that the addition will have an impact on light and privacy to a fourth floor addition which was constructed approximately 10 years ago. btr was filed in response to the program which was sent with a 311 notification that was since found to be non complying with respect to the rear yard. the project as approved would address the rear yard requirement by reducing the depth of the fourth floor addition. the modification also proposes to extend the fourth floor addition forward from what was originally proposed. the dr requestor is asking that the project be modified such that the proposed rear roof deck the set back from the common property line more than is currently proposed, approximately 8 feet. since the subject property is within the boundaries of cal hollow, it was reviewed against those design guidelines. that review concluded that the

project as modified appropriates proper good-neighbor gestures to minimize impacts to adjacent properties through setbacks, matching light wells, and eliminating the need for property line perutz throughout the weighted roof. with the proposed roof deck, that would be set back approximately 5 feet from the common property line. in conclusion, the department finds the project is modified with a setback that would comply with the planning code and the neighborhood design guidelines, and would not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. staff recommends the commission take the are and approve the project with these modifications. president olague: thank you. dr sequestered? >> my name is patricia housen.

i live in the property directly to the west of the proposed addition, and i have lived there for 13 years. my property is right here. these are family room windows that have a north-facing you. the street is on the other side. this is looking to the interior of the block. i would actually like to thank the planning department and ms. lloyd for catching their error on the original proposal. the original proposal had a vertical addition based on code requirements for a standard- sized lot, but this is a short lot. the subsequent revision has brought it into compliance with a short lot requirement.

it has satisfied the issues about light. i have two issues, light and privacy. the revision has gone a long way to satisfying my request for light. i do really appreciate that. the project architect, the owners, and the planning department addressed the issues. about privacy, when the occupants are on a deck that is extended all the way to the very end of the rear part of the building, they do have a direct line of sight into my windows of my family room. this building is also 3 feet higher. it puts them sort of at a birds- eye view of looking into by

window. i am requesting that this back deck is a 20 foot deck. i would like to see it cut down to 15 feet. i would like to see it come back off the edge of the building, the edge of the back building, by 5 feet. it would bring -- the product itself is quite excessive, when you compare it to especially the vertical addition to projects in the neighborhood. vertical additions -- these are pictures that have all been taken within the block or two of the proposed project. generally, what you see is a 300 to 400 square foot view room, capturing the view of the bay and not taking up a lot of the fourth floor space.

my own building has a 300 sq. ft. room on the fourth floor. i think it is very much an overbuilt proposal compared to what you see around the neighborhood as far as an addition on a fourth floor. diesel just some examples. this is a building on the corner. the depth does not continue all the way to the very edges of the building. so thank you for considering my request. it is, i think, a small request, and it has to do with my long-term privacy. and i intend to be in this building for a very long time. i think the privacy of a few extra feet there would create a more oblique lines so they can

not look directly into my window. i really would appreciate your considering a request. president olague: speakers in support of dr requestor? >> mr. david thompson is going to speak, and he is somewhat hard of hearing, so he has asked that i stand next to him in case you have questions. president olague: that is fine. no worries. >> good afternoon, commissioners. if you have any questions, i think miss houton can interpret for me. a month to discuss one thing -- parking. that is not a new subject for you, i am sure. however, i think presidents are sometimes very dangerous. i have been the property owner

at 276569 filbert st. for almost 40 years. i think i've probably owned that property longer than any of us on the street. last year, and in 2007 and 2008, there was a big dustup when somebody came in and bought a house that had deteriorated up the street from where we were. and they whipped it down and added two flores and four bedrooms. and they did not add any parking. that was a very sore point for me. it was a very contentious issue

with the number of houses on the street. i am sensitive to the subject. when we had a presentation to the commission, one of the commissioners asked -- i believe it was the plan -- isn't there something you can do about the parking spot? the answer is it is grandfathered in. will that house is probably 70 years old. it seems to be as time goes over you can take grandfather clauses that exist when automobiles first started being used. for this property, the same thing is being done. they are adding two floors. the are adding four bedrooms.

but are not changing the number of parking spots. my big concern is president sometimes becomes policy. essentially, it is a wonderful place. if two houses can be sort of ripped apart and doubled in terms of size -- president olague: thank you. >> can we put david's letter into the tax -- into the? >> this is an interesting case. when we started doing negotiations. -- when we started doing negotiations, we saw an

architect. a second architect came in and made some viable changes. what stopped the last meeting was that the planner had said that it passed code, and it did not. i had to prove it literally hours before. that was why it was continued. the question is the top floor with me. i do not know an answer. this is your decision. are you listening, mr. antonini? [laughter] commissioner antonini: i hear you. >> and mr. fong? it says it should be 12 feet back. they are making an exception. the building up the street built every -- that broke every building will in the book got another exception. what is your plan for the city and county of san francisco and for our neighborhood? are we going to make exceptions

to every single building that goes up? are we going to start sticking to the code? i am not saying one way or another how i go on this. i am just pulling out the questions on this. is that interesting? president olague: we are actively looking up the plans over here. if it appears we're looking down -- >> if it is 4 feet here, 8 feet here, 10 feet here, do we have a code? what should we follow? breaking these codes and making these exceptions at times causes drs. if you follow the code, it is more likely you will not have them. >> commissioners, ipod --

commissioner sugaya: commissioners, i am going to ask to recused myself. in has bearing to the property i own. -- commissioner fong:. >> on the motion? commissioner fong is reduced -- recused. president olague: project sponsor -- i am sorry. are there additional speakers in support of the d r request your -- of the dr requestor? seeing none, a project sponsored -- project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the sangiaccomo family.

the project was modified to make it" compliant. that necessitated a very large set back in the rear. that is what is there now. it is a 19 foot setback at the rear. plus we kept a very generous set back at the front and a setback on the side. this fourth floor addition is now quite compact. it is pretty much as small as it can be. the d r -- the dr requestor is now satisfied with the s.e.c. and the size. the only thing she is asking is that more than a 5 ft. setback to the deck -- or at the end of her testimony she said she wanted the deck pulled back from the rear of the building, which was never requested before. i am a little puzzled as to what she wants. it does not come close to being extraordinary or exceptional. we have modified the project to

make it" compliant. we have also kept all the prior setbacks that were previously negotiated. we have a very compact development on this fourth floor, consistent with others in the neighborhood. the only issue i am hearing because it is such a small fourth floor, i think it is important to have a generous back. in the room is not a bedroom. it is a living room. we are not talking about any impact on privacy in the bedroom. it is strictly a living room. a deck that looks into a living room is not unusual or extraordinary, and it meets residential design guidelines.

i would also point out that a railing further separates the deck from her rooftop. it is quite distant. the other thing i have heard was a concern about parking. the credit is a two-unit building. there are a two parking spaces before. there are two parking spaces proposed. it is not an issue. we do not see anything extraordinary beyond what needs to be done to make the addition code compliant. i request that you do take the staff recommendation to take dr to approve this plan with the setback. of also note. there is no requirement for front setbacks in this district, and we are" compliant. with that, we would request that you take the staff recommendation as modified,

with no further modifications. president olague: are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor backspin dr requestor, you have two minutes -- the project sponsor? seeing none, dr requestor, you have two minutes. >> the previous plan had living space in this area. i was requesting it be set back further from this property line, our shared property line. i see there is a door here, so it does not make sense to set back this way. also, it being a deck, it does not show my windows. i am requesting this deck be set back instead of being a 20-foot deck.

it could become a 15-foot deck and come back from the very edge of the property line. president olague: are you done? because you have two minutes. >> yes. president olague: protect sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i just want to point out and do not understand how changing the depth of that deck affect the privacy issue. it seems really arbitrary to me. public hearing is closed -- president olague: public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: i agree about the issue was privacy to the adjacent neighbor, which will not be affected by the depth of the deck. i think the 5 ft. separation -- when we look at extraordinary circumstances, we look at light

and air issues. in an urban air environment, you have issues where people's windows are adjacent from each other. that happens. as far as the parking issue, it remains true. it is coats compliant. there is enough space to put more parking underneath in that lower level. it does not according to staff rise to a level where it would be referred to the commission under a pending dr reform legislation. i think the sponsors have put together a lot of changes in the addition. the upper floor is fairly compact. it does not take up a large part of the space on that upper floor. i would move to approve with the

modifications. commissioner borden: second. commissioner moore: by doing that, with the edge of the upper deck still be at the edge of the building? >> the rear deck would be at the rear building wall. commissioner moore: the unit is 3500 square feet, which is substantial. i think it is well designed. i wish the front setback on the fourth floor would be a little deeper and consistent with what we normally do, which is not 8 feet. mostly, we are at a minimum 10

or 15. we are in a traditional neighborhood. a mostly do not approve it when the end of the deck is flush with the building wall. the roof decks to be part of the unit up there -- more away from the edges, partially because of the overall massing. by bringing the deck right to the edge, you are building up the building in a way which i personally do not like, in addition to the fact that you have a traditional building with

traditional retailing. it is a difficult thing to do a good railing right at the edge of the building wall. it is very hard to do. i am concerned about the consistency on the front setback of the deck. i would consider pushing the rear of the building back a little bit, because the decks are rather large. there are almost a third of the living area for the upper floor. i think it would not hurt the usability of the deck. >> you are right. typically it is 10 feet to a 15 feet, which is dictated in the design guidelines. in a streak of three story buildings, which this is, you

want any fourth story to essentially disappear from view from the street. the 8 ft., combined with the shorter side and an setbacks and front her pet, it achieves in the normally invisible from the street. commissioner moore: in principle, i would like to have more consistency in how we do things. anybody could put up a pair pat -- parapet. i would like to have more consistency in how we use it. for a large upper floor with two

decks, i think something has to give. commissioner sugaya: i like the fact that commissioner moore is arguing from a design standpoint. i do not see this as a privacy issue. the sun was, it would help if we sent the rear deck back 3 feet or something like that. i would like to make an amendment to the motion to set the rear deck back from the edge of the building by 3 feet. commissioner moore: that is fine. i can live with that. commissioner antonini: that would be acceptable? that is the only change? commissioner sugaya: yes. commissioner borden: that is fine. >> we have a motion on the table to approve with modifications.

commissioner antonini:aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. vice president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes. we are moving on to item 13, which is also a staff-initiated dr. it is at 422 day street, on the north side upper castro and -- of castro and noe. >> good evening, members of the commission. michael smith, planning department's staff. you have before you a staff- initiated request for discretionary review of a building permit proposing to construct a one-story commercial addition -- vertical addition

and facade of alteration. as you know, this is a staff- initiated dr, which is rare. the reason we are putting this before you today is to do not feel it complies with residential design guidelines. in specific, we are asking for a 15-foot front setback. originally, the project came to us with pay a fairly large stair penthouse. that has since been removed. we also received additional letters of support from members on the street, 10 letters in total. there is support of their for

this proposal. the owners have lived on the street for a long time and have talked to their neighbors. however, the department -- it is hard to take that into consideration, the fact that neighbors all support it. how we look at vertical editions is that we look at the pattern. we have two buildings on this block of day street, 11 of which are three story buildings with no setbacks. for the proposed or existing building, it is in a group of five buildings, which for us is a clear enough pattern of two- story buildings. although this is not like the sun set, where you have blocks and blocks of two-story buildings, we are looking largely at the block, and looking to form our recommendation. it is sandwiched between two- story buildings.

the 15-foot front set back, we believe, is necessary. right now, they are proposing an approximately six-foot setback. we would like to protect that street well with a 15-foot setback. we are looking at modest modifications. we think there is some articulation needed to address the shorter building to the east. this concludes my presentation. we are asking for these modifications in the staff initiated dr. i do have photos of all the buildings on this block so you can get a better understanding of the street wall.

president olague: project sponsor? >> my name is mark macy, the project sponsor's