i can't really see it. i may ask the project sponsor. >> sorry, but the setback is from the front and rear but not necessarily the side. >> we are talking about front rear setbacks now. i'm not sure we necessarily, other than matching light wells need set backs on both sides. i will see what the other commissioners say. the things i'm thinking about is matching light wells, decks may be smaller than our called for here. om as much as i -- i can't really tell from the renderings how that additional floor will present itself. looks like project sponsors continuing with the contextual roof treatment and now the second floor he will do it, which is fine. i want to make sure with decks coming so far out we will not just have a flat edge, there has to be a pitch to the roof to make it look correct from the

street and also might tend to give you a little more -- won't affect your property but more light on the sides. but you are talking about side setbacks, since you are interested in having. >> that is correct. setbacks from the side with a light well. >> okay. so you are talking about the entire length of the addition? approximate correct. >> what distance? seven feet? >> we propose seven. as the previous supporters said we are willing to compromise. >> that is a big cut, but certainly we will take a look at that and see what the other commissioners have to say. it seems like there may be more impacted where there is no setback. i don't know if you addressed that because it is not your property. >> i think it applies to another structure. >> okay. there was something about skylights. there was bathroom on the top floor with large

window. we request -- one alternative is a skylight for light or at least frost the window. that will look right into the kitchen and dining room areas. >> yeah, again it is a privacy situation in a dense urban n environment. sometimes you may have to put shades. sometimes we have required frosted windows. it is nice to have a window that actually hopes and there are skylights that open. it is a possibility. we will see what the other commissioners have to say. i appreciate it. we will discuss this and see what we can do. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a question for the project ap capture. you talked about a couple changes you have made, one kitchen windows, others in other areas. are these reflect in the drawings? >> they are not. these are plans we submited with the original.

>> i myself am not prepared to consider this project any further until the right drawings are in front of me. this is not he said or she said or i thought i said. the drawings with -- this commission makes approvals based upon the drawn documents in front of us. they are not. you have the ability to consider some of the challenges posed by commissioner antonini and to ask this project be continued. >> second. >> commissioner moore, i would like to add real quick the plans we have made with my -- the modification we have made is simply a mirroring of what is currently on the third floor to go to the second floor. i understand that we are doing this in an attempt to appease the neighbor's concerns for privacy. >> for me, and do i not want to get into a detailed

discussion until i do your project full justice. the fact you are quoting similar projects when they are built. i don't know. who approved, i don't have any idea. doesn't have any bearing of what is going to happen on this particular project. i remember a project just very recently in that area where very carefully taylored the rooftop to meet the demising lines of adjoining homes. we do that almost in every neighborhood. in this particular case, as i look at the aerial, there is nothing really quite next to the you on either side, which would not be kind of compromise based on what you are trying to do. aside from the non-existing setbacks to the side, i believe that the balcony or roof deck facing toledo is completely inappropriate. there is nothing which does that. so i think you would be well-advised to take this project back, spend more time on the challenges. not to say there will be

ultimately not everything you will be agreeing on but i believe you come forward with a successful project if you take this project back and work a little more on it, including accuracy to the drawings you are presenting to this commission. that is just my kind advice to you. i request this commission we have a second, that this particular project be continued. >> i understand. >> i'm not saying that in support of you but i'm asking you clearly go back and think a bit about it. >> what date would you like to continue? >> unfortunately the applicant doesn't have his architect. >> he just arrived. >> you need four week to do that? what do you think? >> excuse me, are we talking about the windows? the only change -- approximate >> we are talking about a continuance. >> i understand the continuance. you were stating that the inaccuracies were in regard to the proposed new window locations that we did in regard to the d.r. that is my understanding. is that true? >> i didn't say anything

about inaccuracy. your client described you made changes to the project. >> if i could speak for a second. the only changes we made to the project were the windows. so that was in regard to the d.r. applicant. we were obviously trying to present something that we felt that would, you know, bring us closer in accordance with his wishes. that was the only change. >> whatever you agree with the applicant has to be in front of this commission in drawing form. cannot only be exexplained by word. has to be drawn in front of us. what we approve is what you all agree on. commissioner antonini posed a very good observation. we are not going to it sit it is you design the project but spend time on this. this will not be approved because two, three blocks over something is similar. will it not be. i leave it to you to come back with the same, plus changes to drawings or take another crack at i don't

care. the project will be continued and you are being asked as to whether or not will it be continued for four weeks, six weeks or three months. you have a choice to answer that at this moment. >> four weeks would be more than sufficient. >> fine. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i just ask the project sponsor a question. i mean, have you met with the neighbors and talked with them? are you amenable to setbacks on their side of the project? >> mark the neighbor did send in his drawing prior to submitting it to your panel. i did respond to him that i don't think that is a fair compromise at all. >> not saying that. are you amenable to any compromise on that side? >> on some levels to some things. some of the things like the railings, that is incorporated in the project right now. the railings that surround the light well is -- anything that is not on the

property line is a see-through, transparent railing. that was done with the intent to -- >> i'm talking about the setbacks, talking about the set back from the light rail on fourth floor. are you amendable to any setback? >> maybe if we can work it to where it surrounds the light well. the entire property line f you look at the two houses, the house to the west of mine * has a room that is probably 25% larger than the one i have. which, by the way, is a bedroom, a closet and windows. >> i'm just asking about the setback. >> right. but if we mirror it, can make a notch around the light well, because that is the concern of the neighbors. i don't think they are concerned about the additional property that is built up -- >> sure, not on their side. i mean, i would support a continuance. i would also support

figuring out what the solution is. it is clear you haven't met with the neighbors to figure out perhaps a compromise and leave it up to us to make that compromise and throw it out there i agree you are probably better off sitting down with them and coming up with a proposed solution. though i'm happy to move forward and make that solution here. >> that's fine. i will meet with the neighbors to discuss what our realistic compromises would be. >> that is great. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. could you stay there for a second? i have a question for you. when you were describing the project in your presentation, you used some term that said that the fourth floor or maybe other changes in the building wouldn't meet market standards. could you explain? >> the proposal they

offered is smaller. so we go to this type redevelopment, go to any home in the marina redeveloped within a recent time period, as i mentioned i searched for about a year before i purchased this property. every home i walked into that had been redeveloped within the last decade had a nice, substantial master bathroom in line with that. they have a nice master bedroom in line with the home, the neighborhood and prices of the properties. if you go to a bathroom like that, although it is very possible it would work for a certain individual, someone wanting to live in the marina, they are in a different market. it is an elevated luxury home market. >> so you are trying to tell me that you are basing your decision on market as it exists in the marina. >> my decisions are looking

forward. so i have to assume that if i intend to -- >> you just told us you are going to live here forever and ever. what difference does it make what the market standards are? >> i have no need to move tomorrow, next year or the following. i can't tell you in five or ten years. >> you are basing this on some speculative approach to this building. >> i'm basing this on every home i looked at in the marina in the last -- >> thank you. i urge you do get together with the d.r. requester and urge you to lose the roof deck on top of the fourth floor and encourage you to consider a setback. >> okay. thank you. commissioner antonini. >> well, i have to talk to mr. cabreres here. i believe you are doing this case. i'm not quite sure. i'm looking at these plans. there would be the need if you want a matching light well on the north you have to increase the proposed

light well by another looks like possibly two feet and two inches, then matching light wells there. i don't quite understand what d.r. requester's interest in asking separation other than where their light well is. because there is still going to be light coming in. i don't understand what they will gain with a separation or setback for property where they don't have windows. you are going to answer that? >> if i may. [ laughter] >> i live in a building where we have the same situation. these buildings are built cheek-to-jowl. your light well now had an addition on adjoining building which comes to the edge of the light well, you lose your privacy. we have bathrooms and bedrooms facing the light wells and explain that in another situation the marina a few weeks ago where people, for one, have to have light and air to have a bedroom. with a bathroom there is a petition where you can artificially ventilate your

bathroom but you basically have people standing at the edge of adjourning roof deck looking right into your bedroom. that is a situation. that is why you would prefer to have a minimum of three, four feet of a deck holding back, if not even more. there is nobody standing there looking down into your room. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i'm not talking about decks yet. i'm talking about matching light wells. >> yes, that is fine. >> i guess what i'm talking about is part of the structure that adjourned the d.r. requester's home that is not where there's a light well. i don't really see the advantage in cuting that, except if you cut on the west side you could presumably have more light as sun was receding to the west. i'm not sure that would be necessary. we will cut a slot out of his master bedroom. that is a possibility. i don't see an advantage doing it on the east side where the study is. i'm not sure what they are gaining by having that space.

i can understand the issue of the decks. i agree that the decks probably should be a little smaller, not go all the way to the street on both sides. you know, maybe 12 feet instead of 15 and a smaller deck on the other side. that could be an issue where it is serviceable but doesn't need to be on the property line. am i missing something about the setback? >> to respond to some of your concerns and questions there, the light well you are seeing at the property -- the project, the length, from the front to the back of the property, that is the existing length of that light well now. what the project is intending to do is for the depth of the light well, if you are measuring depth from the property line, currently it is a five-foot deep light well, it is reduced to three feet. as the light well is

continued to be matched at the d.r., but a depth of three and not five foot depth. part of the requester's concern is they do not want the matching light well at the project at the fourth floor to align with the foundation wall. they want the fourth floor set back in addition to the light well itself. so there is an increased volume, if you will, of light coming into the existing light well. >> both the east and west side, they want a separation to allow a shaft of light? >> right. i don't think the length from front to back is existing. that isn't being -- in fact, one could argue that could be improved. right now there is an exterior staircase within the subject property light well. >> that is certainly something that could be considered by project sponsors, architect to see if they could. i don't know. seven feet sounds excessive

to me but if they could take something off to allow light to come into that, you know, from the west and east by taking a little width off of the master. there is a kind of a notch on the master bedroom on the west side that doesn't look like it really is that important. i'm not sure what the it accomplishes. you still have a sizable master bedroom with part of that off there. so i don't know. that is something i would look at. i would look at the decks. those are the things that i think would probably make the most sense. most of the time we do things we match light wells but don't necessarily separate buildings from each other if they are not zoned so they have to have a separation. if they are allowed to be joined to each other we usually don't require that. >> that's correct. further comments on that for the requesters and project sponsor's sake and

for the commission staff does recognize with any development, vertical or horizon -- horizontal, there will be an impact. for the review is whether it meets minimum standards of residential guidelines and in addition whether it is something that is exceptional or extraordinary in order for you to use your discretionary review power. >> exactly my thought. that is what we traditionally try to do, which is in keeping with decisions, which i'm prepared to advocate for. if there is a way to open up without significantly opening up the discussions and let in a shaft of light and air. that is something i'd like them to look at before the next time. >> commissioner sugaya?

>> not to prolong but one last observation. i missed the fact. the light well proposed is two feet shorter than the existing light well there now on this particular building. is that right, mr. cabreros? >> from side property line. five feet wide now. >> currently. >> correct. >> will it be three feet wide. >> all right. we have made more agregious decisions than this one i think whenever it comes back to us. mr. paul will attest to that. in any case i will call the question on the continuance. >> what is our date? >> four weeks from now. >> october 4th. >> on motion to continue with public hearing to remain open to october 4th, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya.

>> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> passes unanimously. continued to october 4th, public hearing is open. you are * now on item 15. case number 2011.0761db for 611 buena vista west, discretionary review. when you come up to speak bring your material at that time. thank you. please do not stand around the front of the door. good afternoon, commissioner fong and members of the planning

commission. tom nguyen presenting discretionary review on building application for 611 buena vista west avenue. the proposal is an operation to existing two-story over basement single family dwelling, which includes a third story vertical addition with a deck and stairway penthouse above the roof. the proposed third story would be within the existing building footprint. and including front and rear setbacks. proposed roof deck would also be at center of the roof. with setback from all four sides. there are two applications filed. staff would like to make a clarification regarding the dr requesters.

that is page three in discretionary review analysis. because department's policy does not entertain dr application filed joinly by more than one person, interested neighbor or persons should file their own application. the first was filed by the owner of adjacent home after buena vista, immediately north of the subject property. joined by mr. matthew lafers, owner of property adjacent of 611 west. because department policy, mr. lafer is yielded official d.r. requester to mr. bill king.

however, mr. lafers still endorsed the application filed by mr. king. the application was filed by two owners of single family home at 1460 masonic avenue, directly behind and southwest of the subject property. there are a number of concerns in application and address in analysis. says here in the report the most concentrated or concerned under this application that is existing building, a neighborhood building character. the first d.r. application or d.r. requester concerned that the current building

design that contemporary architecture is errant with surrounding earlier 20th century architecture, therefore proposed third story addition will increase this currently anomaly. the next is third story is -- well, makes the building disproportionate. large on the lot. next project does not respect the mid park open space. finally the current available light to the third story windows will be affected. there is a further concern, which is not typically related to the application that is subject to the one-car garage used as storage, not for parking. * storey) >> in the second

application, basically includes the concerns regarding third storey -- will result building to be out of scale. not comparable with surrounding buildings. then there is too much area under third storey rear elevation, which will result in loss of privacy and light pollution to the d.r. request err's house. all three suggest proposed petition be denied. staff as well as sponsor has addressed to all these concerns in the report. would like to mention building scale and building street proportions. and building height along

the subject block and adjacent of buena vista west range from two, three and four-storey above street. with the third storey addition the subject will be three storey tall. further more it is neither uncommon nor unprecedented to find contemporary and older architectural styles on the same block as well as on both adjacent blocks along buena visit to west avenue. regarding the parking space removed from the current garage, as well as one concern that was raised not stated in both d.r. applications but during process and review of

applications, that is additional unit, disruptive property concept and alleged second unit, which was illegally constructed without building permit, occupied single-family's basement floor with independent access to and from the street. the two concerns regarding parking space removed from garage and this alleged second-door unit has been investigated by housing inspection as well as the department's code enforcement division. the parking space was ready and available once it was inspected. the alleged second door on the unit was not found in inspection. both have been abated by

both agencies. this application has been reviewed multiple times by the department's residential design team. prior to mailing out the second building permit notification. reviewed again after both d.r. applications were filed, as well as reviewed by the department's senior management. it is determined that the project would not result in any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; that no further changes to the final revised design of the project were necessary. in conclusion the basis of our recommendation to approve project as proposed, that includes project is proposed to be

well-integrated with subject -- with third story will not be incompatible with adjacent buildings because it appears smaller than both adjacent buildings and it is in existing mixed neighborhood character. the project will not affect the open space because it does not project beyond the existing building footprint. project will result in lowest sitting impact on light privacy to all d.r. requester's houses and project will result in no significant current view in city from buena visit to park and project with applicable provisions of planning code and is consistent with the residential guidelines. this concludes our presentation. if you have any questions, i would be happy by to answer, thank you. >> thank you. can we have the first d.r.

requester. >> you have five minutes. >> good afternoon vice president wu, commissioners jeremy paul. i will be speaking on behalf of both requesters today. * and in all due respects to residential design team and to mr. wang, a very experienced planner, i think they got this one wrong. there are clearly exceptional circumstances at the vertical addition. if i can go to the overhead. the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are shown in plat map. we have