>> good afternoon, president and commissioners. my name is edward romonov and i am a project manager for dr. kalicka's new dental project. my job is to get the building developed that will adequately meet the needs of all the dental care professional offices. we need to bring together in one location. 4333 gerry boulevard is known for this kind of project. but it's now a vacant eyesore. i'm deeply concerned about the financial viability of this new building project. if we lose more office square

footage for benefit of our neighbor. we can barely fit our program in the 6100 square feet of office space currently proposed. we want to ensure the quality of life of the residents next door as well as having a new productive building. please carefully consider the impact to the richmond district community of taking away more space that would otherwise serve the doctor's patients. also i would like to mention that we will -- were contacting the system parking where the smart and final is in the huge parking lot that anyone can park for $10 for 12 hours every

day. in the same time i contacted kenneth yang operation manager and he provided me with a letter which says this letter is to confirm that we will provide monthly parking spaces based on the lot number for that company located at 350th avenue, san francisco to dr. kalicka and other doctors upon request for their new office low cailted at 4334 gerry boulevard, san francisco. thank you very much. >> are there any other speakers in favor of the project? >> ok. d.r. requester, you have a

two-minute rebutal. >> thank you, president fong. steve williams again. don't pick the need of these tetants against the continued viblingt against providing dental care to children. that's a false dichotomy and you know it. that's not the choice that you're facing here. there's nothing to legally compel that used to be in this new office building anywhere. it's a shame we didn't get the offer earlier. it's a shame that we wouldn't agree to continue it so we could work out the details of that. we wanted to work out a solution. they referenced the agreement and how generous they're being and all the changes they're making, et, etc. etc. but look at the changes. light wells three by three. there that's nowhere. look at the light wells they

don't even match the light wells. nothing close to a written agreement that they reached. they handed something to us today and to the commissioners today that came a little bit closer to what they agreed to in writing a year ahead of time. so ask yourself, what's really going on here when these plans are put up with these little tiny light wells that will devastate these s.r.o. units. i wanted the solution that we wanted to try to reach and this was handed to me by commissioner su guy -- sugaya. it's a deep light well that faces off against these light wells. we need a deeper light well to get any lights into this units at 40 feet. by the way, they keep saying they reduced the height. it came down to one foot. but it only came down one foot. still 40-feet stall. we need these to match these

light wells and a smaller light well up here that will allow these stairs to fit around these two windows. no giveback back here. they said we still want to go 40 feet back here. so that is a workable solution. i think that that will -- will get light into these and you won't be moving windows and all this other nonsense. but we would accept that. could you turn that around the other way. -- could you turn that around the other way? all right. thank you. ok. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebutal. >> thank you for your patients,

president and commissioners. in terms of what we would propose that we do with this project, we recommend that this commission take d.r. reducing the height to match the adjacent buildings to the east allowing if a decorative parapit facade. we would enlarge the light well by 20 feet deep. and a 10-foot extension to that creating a lightwell that is three foot deep for another 10 feet and to relocate the -- relocate four property line windows inside that light well. we could follow this and create a -- another light well over here without removing this property line window but i think it's beneficial to our

neighbor's property because this is providing light for rooms that already have light. i showed you the photograph of where that property line window is. we could relocate this window in here to another unit, create a 30-foot light well here. there's a portion that we cannot extend to three foot -- 3 '9." i think that we'd get the best possible resolution. we get to haves the office building that these smiles for life foundation and the doctor's various practices need and we've going to protect the light an air to any extent possible for the building next door. thank you. >> thank you. the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner comments? commissioner antonini?

commissioner antonini? : well, thank you. i want to tell you that all trips do not have to be uncomfortable as was mentioned earlier, i would hope. and there are some people who take bus. a certain percentage of patients do come by public transportation. some drive and some actually do ride bucks. so it's a mix situation. and i think that what we really need to do here in terms of the parking issue is just simply ask project sponsor to, you know, explore parking in the area. there is a lot on eighth avenue near clement. my accountant is at 338. i've never been at the lot when it is closed to being filled. there is parking available less than a block away from the office. but i can see it could be an issue particularly for staff who are going to be there all day.

so i would encourage project sponsor to look around the neighborhood and see if he can purchase some parking for us, staff members at least. patients -- actually have happier patients if he could final -- find places to park. it's not a kfpblet i'm just making that as a suggestion. as far as the -- hear are some of the modifications. but i would kind of agree with what mr. paul had said and that was a situation whereby we have the matching light wells and we continue this -- i think he described a 30-for loo long -- 30-foot long. the remaining so feet would be a light well.

it should let a lot of light in there. mr. paul, if i could ask you a question. there's the two solutions that have been forward. the first solution is yours which is moving those property line windows to put them at a position where they align with the 30-foot long light well and the other solution which was proposed by dmpt r. requester was to leave the windows and have a second light well that adjoins the two northern most windows because i believe those are the ones that are stacked and then the one window that is to the south would already be included in your existing well, i believe. >> yes, that's correct. >> i'm just saying why that is less desirable because it looks like in their proposal your well ends during the middle portion between their two light

wells. so you actually would use that space for some of your interior fixtures, a staircase or whatever you may choose to put there. >> thank you, commissioner antonini. >> if we could go to this overhead drawing again. if we could do a 20-foot light well here and encompass the existing property line windows that are to the south and create a notch which for the existing property line window that's to the north, it's going to be very inconvenient for us for our building. it creates a very ack war stair at the top, i think. but we can manage it. i think it would be a better building for us and an improved situation for the resident at 4330 if we rather than building this light well here simply relocated this property line window forward and extended the light well to include it.

>> so all we're talking about moving one property line window because the ones to the south are going to be included. >> that's correct. >> i might want to talk to d.r. 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