to the rules and forget about the residential design guidelines because we are appear to really gages things the way we are seeing physically and we sort of empathize. in some ways, we look at the physical issues. it is hard to tell a family to go on and get the architect and do this again. >> as a staff, we're going to take the hard and fast and more the conservative ruling in respect guidelines, respect to the policies. as a commission, you're given a certain degree of and with the room at the discretion and flexibility to look at the individual cases and if you feel that it can be accommodated, i think is well within the power

of this commission to make that kind of action. as a department, we are not going to make that. it will have to respect the established residential guidelines. we have to respect the established policy and directives. >> the guideline is a policy, it is not as if they are mandated. >> is a little bit different if they were violating the planning co. i don't think either design hot, either the original or this one violated any aspect of the zoning ordinance. it is fully code compliance, but how do we want a residential alteration that is so deep that it is going to potentially impact the bloc space. a visa the things that we factor as we evaluate a project. president olague: because of the size, even of the rear yards,

that is why we value, also, the open space. commissioner antonini: a few observations on this. there are quite a few addresses in the vicinity that are listed, the pictures are there. i count about eight different instances of forty third had to on forty second of the third floor. i am not saying they are done very well, but they do have third floors. but we run into the same areas, and now we're getting it in the sun said. years ago, these homes were built, usually right after the war. they were built modest homes, at a significantly lower price than you would pay anywhere else in san francisco. this is what i can afford, it is

cramped, but it is a house. it is not like being in a flat. i have a garage, a backyard, it is significantly less. the differential between these houses and at some of the others have diminished, and people are paying a lot of money for these small homes relative to what they can buy outside of san francisco. one of the problems that we have is that it does drive families away, if they're looking for a larger home to accommodate their needs because of the competition that exists, they make the choice to drive an hour and a half every day in the san francisco to have the additional bedroom or to have the second floor. one of the alternatives is to allow tasteful additions or you can make these houses competitive with what is available.

italy, it is still probably a higher price range, because you talk to people and they are shopping around. there is a sun room in the back, it is a logistical problem. i understand what the problem is because i have been many of these houses and if you allow them to go out, they have a problem with the amount of with the as allowable to fit in a hallway in a fit in the other veterans and make the thing work back there. that is why you have the clumsy sunroom configuration, but that is how they were built. it is hard to change that and make it work. i am happy with the way it is designed now. i understand the neighbors' concerns, but i understand the rest of the commission. commissioner borden: i understand.

it is interesting because we have a quandary on this case, i appreciate the comments that we have put these people through a lot have to tell them to do something different is very difficult. we are in a 40 x and district. whenever we decide within this case, we are going to see more and more additions in the neighborhood. it is happening all over the city. there are height limits that people are planning their buildings within, and we have to make a decision, are we saying that in this neighborhood, we want to see horizontal editions, and we should have staff go back and talk to people? and does that mean what we want to see, are going to feel that way 10 years down the road? i am just putting this out

there. or would we say that we would rather have the smaller third story addition and doing it the way we're doing it now? i might point to a certain degree that this is precedent- setting in whatever direction we choose to go, we need to be comfortable when we look at the long view of what is going to have been, why are we most comfortable with? y personal opinion in this particular case is that i feel really bad for this family, and i think it is a modest decision. i understand the neighborhood of's concerns, but i understand the fact that it can get really ugly really quick. you usually don't have any front yard, it is all pavement.

the open space is the green space, the greenbelt, or the privacy. commissioner moore: i do believe hall that the existing homes shown in the adjoining plans here are small enough and compact and of with the scale of design that i definitely seeing the handwriting to have an expansion which doesn't make them her overly pancaked into the lot. it is like a 58 by 25 foot footprint, expanding that. and you can create notches and variations of the whole thing does not appear as a solid mass and have an interesting addition to the rear. i do believe it is not going to

interfere with the perception of open space. particularly, i have to believe that in this location of the city, and the feeling beyond is clearly the most important perception of open space. as we lived closer, her however we live. in this particular area of this building, a emulates a bungalow type of living on a smaller scale. to repeat myself, i can see it in the architect's rendition, i could easily see in taking this out and allow the dimensions, the code compliant dimensions of the two-story scheme and still have a lovely building. those who would be my thoughts

and i would support that. we put ourselves at ease and when repeated, we have quite a few residential buildings that did not make it the first go around because there were many concerns. i had to come back to or three times in order to do it correctly. i a would have the architect whole of the original plans, work with the residential design team and bring it back as a two- story configuration. i believe it will be a more family value oriented building had than it currently is. commissioner sugaya: to the project sponsor. when your architect originally drew up the plans, i assume that you were thinking that a 2-4

scheme was preferable at that time? >> financially, doing the third level, there is a lot of structural engineering involved , so we were going for an extension rather than vertical. commissioner sugaya: i'm going to try to put you on the spot here? you have a preference at this point? i know you have spent all this money now for the third floor scheme pirie >> exactly. we started this project and one -- 2010. it was after when my mom had another incident and we seriously had to talk about moving in with her. since 2010 delvalle, who had i

think water to more incidents. it is just really hard on the family and doing all this waiting period we changed the plans once before with the architect, and we had all of these neighbors, and it is a long, drawn-out process. the only person really suffering is my mom. commissioner sugaya: is the architect here? gosh yes. commissioner sugaya: can i ask him a question? >> you mentioned there are no third levels? on our block, there are four or five. just on the surrounding blocks. commissioner antonini: only one looks good. >> i'm wijames --

commissioner sugaya: how far back did the original scheme go back? >> there wasn't a variants. commissioner sugaya: did it go from property line to property line? gosh yes, it did. -- >> yes, it did. commissioner sugaya: nand you have the scheme. >> yes. > commissioner sugaya:commissioh more work would take to bring it back to the planning staff? none? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: that's all. thank you. i hate to continue it out, but i

can't support the scheme the way it is. what troubles me is the location of the house isn't in between other houses. therefore, a third story addition really will impact of the neighborhood. if it were in the middle of the bloc, if the property were in between other houses, i would not have so much of a problem with it. given the location, there is an opportunity for a horizontal addition to work without bringing it 5 feet from both sides. commissioner antonini: and it has less impact than it was even a horizontal. commissioner sugaya: for those reasons, i will lead to make a motion to continue and have the

project sponsor and a staff looked at a two-story horizontal position. president olague: project sponsor -- commissioner sugaya: i'm thinking from what commissioner borden saidm, it would not have to come back to the commission, so there would be -- there would not be another hearing. reheat neighbors have to realize the extension will come pretty far back. >> a thing of the original design did encroach into the required rear yard. >> it was within the maximum allowance to your guidelines. >> i think it was 20 feet

deeper. i believe 20 feet deeper than the current location. >> it has been over a year. coming up on two years. when we went to the third level, it was substantial on my end financially, and i am pretty sure it would go back to the second level, when his pencil is clicking, it costs me financially, too. commissioner sugaya: i understand. can we take a five minute recess? president olague: let's take a recess to discuss this. >> we have the original plan

submittal. president olague: great. >> i think the question from south, they are saying that you need a variance. >> i was getting communication with the project planner. he is saying, it does not encroach. the original plan did not approach -- encroach into the rear yard. president olague: how about the side? straight out, ok. commissioner antonini: thank you. i do note that under our pending d.r. reform legislation, this project would not have even been referred to the commission, which is interesting. it would not be referred on the

staff report. staff felt it did not rise to level that it even should be considered. i would tend to agree, to some extent here. i do realize that you have a situation where the homes see thshis addition that wasn't there before, but there is a separation, a 40-foot separation between the backs of their houses and the wall. there is still plenty of light coming in, and those homes sit in a north-south direction and whereas the house sits on the east-west. their primary light sources are east-west, so it would be more from the windows on the sides of the house that would be the case from the north which is usually

the darker side. having lived in both multi-level homes and a single-level home, i much prefer a multi-level home at a think most people do because it gives you more privacy and it is a lot better situation given the choice. these homes are reflected of a time in the 50's and 40's when we started to go away from multi-level homes and we started to build split levels. eventually, ranchers had enough to put it on one level and we realize it is not an effective land use. it is more efficient have a multi levels. i like it the way it is now. i think the real neighborhood impact here, the only thing i see, neighborhood character, and i am not so sure that this addition is not in keeping with what could be the neighborhood

character in the future if these additions are done in a tasteful way. as was pointed out, it is a 40 foot height limit, and it's what's in the total height of 28 feet. you're talking about 12 feet below what is allowed. i don't see the reason to make them go through the cost of bringing another plan in that is inferior. commissioner miguel: as i mentioned originally, one of the problems is that we are setting a precedent to an extent. it was already mentioned that if this was in the middle of the bloc rather than the end, the walls would not be quite as much of a problem as it is now, visually. but if we are in the position of possibly setting precedent, which president do we want to set?

if we were going to do the low level further extension in the middle of the bloc, it is my belief that we would have nixed it immediately. absolutely. with that consideration, iw ould would tend to go up rather than out. commissioner sugaya: i just think that going up is ridiculous. as you get older, i don't like going upstairs anymore. i understand mamma's on the lower level, she has to come upstairs i think to eat. we are already talking about her inability issue. i don't know.

i dunno if i had a second on my motion. i guess is not a continuance, a d.r key.to take the d.r. secondy scheme, give it to staff. but they can go back to the legal rear yard line, or whatever you want to call it. commissioner antonini: herainarg to second, i'll move to approve the project. -- no second, i'll move to approve the project. >> on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moorsugaya: no.

commissioner miguel: reluctant aye. president olague: i'm with miguel, aye. >> that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. thank you. you are on item 14. case 2011.0817d for 4356 26th street.

>> southwest team leader. before you is request for a discretionary review to construct a horizontal rear extension for the first floor level and to add a new basement level at the rear of the existing single-family dwelling unit. it is a down-sloping line and that also led early up slopes. such property is located in the zoning district. the horizontal rear extension of the first floor level will match the height and depth of an existing rear deck structure that is proposed for demolition as part of the project. the proposed extension of the level of the triangular building permit and the setbacks are at least 3 feet from the side property. the adjacent projpperty to the east, -- the skill of the

project would mask beyond neighborhood standards. the residential design team has reviewed this project and supports the project as proposed for the following reasons. the addition is a minimal extension and, above grade, along the west side, and the three-foot setback for the one- story basement portion. we also found that the privacy concerns are not exceptional or extraordinary considering the subject property has. back in the same location as the proposed addition of the first level. it supports the proposed a death because of the rear must apportion of the extension is located at the bottom of a down slope which is well below the level for the adjacent buildings, and a setback at least 5 feet from the property.

the department finds that the project has not demonstrated exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and we recommended that they do not take the discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. the department has received five letters of support for the project sponsor which have been added to the case file. president olague: d.r. requestor? >> my name is patricia nyland. and you know where i live, i am the owner of the property. my family has lived there for over 60 -- 50 years. i have strong emotional attachment to myspace. like the previous requestor, six children.

we did fine in this amount of space. from the beginning, the plans have been the diagrams that were submitted have been misleading. i venture to say even deceptive. there was no side elevation submitted, i asked several times and finally did receive it. the side of vision has not been submitted to the planning department. -- elevation has not been submitted to the planning department. i hope you understand how it was difficult. not one of the plans contained the whole plank of the street to the back of the yard and i could

even checked, studying the residential design guidelines where i could even tests. i will show you one picture that is particularly deceptive. how do i get this to go up? ok, thanks. >> speak right into the microphone. >> after a few requests, i was able to get a copy from the planning department as a 3d rendering. using the diagram, i was trying to figure out the rear yard setback. the 25% rear yard a setback, the lots are pretty long.

last night, i measured and 28 feet is about here. this line that i have just drawn is actually where the expansion will end. lots of the neighbors have discussed, and it is a little bit confusing. but this is absolutely where the plants, where the extension would end. this is my house, obviously. this is our back, and this is where there is a better room. the privacy issue is this a stairway, and there is habitable space on this next level. if you can imagine, and the proposal has windows all along here, and this is your. all along that area, i do have a

problem with the privacy. that is the first thing that makes it pretty difficult i see i am running out of time. it is an increase. i will show you more pictures before i run out of time. this is how it looks now. this will be the applicant's property and might hardly shows the setback. this is one neighbor down the hill. if i said the lots for very long, i hear the commissioners talking about and i believe -- and nobody has built back up the hill, down the hill.