draining downhill. public comment. to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and six letters in support of the project. the residential design advisory team rereviewed this and found that the building is not articulated to minimize light and privacy impact to adjacent properties. rdat found that side set backs on the east reasonably articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and privacy, and with these, staff recommends taking a discretionary review to incorporate these modifications. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: is the first d.r. requester prepared

d.r. requester prepared to present? >> yes, i am present. >> clerk: okay. you will have three minutes. monica, do you need to share a presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: d.r. presenter, i'll notify you when monica is sharing your presentation. please note that there is a 30-second delay, so just speak to the presentation and request that monica go to the next slide. you have three minutes. >> okay. i'm up? thank you. before i start, i would like to highlight the tactics of the project sponsors. i've provided an additional slide of -- [inaudible] >> -- but i was told that it was too late to show you today. these are my intentions. [inaudible] >> -- i find the sponsors use of hate distasteful, especially in these times. it is surreal that this case is coming today, given how this meeting starts. all right. i will start my presentation now. thank you, again, commissioners, for taking the time to hear this, and thank you, monica, for helping me through this mart. my name is donald -- this process. my name is donald capozzi. my partner, aaron and i both share a personal connection and we both ru

she requested d.r. with concerns about privacy and light blockage, and it would have been adjacent to her light well-being seen from the bedroom windows. and it's a primary source of light. and the bedrooms and bathrooms for the property. and the planning commission agreed with her concerns and required the rear horizontal extension to be pulled back by five feet from the property line. however, in a revised project plans, the project sponsor has also removed the proposed walls and the six-foot high privacy screen on the second store deck instead of proposing a 32-inch high rail. and this creates privacy impacts on both properties. there's a barrier between the rear deck and the windows which are just five feet of the edge of the back deck. the planning commission did not require or authorize the project sponsor to make this change. so we are asking that the railing to be replaced with appropriate privacy screens as was initially proposed. in the alternative, it was considered to be outside the h.b.c.'s

she requested d.r.and light blockage, and it would have been adjacent to her light well-being seen from the bedroom windows. and it's a primary source of light. and the bedrooms and bathrooms for the property. and the planning commission agreed with her concerns and required the rear horizontal extension to be pulled back by five feet from the property line. however, in a revised project plans, the project sponsor has also removed the proposed walls and the six-foot high privacy screen on the second store deck instead of proposing a 32-inch high rail. and this creates privacy impacts on both properties. there's a barrier between the rear deck and the windows which are just five feet of the edge of the back deck. the planning commission did not require or authorize the project sponsor to make this change. so we are asking that the railing to be replaced with appropriate privacy screens as was initially proposed. in the alternative, it was considered to be outside the h.b.c.'s purview and we ask that the