d.r. requester if the first meeting, i think, with the d.r. requester is when mr. dan kennedy stormed out of the room very angrily. he does have a short temper and he just keeps going back to the same thing, which is i could put up a 40-foot building here, so why do i need to compromise when i have already -- when i'm proposing to put up a 26-foot building. so, yes, certainly an angled wall could be done, the floor area, the useable floor area in that back storage section would be somewhat compromised, but it's not -- we built out the lot to the size that was available, so, yes, if it had to be angled back, it could be done. physically, there is no reason why it couldn't be done. commissioner moore: you have a 10-foot ceiling height upstairs, from seven-foot up, you create a fully usable work space and then the window going back, the issues here, the commission needs to be concerned about balancing that indeed we have this unusual live work situation, which is still a live situation as well as by definition a work situation and we would be interested in some adjace

d.r. requester. i'm sorry. the d.r., yes. >> my name is themeous mickous. live in the condominium association. i'm the designated representation. i was very happy to hear all of the wonderful remarks about the new republic bank because i incorporated that bank. so naturally my comments will have additional weight. i think i boil down the argument into two basic objections to what mr. teague said. the area is zoned service light industrial. as i have argued, that doesn't justify the allowing of new construction that would severely diminish the uses and liveability of a pre-existing use. our status in the neighborhood is grandfathered in. we were there first. before the zoning was adopted, i'm pretty sure. it's a severe setback to the liveability of these units and i don't want to get into an argument about values, but the collective decrease of value of our units in our building substantially outweighs any -- necessity possible benefit the developer is going to have. secondly, i don't know what your policy is on this. this is a registered national landmark.

d.r. requesters in regards to impacts to the d.r. requesters, that is what the d.r. is about. and i'm not in favor, if you did come up with some sort of redesign, that probably would satisfy some of the thing that's have been brought up by the commissioners, but we have been down this road already and we know that this is compliant and there's not a problem here. and they want a distribution of the units that makes one unit larger and one unit smaller. and that in my opinion is sort of their privilege to do as long as it's in keeping with our particular guidelines. went also have already -- and we also established the addition is even compliant with the radar extension allowances for the cal hollow guidelines. anyway, we will see what we come back with on the 16th of august. president fong: commissioner wu? >> i want to echo the sentiment asking project sponsors to work with the neighbors. although i will vote for the continuance, hate to see it come back to commission again. i really would hope you can come up with a solution outside of this room. president fong: commissioner

d.r. request, we never did that. i'm here to propose to open -- to reopen the d.r. for discussion and i propose that they just hear what the neighbors want to say. and they can address the concerns. >> just to be clear, two of the three items were, you think, i have been resolved by the current proposal? which one did not? >> the original plan was an absolute monstrosity, much, much larger than it is now. it was initially 75% of the lot, from the very front to the very back. that was just the actual property. then they had a deck on the back on each floor going up. it was an absolute monstrosity. we brought the city back into our backyard and said, look, this is our backyard. right now, we can see the ingleside. we are on top of the hill. from the front of cars out -- front of our house we get to the fairmont. from our roof we can see oakland. we're on top of the hill. if this happens about all we will see is this building. later on, we started the d.r. is no longer valid. only because of the old plan. the d.r. has no more value so you have to withdraw. i do not hav

the other thing was if there was not any discretionary review and the neighbors were requesting another d.r., i do not understand how hearing took place. why was there even a d.r. hearing if nothing had been filed? vice president fung: i can answer that. the d.r. is either by request by outside appellants for it is filed by the department itself. >> they would not send out notification? vice president fung: the notification requirements are the same. >> they would have to send out. it is not correct we did not receive notification? >> you would not receive notification. the same rules apply. >> i do not see how that -- do you know what i mean? at some point, that is the policy made by the city that they file a 311 notification to a broader neighborhood group and that d.r. gets narrower. >> someone across the street did not received notification, either. i do not know what happened there. >vice president fung: she did not respond. >> of the hearing in december? vice president fung: do have a question? >> no. president hwang: i hear a tremendous amount of frustration and i am deeply sorry for

request. after many e-mail communications with a neighbor, i send them to date my architect and i could meet. no response. tehe d.r. commissioner ruled in our favor. the neighbor's lawyer contacted my are contested -- my architect. these white walls were built to give the neighbors more light than air. this made the project more difficult. we told people where we were willing to cross the windows in an effort to provide a confession to the neighbors. they never responded to our offer, again. this same month, the day requested access to our rules. in neighborly fashion, we granted full access. two years into the process, they are now appealing kafka we are a family trying to build family oriented units, making extreme concessions for our neighbor's benefit if, only to feel trampled on. thank you very much. i am all done. >> thank you. do you have any questions? >> can you explain what you do it is the concessions -- concessions you gave? i agree keepnot think i have a d understanding of what the concessions were. >> we do not pretend week believe we could build to this. i'm showing you the envelops so you can under