d.r. applicants are challenging, seeks to bring in conformance work that has been identified without permit history. the concerns cited about life-safety issues and code compliance can only be met by completion of the permit application process. by further review and by the planning and building departments. mr. lynn nahry who is a contractor himself, i would think would be aware of the . i cal permit process in san francisco. that the first step is -- is securing the planning entitlement for a project. again, something that has been in existence prior to -- to the linari's arrival. the application should be seen for what it is the application should be seen for what it is a vindictive action by the owners of 57 seymour stree. this commission's time and authority is being abused we feel by their application for discretionary review of the project. i strongly urge the commission to deny it and uphold the rights and requirements for bringing their property into conformance with all aapplicable planning and building codes. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? my n

d.r. was filed during the appeal period. and then secondly concerning the board of appeals, there's only one item that may be of interest to you. the appeal of the building permit application for 2642 height street. this would legalize a rear balcony which was subject to d.r. before you. the commission unanimously upheld the permit in september of 2009. the permit was subsequently appealed to the board of appeals. on july 10 of this year the board unanimously upheld the permit. however, the apell ant did file a rehearing request. and last night the board unanimously denied the rehearing request. the board will now issue a notice of decision and the building permit will be final. that concludes the board of appeals' report as well. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, if we can move forward on your calendar, eye ty tell number -- item number six is an abbreviated institutional mat -- master plan for heald college. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm handling the case for erin holster who is out of the office today. this is a submission of the abbreviated master plan for heald college. planning department staff has determined that documents

application process. as was pointed out by the residential design team has supported the project and actually did not field this rose to the level of significance that would have come under the d.r. process. i think they are doing as a great service. i am not sure what the actual condition was, but it is probably one that was uninhabitable in its present state. so this is creating three habitable units where there were not effectively, and it is rh-3, and the 12-foot setback is what i think has been worked out by the residential design team and is correct here. i agree that is more of a view that a light issue. so i would move to not take d.r. and approve the project. president miguel: is there a second? commissioner sugaya: i will second, but i have questions first. are we having railings on top of this thing or what? >> no, sir, there is no glass reeling. commissioner sugaya: okay, i must be thinking of a different project. the second question, in terms of the historic status of this building, the staff memo says it is adjacent to a national registered and locally designated jackson square, northeast waterfront, telegraph hill. does that mean that this building is not near any