requester for a second. mr. that does not sound like a bad solution to me. you might generate more if the light well was continuous rather than having two, one of which would be shorter in length. >> first of all, there are two windows at the rear, not one. you would be moving two windows. the question comes up when you are moving the windows, where will they live? this makes a lot more sense. i don't know how the commission orders the relocation of windows and other buildings as part of its motion. this came from one of the commissioners and it matches the agreement that the parties entered into and it matches one of our suggestions.

that is how it seemed the simplesse, the cleanest, and the most effective of the various options that are out there. -- that is how it seemed the simplest. building a more narrow light well and the middle. >> this is the window to the south and that would be included. the way they would be moved is you would constructed new windows first and you would lead the old ones there. once the new ones were finished, you would close the old one off. that could be done without any serious interruption. that is generally what i'm thinking but there are other commissioners who may have some ideas. in terms of their earlier, we are fairly clear on that if i'm not mistaken.

it would continue to a certain degree. it would step down and it would be three floors for part of the distance and then be one floor at the rear. can you describe that to mention that you're talking about? >> thank you, commissioner. it would be exactly as shown on the plans before you without modification that we had proposed earlier. the existing -- is 17 feet high. we are going to go one story here, the second floor. and it would set this as the top floor. >> i think you have two

different setbacks. >> this is on the second floor. it hasn't 8 foot extension beyond word makes the corner. then, there would be a one floor 10 foot section that would let a lot of light back into that building. >> that is exactly as the application stance. >> that is the only one that is that the windows. >> i have a question for staff. two questions, the first is your staff recommendation at the rear, which is to set back 20

feet, is that correct? >> correct. >> you draw 20 feet from the rear property line ill. -- the entire property line in. >> then, the other question is, in situations where we have light wells and we tried to do matching light wells, what is the standard that we normally would use in terms of the death? i know we're supposed to match it in terms of the with, but in this case it is argued that the depth of these a light wells, the existing ones on the existing building are approximately five or 6 feet or some dimension like that whereas the proposed ones are 3 feet. >> the standard requirement is 3 feet. we do that in the residential

design guidelines. >> said it has no relationship to the depth of the other like well? >> it has no relationship. >> for me, having visited the site of the units, it seems as though the units themselves are fairly small. if the commission can recall our discussion of the proposed 550 square-foot apartments that the supervisor is trying to propose to sell there was an example. the difference between what this example might be is that that also includes a bathroom and that expansion expense the square foot forward.

apartments 12, 5, 6. i think in that case, they are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances that the commission should take dr and consider the preservation of the property line windows or entertain what the project sponsor is saying is a willingness to move them. my problem is that i'm not sure that can be included as a condition because then ends up being a private agreement between two parties and i don't think that we can condition the project contingent on some agreement that mayor might happen after this takes place. my original idea after they get about a number of times was the

proposal that was shown by mr. williams which was to have two light wells. one on the northern end to protect the two windows at the northern end. then to have a larger light well that extends the two existing light wells and the seventh property line window. that is what was shown on the overhead. i think the difference between what i am proposing and what the sponsor wanted to is that this matches the depth of the existing light wells and gusting tire length of the window.

my problem is that i don't think we can condition moving those windows. i make a motion to approve the project with a light well at of the northern and that protect the existing two windows and apartments 12th at 5 in the building and it would probably be approximately 3 feet wide. this goes out past the building by a foot this matches the light wells that currently exist in the building and go south to

incorporate the property line window on the second floor. >> we have the d.r. request for support of that. >> that some requests -- that is correct. this is 5 feet or 6 feet deep. this drying shows 3 feet. >> the northern light well and a larger southern light well, 6

feet, i believe. >> would you be willing to do those one in 3 feet. >> we are willing to do whatever the commission would propose. it would be of great benefit to these units. these would be rendered uninhabitable by the construction ida the definition of the building code. >> i agree, these issues should be resolved before they ever get here. you should be discussing this. you have put us in an awkward position. >> the project sponsor put you in that position. >> that is 5 feet forward.

>> we are ready to sit down. >> i agree with that and it is important to get the light in there. on the issue of parking, you should take the bus to the dentist. a lot of people take the bus to the dentist. the buses are crowded, there are

expressed and local buses. they are available. the commissioner suggested that the project sponsor could look for parking at another location. i will turn to the other commissioners if we can come to some agreement. >> i would be in favor of what has been proposed on two different light wells at a depth of 3.9. the staff mentioned that typically if we're going to match, we only go 3 feet. is that correct? we don't necessarily match the depth of the adjacent light wells which they provide light in and of themselves. the property line windows and

not protected under the code. they have some special protection for property line windows. it is difficult when we eliminate the light to those. that is a special circumstance. that is that anything the code calls for. i would be inclined to go with the suggestion of the 3 foot, 9 inch depth, 20 feet long shaft on the southern side. i think that it is 3.6 light well in length on the northern side. mr. paul, can you explain the dimensions there? i know it was not in your proposal but that is what we had in mind. >> yes, we would to a 3 foot 6

inch light well to accommodate those property line windows at the northwest corner. there is a real problem created with ada access in our corridor with a 9 inch difference at that light well. we could to 3 ft. 9 at the forward. that forces us to make changes that become very complicated and difficult. >> another question, the wit of your property is 25 feet, i believe.

>> 5 feet. 5 feet. >> yes, that is fine. >> when a door opened into his space, that dimension does from 4 feet to 5 feet. any space that we open up, when we open up the door at the end of that corridor, we still have to have at least a depth of 5 feet to remain from that point in order to have the legal access. they have to be minimally 48 as a minimum and that is only in the case with the doors to open into them. thank you. >> why don't you just swing the door from the other side? >> if you are going down that way, we have a 5 foot high wall way.

that is about 16 feet left. >> well, you have stairs and one side. >> it is almost 7 feet, 6 inches to 8 feet wide. you have your walls. for feet minimum for the hallway. then you have whichever side the door opens onto. it is the door that opens into the space that has to be 5 feet. you are just running out of room in that spot. it is really tight. >> doing the math probably at that particular side, that window is almost at to the rear of the building. that might be a place where you are only having stairs and a corridor. once you get to the rear of the

building, then you can access your other -- >> the plans are pretty accurate in terms of describing that situation. there is a corridor that goes up there. it is logical to have the door there. the reception space is gone. keep in mind that this is a bifurcated plan. you're getting office spaces. it is not one big open space. >> i interest and that it might end up being a passage space. >> the building wall, you have to have the -- to get out of the building. that has to be at least 3 feet.

it is 3 feet plus the wall. and it ends up being 3 feet, 3 inches. >> the city something that would have to be up to code. permit it would have to come up with. they would have to come back to us if there was a problem with code. >> the stairs are not workable. this would be forced into the front of the building. >> i don't think that is a concern. >> thank you.

>> it has to be 16 or more. that is what you're dealing with. that is at 15 feet. >> i kind of feel that this is picking up the back half. they can certainly afford to come to 3 feet or 4.6. >> 3.9 is what we are looking at. did you make a motion? >> i did. i would like to clarify. >> given that we are allowing, we are going to allow for the back to be built.

let's make it 3.9. this extends to feet below the existing window and extends beyond the building. >> i have the 3.9 and the rear. >> two feet past the end of the building. >> what would your like be? >> this is not to mention. >> this is 2 feet south of the existing window and to the north. the southern light well extends from the light well, the existing light well to the north

all the way south >> two feet past the existing property line window. >> do you have that? thank you. >> we are leaving their rear as it is proposed by the project sponsor. >> is there a motion to that? >> seconded. >> commissioners, the motion is to take discretionary review and approve this project as it has been modified with the conditions offered by commissioner sugaya. on that motion. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion passes unanimously. you are at the general public

comment. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.

>> hi and welcome back to authors who make you think. i appreciate you wanting to think on a beautiful saturday afternoon. 8 years ago in the ban shell at

golden gate park. jonathan, one of our readers was there. 20 readers and 8 afternoons and now there are venues around the city. i will read a few poems. the first one is, after the bleeding. it was inspired by 2 photos that were in the san francisco chronicle in june 2005. the first, i will read the captions. photo captions. and follow with the poem. children watch as police collect pieces of bodies from a suicide bombing. front page photo caption san francisco chronicle june 14, 2005. >> the not guilty verdicts in the michael jackson trial. front page photo caption, san francisco chronicle june 14,

2005. after the bleeding the blood spattered walls draw the gaze of children wanting to see what has caused such a noise. how can they not stair. arms and legs, pieces of torso scattered, the smell of new death and feared hair. they must be asking the same question. a person who blows themselves up must believe in something. must believe in something or else not. hopelessness degreesed in apnigzs, righteousness disguised in a tuxedo of death much the children don't understand. i being of the dead dying man the bleeding bystanders who left to buy cheese or tobacco. in car bombs suicide bombs and we keep talking as though this

will end like the final judgment of that black man who looks white and sleeps with boys but doesn't touch them. after the bleeding the children's shoes will be forever stained in the crimson color of death. who will set the doves free then. >> the next is sdaefrt on the horizon. i'm sure many of you have seen or heard regularly in the news. my father came from iran so every time i see those headlines and get an article in my e mail i have this moment of panic thinking about my family members in iran who might be the next victims of this terrible war administration this