before the reaction was, this is a monster. it is terrible, they said they would fight it. we met with them three times, we exchanged numerous females. i went over to their property. [chime] president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i work with my brother. our house was severely under built. editions were made in a piecemeal fashion.

the top flap has only one bathroom and no central heat. in order to make our house more livable, we had to make room for eventual families. we applied for the building permit before you now. even before we approached the request is, we made several changes to reduce the impact on them. for example, we scaled back the expansion to the east of the light well, but the initial plan would have still been in compliance with the planning code in the residential design guidelines. upon presenting our plan, their reaction was one of indignation. they objected to the amount of light available in the disappearance of their view. our house sits to the north, and the project would only cast a

little shadow on them in a rare occasions while they're building cast a shadow on us all the time. we completely removed the roof penthouse which made for more complicated structural issues. the claims of the loss of light was confusing to me since states sought a variance for an illegal act that extends into the space. the request for sought my support and asked that i write a letter despite the fact that it casts a shadow and their backyard and reduces our privacy. out of respect, i gave them a letter. less than a year later, we submitted a proposal that did not require variantce. the request is to capture much more light if they removed the deck for which they sought a variance.

we wanted them to be able to have some indirect warning light and hear the sounds of the neighborhood coming from the street. over the course of the last few months, we have gone door to door to keep the neighbors to address any concerns they had. support was overwhelmingly positive. as is evidenced by the many letters of support and opposition. i respect -- i request that the commission not approve it. president miguel: additional speakers? you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, president miguel. that is wanted to say that what

the owners took out for an illegal that has been there for 20 years before either of them had moved to the property. they were legalizing something. was this adequately reviewed? under the standards for rehabilitation, distinctive materials and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be preserved. i think the preservation is the issue here, that this current application can't meet. i think it is an issue of ventilation as much as light. the air moves around differently. please take discretionary review that is no taller. it is truly support meant. -- support a net -- subordinate.

president miguel: project sponsor, two minutes. >> i would like to go over some of the concessions we have made. we have completed a foot production on the top floor -- footprint reduction on the top floor. we can put a transparent railing, we switched the location at the rear to allow more light, and we have also shortened the balcony. i also like to talk a little bit about the effect of the north property. there is essentially a 25 foot wide yardage used for parking right now that will be mostly affected. you can kind of see the shadow studies to the area, and they

are really only going to get to the garden area. that is mostly just going to be all around the winter solstice, and probably just for a couple of weeks. i do not think the proposal will touch light in that space. president miguel: thank you. commissioner sugaya: this is a difficult situation, because it has several aspects of its that will affect the decision. we have one preservation architect on one side of the issue, we have another preservation architect on the other side of the issue. we have a third with letters in our packets who has rendered an opinion that he feels that the addition is ok. the same gentleman and i are on

to opposite sides of the fence on a different issue, just to bring further complication into this picture. in that case, i am defending an addition and he is trying to say that the addition is not in keeping with the history of the house. we have all of that facing us here. and i think there are a couple of ways to look at this. if you take the survey that has been conducted in the south mission in which the street is a part of that, the historic preservation commission took that yesterday. we pointed out certain district caracteristics including at the side yards. it certainly does exist here. and we are getting the argument

as we have heard from the request for is that it is one of the more important characteristics that should be maintained. i think in terms of looking at the building, my perspective is the combination of those of views that have been presented. the important features of the house itself or what you can see from the street and including some portion of the side yard adjacent to the request firstor -- requestors. mr. butler has admitted that something can be constructed in the back and meet the secretary of interior standards. my question to the staff was upon meeting with both the

request is and the project sponsor, to ask whether there had been any consideration to looking at a variance to the back yard. not a big one, but something on the order of being able to accommodate the stairway which is currently the reason that it filled up the side yard. and turning it somehow into the open space in the back that would require something from the zoning administrator. the initial feedback is that was probably not a good idea, but i did not get a justification for why it might not be a good idea in the case of preserving the side yard as a trade-off to the backyard. the project sponsor might not want to encroach on the rear yard for various reasons. it might affect the trees or

that it might want to maintain the space of the rear area as proposed. it is one alternative that could alleviate some of the issues with respect to the project sponsor's program requirement as long as -- as well as addressing some of the key issues with the d r request is. i am not here to decide this thing, but it is a question that came up in my mind as i was looking over the proposed plans and the request from the dr people. >> if i might, i think the concern was because -- and i can't speak for the zoning administrator, but i think the issue was that it would be taken beyond the line of houses to the south and bring it closer.

i guess that structure is not part of the unit. i think that was the concern that if he went back further, he would push into that open space. it doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible, but that is the reason that we were concerned. commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner sugaya. it is a little tricky, but i went by and took a look for myself and look at all the maps. i think that there is a pattern that is somewhat disparate. the houses touch each other, maybe these happened after the initial placement. there is perhaps as many as 50% depending on how far you draw the map to include these structures to have some kind of connection being non detached

all the way through. in that particular area. they have a 48 foot setback, it certainly makes that addition one that is not obtrusive from the front. they have made some concessions, and the issue of the light since the dr requestors are -- they're to the north, so in most instances, this will not be a factor. the addition looks to me like a good one. you have the french windows, the board siding. it is a flat roof as opposed to gabled, but many of them have

flat roofs even though they have the facades with gables. i would tend to think that this is ok. there is a lot of neighborhood support, and i would be inclined to not take the dr and approve the project. >commissioner moore: i am in lie with commissioner sugaya. i went by the applicant's homa, and felt that the best of both worlds, it would really be a better place, it would be expanding in its current building, holding the sidelines. as far as at least considering a backyard and variantce to be

minimal, it would probably create a better solution. the rear yards are pretty consistently filled with very old and large trees. it is not like looking at a metal landscape, but you have a lot of trees there. i don't think that moving by a small amount into the rear yard would change that very much, particularly with the house to the north of the project applicant. it is set to the far side of a lot and would actually not be affected by it. there are some smaller structures in the garden.

it would actually be on the requestor to live with the addition. that would be challenged. president miguel: i also agree with commissioner sugaya. i think he possible solution of moving the stairway to the rear, even though it impacts and would require a variance, it might be a better decision. commissioner moore: i make a motion that we give them the opportunity to gather with the department to explore this as an option. i do believe that there could be potentially improvements made. i don't think that putting two

floors with sitting rooms is a convincing way of enlarging this house. by the current proposal, it doesn't all range -- it rearranges the similar square footage. i think it can be done in a manner that utilizes the lot and the adjacency better. commissioner sugaya: i will second that. i wasn't getting into the floor plans originally, the following up on commissioner morore's comment, there is something labeled "sitting room. there is a larger one on the third floor. i am not here to criticize the programming, but if he really needed to take a tough stance on

where things might be rearranged, given the direction that we seem to be going, it would seem that there is a combination that can be made by the project architect in this case, and i think the explanation is a good one with respect to the rear of the buildings. in this case, there is a trade- off that we are suggesting be taken under consideration by the zoning administrator and it should be taken as something that he might want to look at when he considers whether or not that might be possible. commissioner olague: i would like to hear from mr. lerner.

>> what you're buying into is a solid premise. all of these buildings are not freestanding buildings. you're trying to create something that doesn't exist. in terms of light and air, the project has little impact on them. maybe it is just the thing they have dug their heels and and they want this set back from front to back just on principle, but when you're looking at the architecture and the pattern of the bloc, these are not freestanding buildings. these are buildings that some of them have a yard from front to back, and a lot of them don't. they are set back quite a distance like this one is, something like 47 feet. they are open to the street and not just to the air. you are promoting a premise that is not real at all. i think some people have got it

in their mind that all of these houses are freestanding and they are not. the impact is going to be nil. >> what do you think about this idea of moving the stairs for the back? at a stand with your argument is. >> we talked a little bit about it before. it's sort of messes up part of his plan, but it also goes into that briard. emphasizing a principle that doesn't exist of freestanding houses, were pushing into the rear yard? it doesn't make sense. president miguel: thank you. >> i just wanted to make sure that you understand that -- it

may or may not have to come back to you. commissioner sugaya: i understand his argument, but if you look at the survey results, it quite clearly indicates that there are side yards and they should be respected. isn't that correct? >> to the extent that we are doing that. there still is a setback. there is still a side yard with the project that is 47 feet deep. when you go down the block any look at all of these houses, it will be the same impression. >> we are not going to have that situation here. i don't like the addition. there we have it.

i think it is too big, i think it is too bulky, i think it should be pushed to the rear. >> that is an opinion. it is set way back in the lot. >> i personally think -- i don't know if we want to hear this case again. i think that we should take the dr and make those recommendations. i would personally rather not have to come back again. if the direction of the commission is that they want to move it to the back, we should make that recommendation. i think it makes more sense to make that decision because i don't know if we have much that is going to change. i hate we start looking at the

inside of people's buildings. the footprint is what we're here to decide, not what they do on the inside. president miguel: does the staff have observations? >> if you will of the commission is not to build into the side yard at all, then that seems to me that it would be a reasonable approach and you have done this sort of thing in the past two put the direction on the side yard and recommend that they grant a modest variance. if that is the direction that you want to go. >> are you removing your motion for a continuance? commissioner moore: i will substitute it with the verbiage just suggested.

commissioner antonini: there have been representations' about the distribution of houses in the area, how many of them are completely free, detached, and it seems to me unless i am blind or reading the map strong that there are probably 50% of them are a significant percentage that do that. >> i think that percentage is roughly correct. the characteristics of this block in particular is that there is a wide variety of setbacks and side yards. there are totally freestanding buildings that have side yards on both sides. there are partially freestanding buildings that are built for one property line and have a personal side yard. there are properties that have no side yards. given that in the context of the residential guidelines, the

thing about this particular project was that it was within those bounds. and this particular building was most similar to those buildings on the block that had that partial infill. president miguel: and this did not rise to the level where it would be brought forward under the dr policy? >> there was no exceptional circumstance here and it was not abbreviated initially. president miguel: i would intend to vote against the motion, but i think we're going beyond where we should be. we need to allow people, where possible, if it is consistent with not destroying the characteristics of a building which i think we have heard in testimony, it is not destroying the historic characteristics of the building to be able to make

these more livable for modern needs. anyone who has lived in victorians know that there are a lot of restrictions, and it is a difficult situation to accommodate to some of the modern things that we expect, and i think it is a reasonable solution the way they have proposed it. commissioner sugaya: there is never one architectural solution in this case or in any case. i am comfortable with commissioner moore's motion and my second. from the historic district's standpoint, i guess the question is, at one. -- at what point do we say, we have done 15 of these, but now we have upset the whole character of the district.

so there is no environmental review at this point, but there is an ongoing cumulative effect. that isn't exactly what we're talking about, but that situation could arise at some point. commissioner moore: i am not talking to the subject of the historic preservation, but i would observe that the the history of the bloc has a pattern where three or four adjoining buildings sit on the property line. in that cemetery, they utilize the side yard of one, as a benefit to both. now as the person whose property is a side, if they start to build, there'll be a very strong

negative effect to -- for the person who has benefited with respect to this side yard. i only realized that after being with the project applicant and realized that the entire home is really built around the ability to have the benefits of the side yard even though it is not on their property. this is not similar to address the observations, we just want to infill in other lots in the city. we have talked about many homes in the neighborhood that or not quite as specific. i am going to make a strong

restatement that building into the rear yard is really the only reasonable way to address bringing this house into a larger living area. commissioner antonini: commissioner moore, i totally agree. if this was a pattern where the homes world attached, i would never vote for any addition that broke that pattern and wouldn't have been cut compliant anyway. i think the difference here is that they have made a lot of accommodations. they moved the addition to a point where they don't interfere at all with the light well for the light of the adjacent property. it is a little different if you're blocking somebody's light well as opposed to just blocking the light between buildings.

but we will see with the commission decides on this. commissioner olague: my name keeps disappearing from the light up for some reason. this is a confusing one because on the one hand, do we sacrifice the side yard, or do we sacrifice the rear yard? either way, you are giving something up. i am not sure how i will ultimately vote on this even though it looks like two seconds away. i know that we still have meetings with the latino community they used to be the pre large population there. i imagine it has shifted somewhat, but i believe that the latino community should be weighing in on this