the dr requests. this represents two families that have lived on this block for years. i came to this case a few years ago after the parties had dug in an and established their positions. because i came in late i brought a new set of eyes and new perspective to the case. the neighbors in the project sponsors had never met together to discuss option or to negotiate the project in anyway and it at my request we had our very first meeting this tuesday with mark ferrel and his staff t assertion in the project sponsors brief that there have not been any meetings of any kind are simply untrue. the neighbors requested plans more than a year-and-a-half ago at the

mandatory preapplication hearing in september of 2011. they attended that meeting, checked the box and asked for plans and never got those. and continued to ask for plans and i have e-mails of them asking for plans and they were never provided. the project sponsors new from the beginning that any expansion on this lot would be a problem. even before they bought the house. they were given a letter signed by all the same neighbors who are now here saying, we oppose expansion on this particular lot. we believe that it would impact the historic resource and that was provided to them by the realtor who sold the house originally and also have copies of that if you want to see it. so, they came into the situation knowing there would be opposition. the neighbors asking for plans, they didn't get any plans. the first update

after the preapplication meeting that they got was a mailing of the 311 notice on christmas eve 2012. after the 311 notification went out, then a meeting was scheduled and that was held january 16, 2013, two-and-a-half weeks after that went out. there has been no dialogue, no give and take and no so-called concessions. any changes made were in response to staff question. this is an rh 1 d zone neighborhood. the houses are all single family houses with wide side yards, large rear yards, open space provided in nearly every lot. every lot except the subject lot. the department has concluded that the subject house is a historic resource. it was built in 1951, had an addition put on in the rear in

1968. the building covers 100 percent of the lot. there is a glass structure along the southern property line which we've just determined is an original part of the structure and we have an examiner san francisco examiner newspaper article from the house from 1951 which shows that glass structure. i would also submit that. if you hook at the photographs that have been submitted, we submitted 2r 1 at our brief, you will note there is massing along the structure of every single property line. if we go to the overhead this

is from google maps. i will also submit a copy of that. you see massing which covering the entire lot. i will submit this as well. this is the 3d study. the lot, the extremely large lot completely covered by structures presents an unusual circumstances that the department has struggled with in measuring the rear yard. the subject building is as -- illustrated on march 2, has no

yard. the 2 story building takes up the whole lot. this is the last building built on the block. so the staff analysis doesn't discuss how the rear yard was established. i had to go to the department and obtain a separate plan that shows the rear yard and i have submitted that as exhibit 5. that was wrapped around the plans, a separate measurement and that's a straight triangular measurement from section 130 d. for the triangle of the lot. and when you use that particular rear yard measurement, this is what you end up with. this is our exit 7. you end up with all the

other yards on the block with a rear yard except for the subject. the purpose of the minimum rear yard is twofold. to keep 25 percent of the lot as open space. not only for the benefit of the subject building but for the benefit of those surrounding. we talk about the open space in almost every case. the second purpose of the minimum rear yard is the open space at the rear of the lot. that 25 percent needs to be at the rear of the lot. in this particular case, the rear lot as measured by the department is covered by structure. the goal of measuring the rear yard or determining where the minimum of the rear yard to be to find the method to measure

that rear yard that most closely aligns with the code. it offers an alternative method to the rear yard which we are urging the commission to consider. i have reprinted in its entirety along with the sketch that an accompanied it the interpretation of section 130 in your brief at page 5. section 130, technically does not apply to the subject lot because it's not a triangle. the in equity that results is not a triangle. article 7. if

this were a true triangle, that type of rear yard would make sense. then you would have 5 -- 25 percent of the rear yard. but because of the curve line on --el camino and del mar. that could never be parallel to the front of the lot. as a technical matter, this section doesn't really apply and the way the rear yard is calculated is discretionary. and it's discretionary the department should apply the rear yard calculation in the way that best fulfills the policy code and the residential design guidelines. a two story structure completely occupying a rear yard cannot comply with

residential design guidelines. that's what we have in this instance. we have a 2 story garage structure that is going to be expanded which violates this policy. so that the non-compliant uses expands to occupy more of the lot at different levels is an interpretation which i think flies in the face of discretionary measurement of the rear yard and if you look at the second page of our exhibit, 8, if you imply the interpretation you have 2 different ways you can configure this rear yard so that the goals of requiring some open space on this lot are met. and that rear yard can go down to the south side or the east side and that's what happened in the dawn view case which i provided an example of and that's how i came one this configuration. in equity and

fairness and application of the code to get to the 25 percent requirement, we urge you to consider applying this or at least finding out why this wasn't applied in a manner which would create a more reasonable rear yard and a rear yard that is not completely build out. there is open space along here that could be captured and held in place on this particular lot. with that i will turn to the architect joe butler who will talk about the sequel findings. >> good afternoon, i name is joe butler. i'm an architect with an experience and education to make evaluation of historic resources as defined by sequel. i would like to say today that project staff and sponsor have been in negotiations to change and

qualify this process as exempt at categorically from this review. but this points to nature in sight and on going. the requirement to proposals additional mid century ranch style home is still parent. when the house was built, the examiner recovered it. norman miles myers was living in the city. the chronicle also covered it in october of 1951. there was a great quote from myers. he said we built paper models to make sure every room had a view of the ocean. we also believe that the property is significant both for it's architecture and for it's association with milton myers.

milton was a developer and developed parts of the sea cliff according to his granddaughter with whom we spoke with. myers worked at sutter street in 1951 1 the house was built. he fulfilled many positions including san francisco planning commissioner in the 1940s. they were experienced builders and also developed homes in the 20s. milton was known for developing the sea cliff neighborhood. the myers also gave warn steven his house during the war. milton myers and company still owned the international hotel

in san francisco manila town when it took over this place. this was a perfect design for this left over site for it's panoramic view because it was the last to be developed. the site rises from the street. there is nothing in fronted of it other than the pacific ocean and the view. it was also a great design it's discretion to the response to all the neighbors and sitting to an already established neighborhood. it was a daring and # moderate design. the living level is so much higher than the street. this house is above the street at a circular

bend and looks at it's neighbors down the row. beyond the end of the continent and back into an interior court. the house acts as a filter and presenter of both these world of the outer one. due to it's associations with the ranch house rare in san francisco deserves protection. in our opinion to add to this 1958 second story addition that was made to the house will have a significant adverse effect on the ranch style house. the expansion of an afterthought in addition to the house made later will have an adverse effect on its integrity. thank you very much.

>> speaker is in favor of the dr. in support of the dr. >> my name is jessie ma. i live at --el camino del mar with my wife. we have school aged children living in the house. our house is adjacent to this subject property. and i'm one of the 5 neighbors who has requested dr. as you heard, this property is a ranch style home designed by a famous

architect and recognized as a historic resource. the house has a very large courtyard. the garage is built on what it should be a rear yard setback and second story. later on a 3rd room was added on the top. this project expansion of the second story bathroom and if you look at this, this expansion, not only goes further, it's also wider than existing second story bedroom

and it's also taller. because of the -- to make things worse, also, an upper floor is proposed to build an upper floor deck as a second structure. it is my opinion, this expansion is going to negatively impact the historic resource and the whole neighborhood. also the second

issue i have is privacy. this design has a lot of glass and the staircase is covered with glass. and the extension of the non-conforming second floor structure, that is looking directly into our living room. i have one more thing. >> unfortunately your time is up. >> thank you. >> any other speakers in favor of the dr? good afternoon, planning commissioners. i'm here to object to the proposal

put forward. my name is joe peta. i live at 109, # 28th avenue. across an easy meant which we share with them. the other properties on the it sits on our border and would make this border more imposing. we feel the squeeze. this addition will also material the impact of sunlight on our home. every evening my family sits down to dinner with our children in our kitchen. when this expansion is built those dinners will not be eaten in sunlight but with a

shadow. that is exactly the sun that comes through our window and then through that same window is a picture of sunlight and that gap you can see the non-conforming structure that is there as it is, that will be expanded and cover that gap. i cannot understand that someone is quoting that it will not affect sunlight to our house. our shared easement is a community of it's own with a feeling of the neighborhood in the city. our neighbors reach out to each other in times of troubles and rejoice in favored news. when i came back from the middle east, neighbors flew out of their doors in positive response to welcome me. we have

all hoped for a mutually agreed solution. yet when reached out we have been met with a blank wall. i get it this house is unique and there are challenges to transform the rooms into a more doable space. the applicants have set aside the requirements. the neighborhood have been pushed aside and ignored. that's now how we have done thing s with our neighbors. the homes along --el camino was built -- he built as a ranch style to compliment the

block. thank you. any other speakers in favor of the dr? >> good afternoon, my name is dorene green berg. we live at 125, 28th avenue, the other day they mentioned that we came up with our opposition to the project at the very last moment. this is not exactly true. in fact, we asked for the drawing on 3 occasions. first, at the preapplication meeting that took place on september 7, 2011. we asked them to send us plan. we have not received these plans by october 4th, when i sent an e-mail asking

for the status of the plans. actually no definite answer has been received. then i sent a 3rd e-mail on november 1, 2011 for the plans because without the plans we could not discuss many things. again we have not received the plans until it was said before christmas eve of 2012. more than a year after we requested them. that's why we come up with our position that late. to us, it shows a little real cooperation from this part. we oppose this remodeling. thanks.

>> commissioners, good afternoon. my wife grew up on --el camino del mar. her parent have lived there for 40 years. they were not able to be here. we have dinner at their house every week and i'm quite familiar with the area. milton myers built this house. as it's been mentioned the property is on an upslope, while it's a single story residence, it's

all around the lengthy front footage of the property giving a sweeping view from every room from 2 bedrooms, living room, dining room and kitchen. the neighbors don't object to the project sponsors improving their property, they would like to see them do so in a way that if it meets their needs. they do object modifying in a way that takes away from the historic property and in mpinges on the mid block open space. as soon as the property went on the market prior to the death of the own, the neighbors listed to the broker that they would object that this development to the project

plate applicants are now proposing that they would oppose this. the dr applicants would like to work with the sponsors to develop a plan that will satisfy their needs and be acceptable to everyone. they have not had that opportunity. the project applicants selected to proceed by developing the plans and seeking approval of those plans that frankly ignored the neighbors concerns. they have provided information to the neighbors only to the extent that they are required bylaw to do so. they have strayed from efforts by ignoring plans for the next year-and-a-half. most recently in a meeting january, that i

attended, i was asking for plans and told i wouldn't be provided them. thank you. any other speaker in favor of the dr? okay. seeing none, project sponsor? >> good afternoon commissioners, on behalf of the sponsors. the project before you today on discretionary view is a modest expansion on the home of a sea cliff neighborhood. i want to have abby come here. they are a little bit better prepared to explain this project considering jean is an architect and architectural

photographer. >> i have handouts. >> good afternoon, commissioners and neighbors. i'm jean snooer. i'm one as the architect and homeowner. the corner sites show. can we have the power points, please. our corner side is located on the map in the intersection of sea cliff and --el camino del mar. it rest on a promissory. it wraps around the corner. most of all the transparent ey of

the house of the courtyard is breathtaking. it was built in 1951. one of my architectural professors offered me some advice a number of years ago. he said express your design in 6 words. in this process is it's, historic resource, livable home, 21st century, these are the principles that are designing the direction, the historic resource evaluation and the secretary interior standards. the existing home, this is a diagram of the existing foot print. you will notice in the courtyard, u shape of the hope there is no block massing as