near future to hear from bart. a secretary avery: thank you. commissioners the motion is for approval be the changes approved by staff today. [vote taken] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. the motion address rez louings have been approved. >> i want to thank jon and jon for all their hard work on this and lisa as well on the e.i.r. and for all the great work on this and for the community for working so well with us over the last few years. i know it was a long process, but is a very productive one, so thank you very much. secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, you are on item 14, case 2011 want 1077 d for 10 cumberland street and a request for discretionary review.

i am going to pass out some communications that there were members of the public who could not stay but they wanted you to have their comments. >> good afternoon, planning commission. the proposal is to product parapet and will raise the overall roof line at the rear of the building an additional 2 feet. this proposal also involves a west-facing light well at the first and second levels that abut a blind wall along with some other interior alterations. the spiral staircase will be

used to access the roof deck through a 3.5 foot high and this work will be set back 39 feet from the front building wall. the residential design team determined that the new firewall parapet will have minimal light and air impacts to the adjacent neighbor because the parapet will only slightly increase the overall roof height and the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines being a modest addition that is appropriately scaled and does not pose unusual light and air effects on neighboring properties. further more, views from private buildings and decks are not protected under the planning code nor the residential designing guidelines. since preparation of the packets, two additional letters of opposition were received. the planning commission that i am going to pass out right now.

the planning department has determined that the edition would not create a significant adverse impact to the adjacent buildings. for reasons stated above the department finds that the project does not demonstrate an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and the planning commission could not take discretionary review. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions from the commission. commissioner miguel: we called the d.r. requester, but i think the d.r. requester may have left. they did leave us a note. are there any speakers here in favor of the d.r. requester? if not, i will call on the project sponsor.

>> thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the planning commission today -- >> you can pull the microphone down. >> thank you. or i should grow. thank you for the time to defend our small pronth. we decided to put together some plans to build the roof deck to minimally impact the side of the building and any impact on our neighbors so we don't think that the -- to satisfy the code the parapet wall we have to build is not going to block any light or air to our neighborhood. and we just don't feel that there is much more to say and i think the impact on the neighborhood will be minimal. commissioner miguel: thank you. are there any other speakers on this one? if not -- oh, yes. certainly. >> thank you very much. i am also speaking in favor of the proposed plan.

secretary avery: could you state your name please? >> i am karen ar ron and we are looking at a plan that raises the height of the building a small amount and only in the back of the building and as stated it will be set back 39 feet from the street and we have reviewed the san francisco design residential design guidelines and we believe that our plan is in accordance with those. this is the only viable option for the location of our deck and we don't believe that it poses any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to light and air. and that is all. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. are there any additional speakers? if not, commissioners? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would move to not take d.r. and approve. >> second. commissioner miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: well, i talked an't that last week. and my preference is to pull in the back the deck from the side walls and given the fact that

since we live cheek to jowl in the city with properties really abuting each other, pulling the deck in rather than setting it right on the property line for me is a prudent way of doing it. i happen to live in the building where the impact on somebody else is we would do that and that would be large and people would say the same thing about if they would do it. so even if it's not an issue as much about lightwells, the ability from the other people to look up and see the rail and right at the edge of the building is for me troublesome. and the reason why we are retrofitting this building is because there is a new code requires to bring a parapet to a building which normally didn't have one. and if you pulled it back in, and if you pull the deck back, just by 3 feet or so, you are basically building a deck which has its own railing and keeps

people away from the building edge. and that is what is general concern to me and i would say that to any project and i find the deck substantially large and almost as large as two of the units who tried to approve the other day at 480 square feet of deck. that is a lot of deck and would not really impact the quality of the deck but we would, i think, create a policy which deals more with the way buildings are retrofitted. commissioner miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: question for commissioner moore. these are parapets and the parapets would remain but the deck itself would be pulled back. commissioner moore: and i think if you pull the railing of the deck -- you hold the deck back from the edge of the building, you attach the railing for the deck to the deck and don't have to build a parapet. commissioner antonini: i think part of the whole thing is from my understanding is to build the parapet and part of it might be some degree the aestheticses.

maybe we could ask the project sponsor -- >> let me chime in. commissioner moore, you are referring to along the side property lines. commissioner moore: and it would pull it back. >> pull it back 2 or so feet and you would haven't the necessity for the additional parapet. i am not sure -- i believe the distance is 3 feet from building code. commissioner moore: i think you are correct. >> it wouldn't have to be fire rated but still be the necessity for the deck to have a guardrail and the height has to be a certain dimension and is probably taller than the actual parapet, the existing on the building wall. it would probably cut some of the visibility down of it, but still possibly be seen. and i am -- and correct me, but you are referring to along the side on just the portion that is adjacent to the neighboring -- commissioner moore: where you have a lot of windows which indeed would perceive the parapet as definitely creating

more shadow and impairment of light. and generally i think to an older building that didn't have a parapet before to add a parapet is not the prettiest thing to do. >> you are asking them to pull in 3 feet on each side in not the back but the two sides? commissioner antonini: the back and the side. >> the back is already pulled in from the base, right? as i tread plan, the back is already pulling in. >> it is. and -- commissioner moore: that is correct. you are right. it is pulled back from the back and only pulling in it from the sides. >> this is beyond the east and west side portion. both sides. commissioner moore: correct. you have to create a landing around where the fireplace flue comes through and walk around

that, go left, and null from there. force -- and pull in from there. commissioner miguel: can i ask for comment from project sponsor? >> so in looking at the proposal by ms. moore, it sounds like 3 feet in is what is being requested, which we specifically looked at the deck and we stood up -- not the deck, but the roof, and looked at the sides and looked at whether it would be worth it to do something up there if we were to shrink the size. if you are going in 3 feet on that side, the whole way, there is still reducing the amount by a significant portion. one of the things that we suggested in our response to the discretionary -- in response for

the application for discretionary review was to have essentially the parapet wall at 5 feet from the building and van a glass wall for the rest of the way. and that way it would still allow us to have the same amount of room on the deck and allowing light into our neighbor's property. commissioner moore: i appreciate your comment. i personally don't believe that is the glass is what addresses really my concern. it is really maximizing cheek to jowl buildings and pushing the deck all the way to the edge of the property line which i think is oppressive and not what i would like to see. i like us to have roof decks which operate within the area of the rules in a manner they don't try to alter basically and even in the backs and the appearance of the buildings because most san francisco buildings given the small outside operate from the front and from the back. and as far as light, which is another part of the living area. that is a nature of the buildings. and if we have free-standing

buildings, i would not be as much concern about it, bah because we are standing right next to each other, it is a big concern and it is not as much addressing your design but is a concern that you hear me speak about a lot on this commission. because i am really concerned about it. >> okay. there is still over 5 feet between the building and the next parallel wall. so it wouldn't be flush, just to make sure i am clear. and i know that we do have two lightwells in our own home and every window on the left side of the house faces this building and the building wall is significantly higher. we still do have substantial amount of light and i am not sure if you have copies of the discretionary review of our lightwells but plants that are thriving in there and is definitely a warm area -- commissioner moore: thank you. >> commissioner moore, i want to verify you are making reference that you are not including the 6 foot portion that includes the spiral stairwell.

commissioner moore: no, i did not. >> just the portion of the deck only. commissioner moore: that is correct. >> pulling in it three feet from the right-hand side if we are looking at the plan. >> just that -- >> i believe that is the west elevation. >> you don't have to do it on the other side? >> basically where living space and by necessity has to look up and to see that as a mazive addition to a building. and just a pure idea of looking up. >> about 3 feet by 14 or even 13. >> i want to make sure because we have gotten into this before, it is not the side of the stairway. it is the other side, but not the full length is what i hear you saying. commissioner moore: you can't. you have to go around the fire flue. >> and just that side that is abutting the rear yards to the houses.

and that is 3 feet. by about 14. so allow them to circulate around the chimney. so it would be about 40 square feet you are losing. >> i am confused about which 40 square feet. you are talking about the side with the two window spaces? >> we are talking about the side that is away from the spiral staircase. >> that is the opposite side of the building where the d.r. requester is complaining about. >> isn't his building abutting yours? >> he is on the other side. >> it is on the opposite side. the d.r. fileer is on the opposite side of where we are suggesting to move it in.

commissioner moore: i don't think we can resolve this year. i would like to state it is a concern because if you live that way, it is absolutely horrible. and as a commission working with the department should develop more sensitized guidelines by which we encourage roof decks because it is a provision and expansion of usable open space. however, it has to be within measure of how a property operates in the block and the typical limit ed, the limited frontage and lot size we have in san francisco. and that is basically it.

given what was just pointed out. who is speaking? >> i understand the commissioner's concern and i will communicate this to the residential design team. commissioner moore: thank you. appreciate that. secretary avery: commissioners, the maker of the motion, there was an amendment. commissioner moore: and the calling of the -- secretary avery: and there is no amendment. the maker of the motion is not accepting an amendment. thank you. okay. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: and i appreciate what commissioner moore is talking about, but i think at this point with this particular project, we should go forward with the understanding that the staff will look at it, but trying to put that in there is looking at 14 and a chimney enclosure and the area between the chimney enclosure and the end of the cutout would have been only about 2'11", which

again, getting a little narrow if you are moving things around there and putting a table or something in and so i just think that this is something the staff will have to work on. my motion is to not take d.r. and approve but certainly consider as this goes through the approval process and certainly look at it a little bit but it is fine the way it is designed. commissioner miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: sorry. commissioner miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i think that what was just discussed about taking this back to the residential design team is the best thing that we can do. and because this is a common situation, this falls in the not exceptional extraordinary category but to the category that maybe our guidelines need to be exmrord and how to fix that. and i don't think applying it ad hoc to some people and not all people is not a fair process and should be applied with the process as it is and in the future look at how we modify it, but for today i think this is what -- these are the guidelines

by which people were operating under and it is not exceptional or extraordinary because it is very much a common place problem. commissioner miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: and i am going to let this project go by and the d.r. requester is not here to participate in the dialogue and that is too bad. but adding 460 square foot deck on top of a residence is kind of -- doesn't quite ring true to me. and i find it not as kind of in tune with what we're trying to do here, but this is not going to affect how i vote on this, but i will be happy to work with the residential team to really talk about what it means and invite you all to my house to see what it can really mean. >> we'll take you up on that. commissioner moore: my pleasure. >> a christmas party. secretary avery: thank you. okay then. and commissioners, the motion on

the floor is to not take d.r. and to approve the project as currently propoedz. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on item 15a and b. case 2011.0063d and case 2010.0868v, 135 el camino del mar. >> jonas ionin and before you is a case continued from a may 19 hearing. that involved a subject property that was the cause of a sink hole in 1995 and the building

permission to repair was in 1998 and the additions were constructed beyond that process and at the may 19 hearing you conducted a public hearing and at that time directed the project sponsor to work with the d.r. applicant to get to a point that was acceptable for both party. if not that you stipulated that you would require or take d.r. and require that the project be reverted back to the 1998 condition. you have submittals from the d.r. requester and you have not received anything from the project sponsor, nor have i. the previous representation of the project sponsor is no longer representing and there was some transitional period with the architect in another expediter

and they have a new person representing them. i have a draft discretionary review action memo that is usually generated after you take action but in light of the circumstances i took a crack at your review and guide you in the decision you may make today. the option that you have today are obviously to take d.r. and approve the project as it was originally proposed and modify bid toby morris architect and or you could take d.r. and approve with modifications or you could take d.r. and not approve the building permit application. my recommendation today given the understanding of what the commission directed everyone on may 19 would be to take d.r. and

approve with modifications including reverting back to what it would be in the 1998 permit but that is not entirely accurate with the conditions on the site. there were property line issues that were incorrect in the 1998 permit and there was never a variance that was issued or grant grant granted for encroachment above the garage and keeping those two things mindful, that would be the recommendation today and obviously if you hear from the sponsor and d.r. applicant, it would be whatever your pleasure is. i am available for any questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> d.r.. >> in light of the fact that we haven't heard from the project sponsor, i would like them to go first and then we will speak.

>> i don't know if you can go first. >> we don't know what he's going to say. how do i address what they are going to say? >> that means you don't have a comment. and you want them to go. >> i want them to go first and then i will speak. you want me to go first? >> that is the order. >> okay. this is a very unusual case and a very unusual proceeding. sue hester for the next door neighbor. and what i am going to put out here for the staff to give to you is photographs of the front of the building. and i will talk about them on the overhead. but here are the photos for you to pass around. there was no discussions for quite a while and we have been through a cycle and you have my brief. and my brief is it's very confusing dealing with this situation and no real substantive discussions or negotiations because they really

don't want to talk and feel this is an intrusion on them to have anyone say anything about what can happen at their house. what we are asking for is in light of the plans from the most recent architect and he drew what you wanted them to draw and several thingses were incorrect and when the building permit plans were pulled by joe butler who is the client's architect, he found found errors and some affect mr. greavey particularly because they are the roofline right next to the front door. what we are asking you to do is to do a motion of intent to revert to the 1998 plans but

have a final acts with the city attorney's involvement that will help describe what the measures are. there is an abatement of action that is now final because the deadline that was imposed by the abatement appeals board was not met. it took me a while and took the city attorney a while to find out what the status of the case is. there is an active abatement and possible pend iing litigation a what you were originally asked to do is allow things to be approved and the modification.

what we want is two big things. the main thing from the 1998 plans is important to him is the front of the building to be restored as the one story office and one publ office above that that is really important and the second thing is to straighten out the rooflines which has been modified as well. you don't have the plans do it and i talked to kate stays cy which is the motion of intent and tell what you want to do and the last discussion was revert to the 1998 plans and which we have no problem with and we want the 1998 plans to be the real

1998 plans, not the 1998 plans shown in the d.r. and were incorrect. so i will leave it to my client and joe butler to speak and let -- and we have no idea what we are about to hear and the plans, i will just show them since they are available. this is the overgrown tree in the front yard and this the way the front yard is out of control. and it is going on to the sidewalk and there are all kinds of sanitation problems and there's all kinds of next door neighbor issues because this place is so overgrown. and we want a resolution. we do nant want this to keep going on. thank you.

commissioner miguel: thank you. speakers in support of the d.r. >> vice president miguel, members of the commission, i am joseph butler for rodney gre vshg ey and we have looked at plans that have become known as the 1998 plans and i would like to draw your attention to two items. the drawing on the overhead, the east and north elevations of the building shows the condition at the front of the house with a one-story garage and one-story

office above it and the roof of that extension off the front of the house wrapped around the're side of the house towards the presidio and provided a base for the bay window that is the focus and that is the building to the moment for the house as it faces the presidio and that element was rebuilt after the collapse as a three-story piece rather than two. we would like to see that restored as a two-story piece and i want to call your attention to the rear and it was a copper shed roof according to the note. and this is a profile from the 1998 plans at the rear. 1998 plans at the rear. so we would like the roof that