if he had just said each one have there on three minutes, that could have happened, too. >> can she speak again for three minutes? >> i will grant three minutes if you want additional time to finish your story or if there is other speakers in support of the der requestor at this time. thank you. >> i wanted to tell you thank you. i enjoy growing up in this house. we spent most of the time in the back garden. we grew corn and had chickens for about a year. we had to weddings there. it is a special place for me. my parents passed away in 2001. i had that choice to rent or sell and i chose to rent it to pay taxes. i have always taken good care of this property in hopes of moving

back into it. and enjoying it with my own family. i understand that it wants to make their house larger and is for their family needs. what i would like to do is look for a good compromise to give to them the house they need but at the same time, respects the light and air i have always enjoyed in my own home. i have spent a lot of time and energy and money putting together a plan i think would be really good for both sides to take a look and see what you think. thank you. president fong: other speakers in favor? project sponsor, you have five

minutes. >> i am the architect for -- campbell. i have been practicing architecture for about 20 years.

i am on the arts commission trend what i would like to do is give you a quick overview. i think another project pretty well so i will not elaborate on it a lot. frack yard, rear yard, some of the light wells. >> you stated you are a member of the arts commission? because you have done that, i have to assume that has no relevance to your participation, you have to stay that publicly. >> it has no relevance to this project. there is no conflict of interest as being an architect on a private project. this is the existing building. this is -- it is hard to see this. things are a little bit distorted. what we're calling 4-1, there is

13 feet, 7 inches. in relation to the planning code, much shallower that would be allowed. on the second floor are the two bedrooms that would be added. what is being shown is with a notch of 3 feet by 10 ft. 6 which is through this recent d.r. process with everyone. flore -- floor two, there is a light well. floor three, there is a light well and at the northwest window where louise has some windows. we added planters based on her privacy request. here is the project in elevation. this is the back part. this is where it steps from the street.

this is it from the side. just so you know, the height limits -- the ceiling height within the building is low. they're 9 feet 6 and we're not building anything massive. as a process i want to assure you we have done. here is what was proposed originally. through the d.r. request, he requested a light will to match the morenos. we have come back with a five foot deep light well for the morenos. they filed the d.r. and that has been rescinded because that is -- they're happy. rather than a 5 foot setback we have done a 3 ft. by the same length, at 10 ft. 6 on the second and third floor. we feel that is reasonable. the amount of light difference to the neighboring building is

very subtle. whereas you are talking about it to for a difference in two bedrooms that are small to begin with. here it is in detail. here is the light will -- well. this is 5 feet and this is 3 feet. that is at floor two. at floor three, we have cut this back. i know there is an assertion that this project has huge costs and poor circulation. it is a family home and it is not overdone. it is the same as most of them. this is out the roof level where it continues through. there are some light studies at 10:00 a.m. on september 21 and march 21. here is as proposed. here is a five-foot notch and a three-foot notch. the difference between these two, it is quite a bit better than the original.

the difference between these two is almost invisible from the sunlight standpoint. is it worth moving a wall over for probably one hour of light that might move 1 foot on the wall? it seems pretty severe. at the third floor you can see it as well. also i would like to show you -- >> sfgtv will switch it for you. >> there has been a debate but it is hard to simplify when you

looked at that [inaudible] this is the rear yard also. if you look at this, i do not see how someone can be so concerned about bulk and mass at the same time. thank you. do you want to speak a little bit? >> either speakers in favor of the project sponsor? you have three minutes each. >> i am the project sponsor. the reason we want to do this, we're living in this house right now with three bedrooms. we have three children, 2481 who is 10. they're getting older and in one bedroom.

we have a live-in nanny who is in the other bedroom. we're short on bedrooms. i also work out of a house pray one of these firms i am using as an office as well. what we're trying to do is get enough room for all the people in the house because as the kids are getting older, they want their own bedrooms. we would like them to each have a bedroom of their own and an office for myself. i travel and my wife is a physician and she is on call at times. we will probably have a live-in nanny for some time. that is basically what we want to do this. we went to figure out how to design something that would work for our family and came up with the original design. we met with les -- louise and she was not in favor, she was pretty upset. we tried to communicate with her and she was not very responsive,

not at all as far as i know. that was part of this time delay. we hired jeremy paul as an expert and he made attempts to get hold of her so we could figure out how we could work this thing out. she was also not responsive to him, so he says. that is all the information i have. we do not feel like it is an extravaganza. when we're in the house, living the way we do especially in the lower areas, it is not feeling like we have a lot of room and move it back 14 feet. we're moving it to make a dining room back there and the living space and a kitchen that is big enough to prepare food and meals for our family seems fairly reasonable. if you look at the plans, they do not seem extravagant, to me, anyway. there is the 5 ft. setback

requirement by the staff. when we looked at that, what that does to the back bedrooms is it makes them 9 feet three each. which is pretty narrow four- bedroom. we thought we were negotiating their and said, how about 3 feet and that gives us 10-3. that is where we stand now. thank you. president fong: additional speakers in favor? >> i wanted to go over a few points i do think are important here. and first starting with the pattern of buildings on this block in these three buildings in particular. one of the things you'll notice on the properties is there is not the pattern of matching site

set backs. there is a a pattern of setbacks that are deep enough and wide enough to provide light and air independent of conditions on adjacent properties. the setback is about 10 feet on ms. beale's property. you're looking at a distance of 3 feet between the two buildings if this project goes forward. the other thing i think it's important to understand is what windows we're talking about. on this bill's property. in this notch, there are two windows. there is a wall of windows into the kitchen. there is a secondary window that provides light into a family room. the primary windows are the ones that you saw covered with a deck and fine. those are south facing right here. the other thing i want to point

out is on the side property line, she has properly line windows that provide light into the kitchen. allied well -- the light well is on their property. those are windows they have every right to cover. finally, i know that there is some feeling that side setbacks are perhaps the norm under the residential guidelines. i do think as there often is in d.r. case is a question of even this of results and fairness. there was a project that was recently approved down the block at 2529 valleno. -- vallejo. there was an extension that went to the property lines and there was no matching side setback provided there where there was a

much narrower set back on the adjacent property. i think that the sponsors here have done a good job of compromising the impact on the neighbors property. we ask you to take d.r. and approve the project as we submitted to you in the modified drawings. thank you. president fong: are there additional speakers in favor of the project? d.r. requestor, you have a rebuttal. two minutes. >> i would like to point out a couple of things. a shadow study that was shown earlier. it was shown at summer when i agree there would be less impact. the shadow study we showed shows winter where there will be much more shadow impact on her property and this is what we

would prefer to show. i would also want to point out that the overgrown area they are showing is wisteria that has been alive for two or three weeks and will be gone starting next month. there is no further out growth in that area. you'll be able to see directly into the back room of a family room, dining room. i also want to point out this is -- we're not asking for a huge difference here. we're asking for it to be consistent with what the department is asking for. either said it back 4 feet on the second level and 8 feet on the top. the department is asking for sending it back 5 feet on both levels. we're trying to make a little bit of a compromise for them. we believe the height limits can be lowered. each one of these floors is 9 feet, 6 inches. that is a generous high.

we're not saying you have to take it all out. by taking some of that out, the existing second floor is not 9 feet, 6 inches now. you would have to increase that height. we think there is plenty of opportunity to make slight improvements to this that would make a marked improvement for ms. bill and it would be producing it by 275 square feet. this is a huge addition going from 3000 square feet up to 5000 square feet. there is plenty of room in there. we can cut it back another few hundred square feet. i urge you to take discretionary review and adopt our plan. thank you. president fong: thank you. project sponsor, you have a rebuttal of two minutes. >> thank you. a couple of things. our sunlight study is not the

summer. it is spring and fall. we took it at 10:00 a.m. at the one time it seemed to be the best average. once you get to noon, there is no change so we took a piece in the morning. i want to reiterate the square feet we're adding. 433 square feet to the first floor, 375 square feet to the second floor and the top floor we're adding a 745 square feet. it has been asserted this is the size of two two bedroom or one bedroom apartments. that is a bizarre analogy. also if you look at their shadow study, they're doing it on the full set back the are creating. not something that is more like 5 feet that aaron starr is proposing. you should keep that in mind.

thank you. president fong: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you. it seems to me that the entire issue here comes around the rear part of the proposed home addition which involves the second and third floors, being the two bedrooms for the children on the second floor and the master bath predominantly on the third floor. there is a 3 foot setback and has been -- as has been pointed out which is fairly standard. not the entire house is set back 3 feet but even in rh-1 detached homes you do not see more than 3 feet per side. that is fairly standard. however, in terms of making some

concessions, i do not really see where you can take the two bedrooms and more because on the second floor, it was pointed out there are 10 by 12 which are fairly modest sized bedrooms. if you took 2 feet off from those you would end up with -- you could move the ball over and you would end up with mud -- nine by 12. that would only gain you the 2 ft. but it would be fairly small. the master bathroom -- maybe i can talk to the architect or the project sponsor. would seem to me we could take a bit off from that side. you have 1611 in width and the wo amenities -- two vanities. it would still function with a

couple of feet less on that upper floor. that would be something i would look at which would give her a little bit. it probably would not change the shadow very much but it would set that back a little. >> we have spoken about that and ideally, it is a nice, clean light well from the second and third. it looks better architecturally. if you want to approve it with 5 feet at that one and 3 feet below, i think they can live with that. >> it is a very well-designed edition. it meets all the needs but that would be the part to me that would not significantly diminished that rare bathroom. it still would be pretty good- sized and would still function. the other thing we talked about is floor height. i do not know of this makes a lot of difference either. you could maybe drop down to 9 feet. you have an 8-6 and two 9-6's

and one 8-0. this is the dining kitchen floor. to have less than 9-6, we will pick up a sliver of light for the whole room dropping a foot. commissioner antonini: and the upper floor is less of a problem but you're getting six inches. >> there is the bathroom part of that floor. that rare piece, what ever the bathroom death is. call it 8 feet or something. commissioner antonini: it says six but i think it is more than that. >> if you go to this power here. -- part right here. commissioner antonini: that is 10 dess 6. -- 10-6.

>> the ceiling in this part and brought it down to 8 ft. 6 from 9 ft. 6. that part only. i do not think anywhere else in the building, the fact that would-be fine. what i would love to do is trade you that. sloping in front of the building to 8 feet. i would love to say -- take this down and add on this part or nobody sees it. >> that is the straight side? there's no dispute about that, i do not think. that would probably work for me. >> it squeezes out of there. >> it will look the same as from the front. >> i can take it. here is the street view. it is hard to find that addition

in this review. commissioner antonini: thank you. we will see what the other commissioners have to say but i am inclined to go in that direction. >> great. thank you. commissioner borden: i am fine with the direction. i do not think it is my place to redesigned interiors of people's homes. i do not care what your ceiling heights are. i care about the box. that is my purview. i get uncomfortable when we say we could shave off a torula there. i do not think that is our role. that is just me. commissioner miguel: i was going to ask that -- any comment about moving the top box 1 foot?

>> increasing the height at the front? that is one solution. it is nice they're offering solution. that would mitigate the impact we're concerned about. commissioner antonini: if there is no other comments i could take a motion to take d.r. and we would propose to change the third floor -- second floor remains the same in the rear. third four moves two -- floor moves two feet away from the d.r. requestor's home to the setback. and then we are following an additional foot on the front.

architect will have to spell that out with more detail. it is the ceiling height toward the front. we're taking diminishing the one floor in the back over the bathroom, we had decided it would be six in ches in height. it was a foot there, too. a foot off the bank. that is complicated but we can repeat that again. >> my understanding is that the 3 foot setback that staff is requesting at the second and third levels becomes a 5 foot setback on the third level. the roof, ceiling height at the

back of the third level is being dropped 1 foot but you are gaining that in the front of the third level. you are getting that foot back. is that it? >> that is the motion. president fong: on the second floor, set back 3 feet from ms. beale's property. the third floor would be set back 5 feet. the height of the bathroom area would be reduced by 1 foot. that height could be added to the front of the building. >> i do not think there is a problem with the height. i am concerned about neighborhood notification. if the commission located -- ok'd it.

>> we could assume that would go in that direction. >> an increase in that building and blow triggers 311. we're shifting one spot to another. i think we can agree that no new notice would be required for the minimum shift. if the commission is agreeable with that. commissioner antonini: can i clarify the death -- when we are reducing the back by 1 foot over the bathroom, is it that we're believe we are going any further. we're allowing them to go up another foot on the rest of the upper floor? if you could clarify. >> if you could bring -- i

can't. >> here is a side view of the building. this is the east side. let's look at the west side. this back area will lower by one foot where the lines are and where this slope will be flat. it will not grow where it is high. it will grow as it is sloped down low. >> it does nothing for me. one foot in the back is not

going to affect that much of the sunlight. if it came all the way up to the clause that where her -- it might do something. it is ok. never mind. >> are we clear on the motion? >> we are clear. >> who seconded? >> on the motion to take discretionary review and approve project, per staff recommendation with some slight modification. the 3 foot setback becomes a 5 foot setback as it faces the property. and the rare third floor ceiling height is -- for the bathroom area is reduced by 1 foot. to pick that up in the of