the d.r. requester? >> hell oh, my name is brighty newman. i live at 1237 a 4th avenue. i am on the ground floor unit. i have lived there for 15 years. the light that comes into my apartment all comes in through the back. and as it's a ground floor unit, that lighting is extremely precious to us. we don't have very much light. so a main concern i have -- i was a little bit puzzled about if you are approving the project, if the recommendation is to approve which drawing there -- there have been so many drawings. and the most recent accommodation that was suggested was to build three stories and then one rather than three stories and then two . and i understood sarah to say that -- that she was in support of that. but it was confusing to me just which drawing she was in support of. i'm in support of one that -- that keeps the -- what is built to a minimum. there are -- i'd like to say 12 people who are very, very much affected in their every day lives by anything built out in that lot. thank you. >> tha

the d.r. requester who has two minutes of rebutal time. not 10, two minutes. everyone leapt on me. >> i was elected to speak. i don't have any tests available. >> i'm sorry, excuse me, could you state your name for the record. >> my name is bridey newman. by the way it's b-r-i-d-e-y. my bedroom is at the back. in winter, it's you know, relatively poor. probably around 2:00 in the afternoon is when we start getting the sun. in summer it's considerably better. my daughter and i have been fond of setting out a picnic in the backyard so that we could sit in the sun and eat our breakfast, late breakfast 11:30 maybe, noon in the summertime. i do a lot of handwork and i can no longer see it without sunlight so i go out there in the afternoon to -- to do it. in the summertime, i have set out in the backyard in the sunlight as late as 6:00, 6:30 day -- daylight savings time. you had awe testimony 3:30 in your picture jeremy. -- you had autumn, 3:30 in your picture, jeremy. i've been out there gardening. the li

the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as submitted. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. d.r. questioner. -- d.r. requester. >> good afternoon, my name is john he is ler. i'm the owner of 12394th avenue, together with my family, members of which occupy both units of the property. thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this request for discretionary review. first of all, i appreciate the effort and expense that the developer has undertaken to modify the original proposal. no one would dispute that some of the changes they have proposed are marginal improvements from the standpoint of surrounding properties. i assume that the planning department, i just learned that the planning department, having been granted an approval for the original proposal will in all likelihood go forward with the plan as now revised but none of these facts change the basis of our original appeal. i'd like to make three quick points. in recommending that the commission not take d.r., the planning department has in our view not given adequate consideration to the extent that the proposed development would encroach on th

the d.r. request were filed by neighbors in the immediately adjacent buildings to the north and south and by a neighbor located two fronts to the north of the subject property. their concerns with the project include the following -- the project is oversized and out of scale the neighborhood. the project was resolved in a loss of property windows. they would reduce light and air to adjacent buildings. the project will dominate the street. the project will cast shadow and the building is proposed to be used for vacation rentals. the d.r. requesters have indicated that would find a acceptable project that eliminated the partial fourth floor, provide a setback of the third floor edition and reduce the horizontal edition. the project was reviewed twice by the residential design team. prior to neighborhood notification, the r.d.t. requested that various sight, setbacks and increases have been provided to reduce impacts to adjacent properties. these requested provisions were submitted by the project sponsor

commissioner miguel: we called the d.r. requester, but i think the d.r. requester may have left. they did leave us a note. are there any speakers here in favor of the d.r. requester? if not, i will call on the project sponsor. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the planning commission today -- >> you can pull the microphone down. >> thank you. or i should grow. thank you for the time to defend our small pronth. we decided to put together some plans to build the roof deck to minimally impact the side of the building and any impact on our neighbors so we don't think that the -- to satisfy the code the parapet wall we have to build is not going to block any light or air to our neighborhood. and we just don't feel that there is much more to say and i think the impact on the neighborhood will be minimal. commissioner miguel: thank you. are there any other speakers on this one? if not -- oh, yes. certainly. >> thank you very much. i am also speaking in favor of the proposed plan. secretary avery: could you state your name please? >> i am karen ar ron and we are looki

the d.r. requester's. commissioner sugaya: i would like to support the staff motion which would indicate it back five months back or whenever we heard it last to revert back to the 1998 and if that takes an intent so that we can clarify exactly what existed at the time versus what apparently was approved by d.b.i. mistakenly, i am kind of confused on that. >> i think ms. he i

. >> that is the opposite side of the building where the d.r. requester is complaining about. >> isn't his building abutting yours? >> he is on the other side. >> it is on the opposite side. the d.r. fileer is on the opposite side of where we are suggesting to move it in. commissioner moore: i don't think we can resolve this year. i would like to state it is a concern because if you live that way, it is absolutely horrible. and as a commission working with the department should develop more sensitized guidelines by which we encourage roof decks because it is a provision and expansion of usable open space. however, it has to be within measure of how a property operates in the block and the typical limit ed, the limited frontage and lot size we have in san francisco. and that is basically it. given what was just pointed out. who is speaking? >> i understand the commissioner's concern and i will communicate this to the residential design team. commissioner moore: thank you. appreciate that. secretary avery: commissioners, the maker of the motion, there was a

the d.r. requester's. commissioner sugaya: i would like to support the staff motion which would indicate it back five months back or whenever we heard it last to revert back to the 1998 and if that takes an intent so that we can clarify exactly what existed at the time versus what apparently was approved by d.b.i. mistakenly, i am kind of confused on that. >> i think ms. hester is stating the inaccuracy of the plan that was submitted with the permit, the current permit and the current proposal. they are suggesting that there was a modification to be made and presented to you as the 1998 permit and we have the 1998 permit. i don't think ms. hester is suggesting that the plan on file with the department of building inspection that we have pulled from microfiche is this is something different than what she would like them to be reverted to. there are, on top of that, not to confuse matters worse, but the 1998 permit it

i am terry miln, the d.r. requester for 13-abc. as i understand, we have been asked to give the developers a chance to meet with neighbors about possible modifications of part of this project. and so we have agreed that this is possible. if it wil lbl be months from now we will have plenty of time. president olague: this is a doable date, with the project sponsor. december first. and this is just for items proposed for continuance. >> i am christina crawford, talking about the 2011 -- 0.2.88c. >> this is not the time. >> i thought this was consent calendar. >> i apologize. >> any public comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> a question on item 13-abc. commissioner antonini: reason for continuance? president olague: the neighbors wanted extra time to meet. commissioner antonini: it is nice if they work this out ahead of time. we don't lose time hearing it today. if we have to decide at the last minute -- president olague: it makes more sens ete to hear all three at once. there was agreement. >> move to cont

are there any additional speakers in support of the d.r. request third? seeing none, a project sponsore? >> victor on behalf of bistro gambrinus. the permits seeks to change from a small service restaurant to a full-service restaurant of the eastern european cuisine and beer and wine. there is something i across the street from my place that is not that different. i enjoy a nice meal. it is very appropriate that this is coming after the mirkarimi legislation earlier today. it is in line with that type of small, international cuisine. it was smart -- started by a young immigrant couple from eastern europe. i have been there a number of times. it is clean, well lit, entered generational in terms of clientele. i have seen families, i have seen students, i have seen a diversity amount of people. this is not a motley crew. this is an intergenerational family pressure not that happens to serve beer and wine to go along with meals. there is no hard liquor being served. the owners do not have any intent of pursuing a full liquor license. the d.r. applicants make r

and i don't really ever see the impact to d.r. requester and i don't see it today other than the fact it that's overgrown and there is some problems with the property. so i would move to continue. commissioner miguel: is there a second? commissioner antonini: we need a date, i guess. secretary avery: do you have a date? commissioner antonini: it would have to be then. secretary avery: and on the 19th we are proposing a joint hearing with rec park for 18 washington and downtown park fund and some other heavy items. i would not put this on the 19th. commissioner antonini: january 26. commissioner miguel: is there a second to the motion? the motion fails for lack of a second. secretary avery: commissioners -- pardon? i have going to call the question. commissioner miguel: i just want to make a comment. and i might have supported that motion had the architect been here. but i think the fact that the project sponsor is not even bringing their architect after all this speaks volumes. >> appreciate the comment. secretary avery: the motion on the f

the neighbors. not a single time to the request your of the d.r. come to me and say here is the problem, let's talk. our goal is to be as we are. a full-service, eastern european restaurant. we would like to solve the problem peacefully. i would be very happy to talk to anybody including my next-door neighbors. thank you. >> are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor. seeing none, project requestor. >> thank you, commissioner, madam president. clearly, there are very respectable people in the room. they seem to patronize and enjoy the restaurant as well. the restaurant doesn't cater to parties that go on late at night well past closing time. they do generate a high number of drunks and they do make the neighborhood un safe. natalia and i live immediately next door. we are terribly inconvenienced and feel threatened by the people that often stand outside. they have stood in the way of natalia. they stand in my way as i approached the home. i am not as easily intimidated as natalia is. none of this is a fabrication. there are