went to the third level, it was substantial on my end financially, and i am pretty sure it would go back to the second level, when his pencil is clicking, it costs me financially, too. commissioner sugaya: i understand. can we take a five minute recess? president olague: let's take a recess to discuss this. >> we have the original plan submittal. president olague: great. >> i think the question from south, they are saying that you need a variance. >> i was getting communication with the project planner. he is saying, it does not

encroach. the original plan did not approach -- encroach into the rear yard. president olague: how about the side? straight out, ok. commissioner antonini: thank you. i do note that under our pending d.r. reform legislation, this project would not have even been referred to the commission, which is interesting. it would not be referred on the staff report. staff felt it did not rise to level that it even should be considered. i would tend to agree, to some extent here. i do realize that you have a

situation where the homes see thshis addition that wasn't there before, but there is a separation, a 40-foot separation between the backs of their houses and the wall. there is still plenty of light coming in, and those homes sit in a north-south direction and whereas the house sits on the east-west. their primary light sources are east-west, so it would be more from the windows on the sides of the house that would be the case from the north which is usually the darker side. having lived in both multi-level homes and a single-level home, i much prefer a multi-level home at a think most people do because it gives you more privacy and it is a lot better situation given the choice.

these homes are reflected of a time in the 50's and 40's when we started to go away from multi-level homes and we started to build split levels. eventually, ranchers had enough to put it on one level and we realize it is not an effective land use. it is more efficient have a multi levels. i like it the way it is now. i think the real neighborhood impact here, the only thing i see, neighborhood character, and i am not so sure that this addition is not in keeping with what could be the neighborhood character in the future if these additions are done in a tasteful way. as was pointed out, it is a 40 foot height limit, and it's what's in the total height of 28 feet. you're talking about 12 feet below what is allowed. i don't see the reason to make

them go through the cost of bringing another plan in that is inferior. commissioner miguel: as i mentioned originally, one of the problems is that we are setting a precedent to an extent. it was already mentioned that if this was in the middle of the bloc rather than the end, the walls would not be quite as much of a problem as it is now, visually. but if we are in the position of possibly setting precedent, which president do we want to set? if we were going to do the low level further extension in the middle of the bloc, it is my belief that we would have nixed it immediately. absolutely.

with that consideration, iw ould would tend to go up rather than out. commissioner sugaya: i just think that going up is ridiculous. as you get older, i don't like going upstairs anymore. i understand mamma's on the lower level, she has to come upstairs i think to eat. we are already talking about her inability issue. i don't know. i dunno if i had a second on my motion. i guess is not a continuance, a d.r key.to take the d.r. secondy

scheme, give it to staff. but they can go back to the legal rear yard line, or whatever you want to call it. commissioner antonini: herainarg to second, i'll move to approve the project. -- no second, i'll move to approve the project. >> on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moorsugaya: no. commissioner miguel: reluctant aye. president olague: i'm with miguel, aye. >> that motion passes 5-1 with

commissioner sugaya voting against. thank you. you are on item 14. case 2011.0817d for 4356 26th street. >> southwest team leader. before you is request for a discretionary review to construct a horizontal rear extension for the first floor level and to add a new basement level at the rear of the

existing single-family dwelling unit. it is a down-sloping line and that also led early up slopes. such property is located in the zoning district. the horizontal rear extension of the first floor level will match the height and depth of an existing rear deck structure that is proposed for demolition as part of the project. the proposed extension of the level of the triangular building permit and the setbacks are at least 3 feet from the side property. the adjacent projpperty to the east, -- the skill of the project would mask beyond neighborhood standards. the residential design team has reviewed this project and supports the project as proposed for the following reasons. the addition is a minimal

extension and, above grade, along the west side, and the three-foot setback for the one- story basement portion. we also found that the privacy concerns are not exceptional or extraordinary considering the subject property has. back in the same location as the proposed addition of the first level. it supports the proposed a death because of the rear must apportion of the extension is located at the bottom of a down slope which is well below the level for the adjacent buildings, and a setback at least 5 feet from the property. the department finds that the project has not demonstrated exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and we recommended that they do not take the discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. the department has received five letters of support for the project sponsor which have been

added to the case file. president olague: d.r. requestor? >> my name is patricia nyland. and you know where i live, i am the owner of the property. my family has lived there for over 60 -- 50 years. i have strong emotional attachment to myspace. like the previous requestor, six children. we did fine in this amount of space. from the beginning, the plans have been the diagrams that were submitted have been misleading.

i venture to say even deceptive. there was no side elevation submitted, i asked several times and finally did receive it. the side of vision has not been submitted to the planning department. -- elevation has not been submitted to the planning department. i hope you understand how it was difficult. not one of the plans contained the whole plank of the street to the back of the yard and i could even checked, studying the residential design guidelines where i could even tests. i will show you one picture that is particularly deceptive.

how do i get this to go up? ok, thanks. >> speak right into the microphone. >> after a few requests, i was able to get a copy from the planning department as a 3d rendering. using the diagram, i was trying to figure out the rear yard setback. the 25% rear yard a setback, the lots are pretty long. last night, i measured and 28 feet is about here. this line that i have just drawn is actually where the expansion will end. lots of the neighbors have

discussed, and it is a little bit confusing. but this is absolutely where the plants, where the extension would end. this is my house, obviously. this is our back, and this is where there is a better room. the privacy issue is this a stairway, and there is habitable space on this next level. if you can imagine, and the proposal has windows all along here, and this is your. all along that area, i do have a problem with the privacy. that is the first thing that makes it pretty difficult i see i am running out of time.

it is an increase. i will show you more pictures before i run out of time. this is how it looks now. this will be the applicant's property and might hardly shows the setback. this is one neighbor down the hill. if i said the lots for very long, i hear the commissioners talking about and i believe -- and nobody has built back up the hill, down the hill. i will show you one other picture. [chime] can i go on? this is my property, my rain shelter here. president olague: you have 90 seconds.

>> the extension is goin tg to fill this space. the extenstioion will fill [tone] president olague: now or five minutes are up. >> the first time is a learning experience. president olague: speakers in support of the dr request. >> i grew up in that same home and a lot of the things we're pointing out our cookie cutter from what we have heard. this bill out, the home in question where they want to do the build out is one of three

near identical homes. this would record -- as would be something that's out of character and establish an eyesore. it's not compatible, out of scale and out of context. we can get into the emotional thing of how we lived there 53 years but i'm not sure that's a factor. but there is a loss of privacy my sister is going to experience. talk about loss of a view -- it's not protected -- i don't know if you would feel the same way if you lived there and you are used to this sweeping bayview and you will experience a 30% loss of daylight and loss of view. you are in your living room and now people are able to look into your living room where as for the past half century that was not the case. you mentioned in the build out being consistent with the existing debt. i don't know what your records reflect, but there was a lot of construction going on, nothing to do with the current owners, but the previous owners have a

lot of construction going on. we do not remember being noticed, so the desk -- so the deck is in question in terms of its legality and whether it was permitted. again, with the previous discussion out in the sunset, you were non supportive of a low-level bid to block extension which is exactly what does this. why can't they build up? i'm not sure what the height restriction is. i'm sure they are a very nice couple, but chances are they can afford this kind of build out, i have the wherewithal to buy existing larger home. -- they have the wherewithal to buy existing larger home. i don't think you care about the emotional issues, but six key -- six kids were raised in the ad -- in the existing home.

there were additional rooms added downstairs. again, legality is a question but not reflection on the current applicants. thank you. [tone] >> i am the sister of mike and patricia and i was raised in that house. i think what is important to consider with the three identical homes on the block is they are from a different time than the rest of the block. their view homes. the living room is not in the front, it's in the back of the house. when my sister was showing pictures, that's meant to be a panoramic view of the city. although i know a view is not protected, it does, it is part of what the house is about. the original plan of those houses, which other people have remodeled and respected, the houses are not parallel to the

block. they sit at an angle so each house has a view that is unobstructed of the others so that the living room and kitchen and dining room is not at a right ankle, is that this ankle giving you the view of the city without -- at this angle giving you a view of the city without obstruction. all of a sudden, you walked out of the bedroom and there is somebody sitting on a deck on a chair looking right into your window because that angle of the property was not expected -- respected and it changes everything. what you said about the sunset is what has happened in that neighborhood. people have tended to go vertical. a lot of work has been done where the vertical homes have, don't change the blueprint, but it makes a gorgeous house. i know a lot of houses have

elevators in them now to take advantage of the height of the house and prepare for old age. i think a vertical in that neighborhood would be so much better and would not cause this big box being stuck at the back of the house, which is what seems to be happening before there was such a strong commission in san francisco. i hope you could view the three houses of the plan and the one down hill had a very large interior remodel. they completely changed the interior of the house, making it a large family home without changing the blueprint of the existing outdoor space. i think it would help if they would consider a vertical extension so would not destroy everyone's light and air. [tone] president olague: are there any additional speakers in support

of their request? seeing nine, the project sponsor? -- seeing it none, the project sponsor? >> could i have a moment to unload at something on the laptop? >> -- president olague: the clock is ticking. >> i just had a quick presentation i wanted to give. i'm the architect and after me, the owners will speak. we appreciate your meeting with us this afternoon. first, the planning department has been very supportive of the moves we have made to date and as you can tell from the package you have received, we have gone to great lengths to try to understand 3 dimensionally what is happening with this addition and how it affects the dr

request for interviews and the impact on her house. i would like to address a few of the concerns she brought up. then i will go into the ones she wrote with in the request. the elevation was provided with the initial proposal for the project which would be required as it is to have a full review from the planning department. the site plan shows the entire lot, including both adjacent neighbors. the neighbor at 4366, if i could jump to this now, -- when we started the project, the

three months ago, to more additions, and this is the family. this project, when joanna and charles bought the property, they anticipated making a larger family and also asked me to participate in making this addition. looking at the existing site photographs, the left photograph shows the view of the house from the very bottom of the property looking up so you can see there is a dramatic slope. in all of those views of these houses are toward the bay facing out toward the left. the addition should not impact the open views of the adjacent neighbor. the right photograph indicates the existing fence which is a privacy fence on an existing debt. looking at the right photograph

here, this is peeking over the fence and you can see the view screen that has been placed by the neighbor as well and looking down, you can see the built structure of the viewing platform the neighbor has created out there which is a triangular form and even though it is not a closed space, it is a built structure in a mid bloc situation. i want to walk through it did -- want to walk through the design quickly. 25% setback line is very close to where the neighbors of viewing deck is. we have set back approximately seven or 8 feet from that line and you can see how the extension works here. this is the current house as it exists today with the current back on the second level. as mentioned, the living areas are on the second floor. the ground floor contains a garage with a bedroom and

covered deck. with this extension, the upper area, we would be keeping the deck at the same height and below the deck creating an extension out in order to create a master bedroom that is back and they play area ahead of that. the very bottom would be the extension that would go one more level down. essentially a basement level. these are the before and after shots to try to get an idea of how the extension works. this was before, after, before, and after again. the concern of windows she had raised, we looked at that and but that privacy issues -- this lower left-hand issue shows the potential of actually reducing the window and we did meet with the request your to entertain this concept. [tone]

here, you can look at the mid block pattern and see there are built structures that the request for has built themselves but some neighbors that are across the way. again, you can see how the downward slope works. in closing, we think we have done a very sensitive edition and have gone down in order to take advantage of what the current slow of the site is that we hope you approve. president olague: speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> my name is charles lynch. thank you for having us here today. my wife and i, when we bought the house about a year ago, did not expect to go from a family of three to a family of five so quickly. it was a bit of a surprise. the truth of the matter is this is a question of space. my wife and i are not planning

to flip this house. we're planning to be here a long time. i don't know if we will be here for 53 years, but it's not out of the question. as has been said several times, we know that views are not protected. i think all our neighbors would agree in the neighborhood we live in, the views are certainly valuable. while they may not be protected, people appreciate them and we do not want to make a change to our living space to give us the space we so desperately need in a way that is going to impair the views of our neighbors. we tried to take steps to minimize that. one of the alternatives we did consider was going up. if you look, i'm not sure -- our neighbors and the across the street are going up because our neighbors are higher than we

are. that's going to have a direct impairment on their views. if we were to go straight back, that would have an absolute impact on our neighbor to the north. they would have had issues with us going straight back. that was one of the points we discussed with them. so we were thrilled when our architects came up with a plan that not only respected the top biography -- typography. we live on a ridiculously steep hill. our architect came up with a design that allowed us to basically spill out down the hill which would give -- which would give us the space when needed without impairing the view of the neighbors that while not protected, we knew were valuable.

that was something we were interested in trying to maintain with our neighbors. we did meet with patricia and know that she has had some concerns. we also know and, correct me if i'm wrong, but she would not object if we were to stay within our deck, below are deck. [tone] the problem is i think that's unreasonable because it doesn't give us the nearly amount of space we need with two little ones at home who are currently sharing a room with my wife and i. we hope you will consider our plans as currently stated and allow us to move forward. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> my name is joanne l. lynch and i just wanted to follow up with what my husband -- joanna lynch and wanted to follow up with what my husband said.