d.r. requesters have presentations as well. >> thank you. we ve two d.r. requesters. so we'll hear from each of them at this time. [inaudible] >> do we have time to put it? >> we're going to ask for a five-minute recess so they can set this up. at five till we'll start.

two off-street parking spaces from the single garage. there is a mandatory discretionary review. an addition three requests of d.r.'s were filed. one of those requests were withdrawn after revisions to the proposals were made. there remains two publicly filed d.r.'s. one by the northern to the south and one by 20th street which their rear yard abuts the rear yard of this prompt. the to pop gi is such that the d.er is to the south than that of the subject building. and the subject building is higher than on the slope than the second d.r. requester who's property is on 20th street. i have images that can show all of that. the department's recommendations will be to improve construction as opposed. 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 p

d.r. requester's home is this two-story addition over the garage. so, our proposal is to replace that with a smaller, more respectful addition, also two stories, over the garage. it is consistent with the best practices of the residential guidelines and code compliant as mr. ionin explained. we had six months of work on this for rodriguevision looked massing schemes, roof type, material choices, to drive what we feel is a good neighbor addition setting back the front three feet or three foot three, in keeping with the structure, detailing the scale. i think the two stories over the garage is very minor. from a neighborhood fit it seems very comfortable. again, four months of work with the d.r. applicant. we met with him in my office and at the planning department and on the site in a voluntary pre-application meeting in which all neighbors had a chance it see what the project was about and ask questions. i really don't see any validity in those claims. what are their issues? building scale. i think we talked about that already. it seems to me to be

with what the design team has come up with is actually very well done and the two-story element above the branch of d.r. requester is very much contextual with the two-story addition that is planned for the project sponsor. so it looks like exactly what it should be. then there was some mention of a d.r. requester to the east, but i thought to the east is the sink hole. maybe it is a different -- >> it is directly to the east. that parcel has been subdivided and there is a no owner who was actually probably first on the scene of the violation. commissioner antonini: there is nothing there now but could be in the future? >> correct. commissioner antonini: i thank you, mr. ionin. i just don't see the impact of the d.r. requester and i -- it has been brought up by project sponsor. i think there is certainly a lot of steps taken here with the separation of 32 feet on the privacy issue. and the rear setback issue to me, whole it conceivably could have some impact, if that were an issue which i don't feel it is, it might be more significant for somebody in west clay park which is behind and less so on el camino del mar

two minutes. 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 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 ciga

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 olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> we very muc

two minutes. 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

d.r. request receives two minutes of rebuttal time. >> first of all, i want to make clear, we're not, you know, -- [inaudible] we just simply want them to accommodate us -- or you to accommodate us by -- [inaudible]. i'm an architect and i'm also a general contractor. i've done three projects including my own house. the spaces are dry, they're warm, they're comfortable. and also recently i'm doing a project on liberty hill and i've priced out that project and there's nothing extraordinary about the cost involved. [inaudible]. i wanted you to see these models, maps and models. on the right-hand side is the proposal. on the lower left is our proposal. and then the existing condition is in the upper left and you can -- again you, can see how they're building right above the slope of the terrain and we want them to have a nice house, we want them to enjoy their house and we respect their needs to build it, we think they're a very nice family. we just want them to be more sympathetic to the needs of the surrounding neighbors and do it in a way that is appropriate for them. thank you. president

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. this something where you have the responsibility to look at how you keep light into two units so they r

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 preserving some of the north light. the design results in more floor area by creating a lower level that would match the grade of the rea