>> leave them on the railing and i will take them up. thank you.

>> good evening. i am david lindsay from department staff. this is a discretionary review request for a project at two dozen 123 pierce street -- 2001 hundred 23 pierce street. -- 2123 pierce street. the project includes installation of solar panels as well as a two-story, horizontal addition at the rear of the two- story, single-family house. the d.r. requester's concerns are the impact on privacy, open space. it is the position of staff that the profit complies with the planning code and is consistent with residential design guidelines, specifically those which affect the light and

privacy of the adjacent properties. the project was reviewed by the residential design team following the discretionary review request. they founded to be a minimal rework expansion in terms of the deaf and height and proposed property line windows were not at the level of the d.r. requester's doubt. the project does not contain an extraordinary circumstances and we recommend the commission does not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. president miguel: thank you. the d.r. requester. >> my name is lisa. my husband and i are the owners of the building adjacent to the north and have been there for the past 28 years. the applicant is requesting

permission to add a large modern addition to the back of their victorian home as significantly impact -- that significantly impact our properties of light and privacy. first, i want to give you a bit of history about how the architect has dealt with as. in january of 2011, we attended a pre-application meeting for it the architect says to me, " get with it, this is the way it goes in the city. everybody got everybody's life." he said we should synchronizes through global maps so the light will move along the mirror which will give us like in the back area of our house. we were stunned that he would approach us in a disrespectful -- in such a disrespectful manner. over the months, we reached out with several calls and e-mails. neither the architect nor the applicant bother to respond to us or our architect.

we develop concrete suggestions, which i will discuss in a moment, discussed them with planning, who indicated they were reasonable. we offer -- we offer to drop the discretionary review if they would negotiate these. the response was no with no meeting or no discussion. next, we meet -- we met with the pacific heights resident association. the group it -- the group understood our concerns and the president said all requests were reasonable. we reached out to the architect and they said they would prefer to take their chances with the planning committee. they feel we have no right to question their plan. we hope that the planning commission feels differently. our concerns are as follows -- the windows for a post on the north property line would compromise our privacy and look directly into our master bedroom. we are advised they are probably illegal per section 05.1 --

705.1 of the building code. it will substantially block light from entering our kitchen, family room, and the deck. this is where we spend most of our time during the daylight hours. our outlook would be transformed from blue sky to a solid dark wall. this wonderful home would be replaced by a large, non- sculpted a box that would ruin the historic view that neighbors on all sides have appreciated for over 100 years. this week, we receive materials from the planning department which omitted our proposal letter to our neighbors. we spoke to mr. starr, who apologized for omitting our proposal and felt it was both relevant and reasonable and that we should address this with you today. in that letter, we suggested that the applicant consider some minor modifications and if they

agree to this, suggested he -- if they agreed to the suggested compromise, we would withdraw our request. first we suggested a 3 foot by 3 foot extension, shifting the northernmost solar panels to the south. there are quite a few panels. second, reconsider the proposed operating property line windows, which we believe are illegal and replace them with a skylight. we emphasize this would have no impact on their floor plan but maintain our bedroom privacy. we think the plans provided also omit our bay window on the common property line on the second floor. this window would be particularly affected by the proposed project, which would be mitigated. in the letter, we advised them that we think the proposed extension appears to encroach on our property.

it requires the dismantling of our trees and garden that has been in place for more than 28 years. it seems quite wrong to was that they can propose a plan without any discussion with us that involves the removal of a neighboring french -- a neighboring fence when there is no evidence that defense is improperly located. is that it? we strongly feel that our bedeviled edge proposal would solve our light issues and maintain the sideline and design integrity of existing historical structures while not having any impact on the applicant's proposed floor plan or square footage. tempering would allow the solar panel to be more appropriately placed on the south with a natural angle for solar efficacy. we respect -- thank you. president miguel: speakers in

favor of the d.r.? if you are supporting the d.r., if you wish. >> i and the husband. obviously i support it in. do i have a few minutes to talk about it? >> 3 minutes. >> so, i am not sure i have any -- let me think for one second. >> your time is running. >> what is strange about the situation is that we have been good neighbors for 28 years. this is on characteristic of our relationship. i wonder whether advisers get involved and would be very firm with these things. he is probably within his rights with regard to the zoning, but there is logic here. how we are neighbors and we are saying, if we could at least

talk about it, there has been an attitude of no talking and no discussion whatsoever, which is very uncharacteristic of what has gone on. we do not know why that is the case. we suggest is some logical proposals that we think should be considered. at the beginning of this, we were advised that -- their property is at the average of the back lines of the adjoining properties. if they are ari at that average, they should not be able to push out any at all. we understood that the planning commission uses the 55% rule. speaking to senior architects, we understood this was very whether you use the average or stick with the 55%. we got varying opinions on that. we think they are as far as they can go already. there is a feeling that the planning department will take no further critz if they could at least share for the edges of the

box, we would be looking at some sun instead of just a wall. we think that is very fair. it would not affect the floor plan whatsoever. there would have the same amount of space for their growing family. we think it is a reasonable compromise and he's with the size and shape of their building as it is right now, rather than abruptly continuing right here. this is the beautiful back of the property, was there are going to obscure with a large box. that is their right. but we are saying if they could just adjust the edges, we could see some son for where we hang out most of the day. that is the argument we are making very we would like to discuss it and have the commission consider it. president miguel: are there any other additional speakers in favor? if not, project sponsor.

>> good afternoon. i am with the law form -- the law firm and i am here on behalf of the property owners. he is a longtime resident of sand francisco and has lived at the property since 1984. they recently had a child, a boy. they are pursuing the expansion of their home to accommodate their growing family. i want to point out, show a diagram of the project. it is a modest career home expansion. the rear of the property is being expanded, adding 770 square feet of floor area to the interior of the home. it is being expanded to the 45% code-required rear yard. it will have a ground story text

on the back. the height of the addition is less than 1 foot taller than the existing home. the rear of the home, on the d.r. requester's property line, will only be extended 8 feet. the addition is going to allow for a second bedroom to be created on the second floor of the property in order for charles and melanie to be sleeping on the same level as their young child. it is going to allow for a family room to be created on the ground floor in addition to the existing living room. with respect to the design, there has been a number of interior things that have gone on inside the property since charles has owned it. in fact, all of them modern, one including a remodel of the kitchen that won a natural -- a national architecture award.

the idea was that the interior already has this modern, open style. the idea was to expand that style into this new addition in the backyard. if you see the rear of the adjacent buildings, they are quite linear and cubic and have a similar ascetic to it. -- aesthetic to it. the affect on light and air roby minimal, if any at all. we conducted shadow studies and found that the only noteworthy shadow was going to occur between 11:00 a.m. at 1:00 p.m. during certain periods of the year. that was a project to propose a 25-foot expansion. this is much smaller than that. the impact will be minimal. i also want to point out the

existing rear yard of the " d.r. requesters. it is quite large, as you will see it. there is also some vegetation in the area where the home expansion would be expanding into. in the affect on the shadow in the -- in their rear yard is further minimize by that. they also face a perpendicular briard, which the property is already built out to the rear yard. they are guarantee that that will continue to be the case in their very large rear yard area. as far as we know, the d.r. requesters are the only opposition to the project and the other at edison -- and the other adjacent property owner is

in favor. and we do not believe this -- the level of extraordinary circumstances and we request the commission does not take d.r. myself, charles, the project architect, and kim are here if you have any questions. president miguel: speakers in support of the project? if not, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> as far as the lighting of fact, i have been noticing in the last month where we sit in our kitchen and our family room and i am becoming much aware of where the light would be during that time. it definitely affects us in the middle of the day. it has been very sunny and i look out and see where the project is going to be and it will be totally blocked.

i do not know what kind of studies they did, but it will affect us immensely. i guess they are allowed to have a bigger house if they want. they have a 3000 square feet with a huge upstairs. they can have this extension. we are not trying to stop them from making this bigger home harriet we are asking if they could just make a little more light for us. we are not trying to stop the project, we are just holding for our interests. president miguel: project sponsor, you have two minutes if you wish. thank you. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i always feel bad when the essence of discussions which could have happened between those people happen -- have occurred.

i cannot comment on the particular comments i have. it is a heat said, she said, which we cannot comment on. it is something you need to work out with each other. and also have the courage to accommodate each other. you will be neighbors with or without this house. according to the analysis we have gone through, this is a modern addition. while we have opinions about that, it is a compliant addition except for the property in-line windows and. they need to be -- they are required to be obscured in addition to things that need to be in notice of special restrictions because the adjoining owner -- if the adjoining owner decides to do a similar thing, it would have to disappear. that is important because the windows are an issue. these people will have the same right to make an expansion which will be sitting on the property

line. the architect oakley has advised you that these windows might disappear at some point in the future it -- in the future. i need to put that on the record because that is part of what we have proven today. >> the notice of special restrictions, because the property line windows are building code issues, it would be part of the building code part of the building inspection review of this project. i believe they would not allow windows on the property line. if they are showing them as all honorable, that would be changed right away, as soon as dbi reviews this. that would require them to change them to in operable windows. it would require them to report the notice of special restrictions exactly as you

indicated. commissioner moore: i hope that the applicant has been made aware of that because it will change everything. you will find yourself, potentially in the future, with no windows at all and it will be kind of dark. as for the champering of the corner, i would encourage the two neighbors to talk to each other. i do not feel -- that is not what i am asked to decide on here. that is an ongoing discussion between boat owners and the architect. i personally do not see any extraordinary exception on this request. commissioner antonini: i would have a question for the architect, if the architect is present. the first is, a suggestion was made -- three suggestions they were making.

one would be to shift one of the solar panels, which it would seem would be fairly easy to do and something i would like to see happen if possible. if you have one less solar panel, you are going to get quite a bit or move it to a different place. if that makes them happy, it seems like an easy thing to do. >> it is not the solar panel in itself that is an issue. can you hear me now? it is not so much a matter of one solar panel, but a whole row of them. if we were to omit a whole bank, that would be a significant impact. commissioner antonini: that was not what i heard from the d.r. requesters, but that is something to think about. the other would be the property line windows. ou might want te suggestion that have asked to te

incorporate and other light elements in your design in case, at some time, you lose those. i am not as strong about those because we are in an urban environment and often, we do have windows and have to look into other people's homes and things like that. as a matter of suggestion, having another source of light might be at a good thing to do. -- might be a good thing to do. i understand where the light angles are. some kind of champering of your design might be a good idea. i like to see a corner taken off. we will see what the other commissioners have to say. still be able to keep the addition at approximately the same amount. giving a corner off might give a little bit more light to the dr requesters. >> we did take a look at when we were doing studies. our concern was that if we were to champer the roof, we end up

with a wall that is 4-feet high. in terms of having space that is usable, it really limits you. it is very difficult to have a sink. that is what prompted us not to adjust it. >> it would seem that while the back of the house is probably not a historical element, even though it is today and it is a beautiful home, it would be nice if you could do something with a pitch on some of those roofs that would let in a little more light, instead of having a square blocks. if you put a small niche on the side of the roof, it would let light in on both sides. that is the other suggestion i have on the back of it. probably not losing too much space by doing that. just some ideas. we will see with the other commissioners have to say. commissioner sugaya: to staff,

could you give us a very brief explanation of the use of the rear yard setback as the point at what the addition goes to versus the rear yard averaging? >> the planning code sets out how one measures a required rear yard. in this particular zoning district, the standard required briard is 45% cite -- 40 -- the required rear yard is 45%. averaging comes in to get less than 45%. in terms of the code, if we get

into residential design guidelines, that is a different matter. commissioner sugaya: because the adjacent buildings are not passed the rear yard, this particular development is allowed to do that. >> in their 45% is the maximum. commissioner sugaya: if the adjacent buildings were passed 45%, and then we would use the averaging. >> they could use the averaging if they wished to go deeper than the 45%. most people would choose to do that. commissioner antonini: a question for the d.r. requesters. i need some clarification on this solar panel. when you were presenting it, you said one solar panel. >> and the drawings we saw, it appears there was only one solar panel. it look like there were four and one that would stick up and blocked a lot on the north side.

on the drawing, it appeared to be one solar panels. commissioner antonini: the one that is closest to you? >> exactly. i am not an architect, but that is the way it looked to me. it is not a whole series of them, just one. commissioner antonini: i might make a suggestion, i would take d.r., such as removal of the solar panel closest to the request for -- requesters, and provide a champer not to exceed 3 feet on the edge of the requesters. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i'm not

particularly enamored with this addition. you look at the existing building, it has some -- it's not historic resource under the way we've analyzed it here in the department. but besides that, it does have some character to it. and now we have this square rectangular addition. and it just seems to me that if you take into consideration the whole building, that the department could perhaps work a little bit more with the architect on a slight redesign of the addition itself. and it just really jarring to me. so that's partially the reason i seconded the motion. commissioner antonini: and i would accept that as par m