the first d.r. application or d.r. requester concerned that the current building design that contemporary architecture is errant with surrounding earlier 20th century architecture, therefore proposed third story addition will increase this currently anomaly. the next is third story is -- well, makes the building disproportionate. large on the lot. next project does not respect the mid park open space. finally the current available light to the third story windows will be affected. there is a further concern, which is not typically related to the application that is subject to the one-car garage used as storage, not for parking. * storey) >> in the second application, basically includes the concerns regarding third storey -- will result building to be out of scale. not comparable with surrounding buildings. then there is too much area under third storey rear elevation, which will result in loss of privacy and light pollution to the d.r. request err's house. all three suggest proposed petition be denied. staff as well as sponsor h

i urge you do get together with the d.r. requester and urge you to lose the roof deck on top of the fourth floor and encourage you to consider a setback. >> okay. thank you. >>> commissioner antonini. >> well, i have to talk to mr. cabreres here. i believe you are doing this case. i'm not quite sure. i'm looking at these plans. there would be the need if you want a matching light well on the north you have to increase the proposed light well by another looks like possibly two feet and two inches, then matching light wells there. i don't quite understand what d.r. requester's interest in asking separation other than where their light well is. because there is still going to be light coming in. i don't understand what they will gain with a separation or setback for property where they don't have windows. you are going to answer that? >> if i may. [ laughter] >> i live in a building where we have the same situation. these buildings are built cheek-to-jowl. your light well now had an addition on adjoining building which comes to the edge

if that is what you want. >> rebuttal. >> the second d.r. requester continue with that second five minutes. >> okay. >> somebody is coming up to represent the second d.r. requester? >> you want to state your name for the record? >> ken stewart. >> thank you. >> little discombobulated here. if we go to the visual here, i will run through slides. computer, please. >> you want the computer on? >> please. >> there you go. >> this is a depiction of -- >> can you speak into the microphone? >> sure, sure. these are depictions of the current building with the additional floor on top of it. a front view from here. you can see on top of the roof it is the penthouse stairwell, which goes up to the rooftop living area, set up with a fire pit, chairs and a table. this is a view from my house. i'm southwest down the hill from 611 buena vista. this is the view with the additional story on top, along with the stairwell. you can see that it -- at least from this level that it cuts out some of the view of the buena vista park trees. this is a view from the public park

commissioner antonini. >> could i ask questions for the d.r. requester. i missed the very beginning of your presentation but i also am looking at the plans. from what i'm hearing is concern about the light wells matching, i think. looks like the existing light well to the -- not sure what direction this is but i'm going to say to the north. i'm not sure if that is correct or not, is 20.6. he is going with 18.4 so what you might do is make that matching to the existing light well -- i guess it is your property. >> it doesn't need to match. the bigger objection is height of the expansion on the fourth floor. it actually going right up to the existing edge of the light well. by doing that it is basically blocking everything that we have today. >> okay. i'm just kind of looking to -- historically we try to match light wells, as a manner of preserving the light that exists. then looking the opposite side, presumably the south, there is a light well carved out, which is smaller. i don't see that duplicated in the present plans. i will ask other commissioners to

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 ahea

. >> i will call upon the d.r. requester to report back on whether there was an agreement or not. >> unfortunately, the devil is in the town. i have us and to agree to a continuance so we can hammer out an agreement, because there are a lot of variables floating around, and they are not amenable to that. >> no agreement. gooif we are going to follow the process, the d.r. requester has had a chance to speak. we should now have died. >> i do have cards there. goo[list of names] >> hello, commissioners. thank you for listening to me. i believe i stand in front of you as a property manager representing the owners who are people who really care about his property. >> can you state your name for the record? >> eva. and the impact it will have on our tenants, regardless of the low rent they are paying. we have a 71-year-old who has been here, and he wants to be here, but he cannot. she is only paying $212, and she has been here 20 years. another one who has been here more than 45 years, this is their quality of life we are talking

fines from the meetings attended that the project sponsor has been more than accommodating to the d.r. requesterby reducing the building height by reducing the fourth floor, installing matching light wells, august 12th, 2011 meeting. extending the original structure and as requested by the planning department. in addition park fines of the proposed project would be a welcome and long overdue addition. the services the project sponsor would provide our neighborhood is unique and beneficial to our residents. we are pleased that the project sponsors and that the owner to the smile for life foundation recognized by the california legislature assembly. i ask that you approve this project with no further modifications or delays. thank you for your consideration thank you board member representative, land use committee. sheryl schultz. thank you. >> hi, good evening. i'm here to speak on behalf of joseph franks who is a 15-year-old foster youth who was awarded a smile for lifetime scholarship. i can attest to what kayla had said previously which is that the beneficial nature of the scholarship is somet

the d.r., three minutes each. >> thank you. >> calling for speakers in support of the d.r. request, sir. >> patricia voy, merchant. our association wasn't even notified of this issue. second of all, when a compromised proposal was on the table it should be worked on. this reeks of 273537 baker no. reply. no one inch. i'm going to get what i want. this bothers me. you are going to be neighbors, et cetera. it doesn't follow design guideline from what i have seen. i only found out about this three days ago. i fully believe the fact that they should have tried to compromise the developers. and they didn't. my suggestion is to the one side wants it moved back seven feet, the other side moves it back none. why don't you move it back three and a half or four. see if you can come up with a compromise for them because the developer doesn't want to compromise at all. i thank all sides. i want to mention this. just so you know, this closing up of light wells and going wall-to-wall with not the proper fire codes, this mouse must be sprinkles from one end to the other. for 30 years i have heard fire people tell me without thos

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

. >> i will call upon the d.r. requester to