to do this. the whole family thing. but they are impacting the whole neighborhood on this, and i wish that the city would allow them to be horizontal thing and accommodate their needs and not do the vertical fin. thank you. president olague: project sponsor, that's all. project sponsor has two minutes. >> i don't have much to say, but hopefully you vote in my favor. our intention for this from model is really for my family, my mom, no intentions of renting anything out. we really try to work with the extension rather than the

vertical, but the amount they gave me was just like a room, and they wanted it set back 5 feet on both sides also. there was no way to make it flow of the other bedroom for my son, let alone for us. i hope you can take this into consideration. president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you. i think this is a tastefully done addition. there are other three-story additions in the neighborhood. i agree that some have not been done as well as they could be, but i am not sure that we necessarily detract from the neighborhood by tastefully putting a third story on, and

making these homes more appealing for families, especially when you have your bedroom separated. i am not sure i see the impact of being that significant. the setback is 15 feet from the front, her 23 from the rear. apparently, there is a 40-foot separation between the house and the neighbors to the rear that would be 40 second ave. the idea of the horizontal addition on the same floor, you have to have a rear yard requirement that precludes the about the vacant go out. and allowing for separation between the neighbors setbacks that makes for a very small and narrow edition. i could understand the problem.

the downstairs room is clearly designed for use of a parent. if the neighbors feel better, you can always put a notice of special restriction on it for any future use to make sure that it isn't used as a separate unit, separate living in it. i'm not sure there is a connection between the broad and the unit, those are sometimes things that we do. a of think there is any problem, it is quite clear how it is going to be used. for the situation where the view was mentioned, they are not protected unless there is an easement. while this could detract from your view of an area, there is no protection against that. it is encouraging to hear that the family occupying this house would be occupying in our san francisco natives and they have stayed here. i don't see that it rises to the

level of the unusual or extraordinary. commissioner sugaya: i have a question for the project sponsor. and then one for staff. when you initially went to the planning department, did you have a horizontal scheme in mind? >> yes. commissioner sugaya: and it went into what i presume to be the required backyard area? >> the original extension, i don't remember, but i think we were asking for the maximum extension of knowing that we would be cut back from the city. but it was the maximum allowable

extension. but what came back was only 1/3 of it. and what was surprising, out of the about they gave me, they wanted set back 5 feet on both sides. commissioner sugaya: but there was a scheme that was thought up they were comfortable with? on two levels, that went back? a >> yes. commissioner sugaya: staff, i presume that part of the reasoning for the third story alternative is concerned about rear yard open space, setbacks, open space? >> correct. typically, we will discourage residential structures to go substantially deeper than the neighboring homes. they have options in this case of going up, in which case we will recommend that the third

level or top-level be set back from both the front and the rear and depending on what is adjoining. we don't typically encourage that they be moved in on the side. commissioner sugaya: do you know, in this case, and i don't know if you do, but the original scheme seemed to be one that took full advantage of what allowable in terms of the rear yard setback. they didn't ask for a variance. >> i don't know the specifics of the original plan that came in, but from what was explained by the project's sponsor, it sounds like you came in with a project that was taking advantage of what the code be twice as deep f the neighboring homes. typically, we are just not going

to recommend someone come in with that. we're recommending to see modifications. >> and there isn't the third story addition anywhere. there isn't one in the entire block across the street from both streets that i can see. it seems like, i don't know. this building was also, as pointed out by one of the people testifying, it is right at the end, and you will see the entire second and third story elevations from one angle. and there isn't a building next to it that hides the upper floor. that is a concern to me. if given sentiment in the neighborhood that they would rather see a de, horizontal

addition, i don't know. maybe that is the direction to go. >> that would put us at odds with what is stated specifically in the residential contract. commissioner sugaya: i understand that. commissioner miguel: i think commissioner sugaya -- thank commissioner sugaya for clearing up stuff. there are very few third floor -- there is only one anywhere near this that did a compatible designed to the original house. the others are, truthfully, awful. they never had a licensed architect as far as i can see, work on them. are there were not thinking when they did it. there is one that was quite well done.

it is hard on this one because of these were turned out in the sun said jr. 5. they are small. across the street are jr. for. it is just about exactly the same layout, i am very familiar with them. they are small homes to start with. it is not as if you can squeeze a multigenerational family in easy. i had a stand of the department's situation, you force them to go up, or do you violate the design guidelines and have them go out? in either case, what ever happens they multiplied in the neighborhood. what we see coming before us is

of fort hood larger single- family homes to increase their size because the family is increasing in size. something is going to start giving some where, and i think i have the same problems commissioner sugaya has. commissioner moore: i appreciate hearing commissioner sugaya and commissioner miguel addressing something i have been talking about the last several years, i believe the residential design guidelines, while well- intentioned, are too generic to deal with the subtleties and how distinctly different parts of the city have created a collective building forms for the residential design guidelines that did not fully capture the collective value of

all buildings. it is in the respect of all buildings being similar, relative to height where we have a specific quality of life. if there is a need to intensify or enlarge a unit, i would strongly support a careful investigation into horizontal editions. if the lots are deep enough to do that, specifically, generally the rear yard setbacks. there are 20 people, 20 owners supporting the idea that the previous schema, one that the applicant himself had proposed had enough strength and residence for the neighbors to say, we are doing it this way.

just to stick with guidelines, to repeat myself, specifically, they are not responsive enough to the variety of situations. i would say that we continue this and ask for the project to come back as a two-story addition to sit down with the residential design team to hit on how we are expecting the residential design guidelines to protect the larger context rather than executing buildings that results in a 30-foot high wall. president olague: this has been something raised as long as i have been on the commission as well, even before commissioner sugaya or commissioner moore's time here. we made mention of the neighborhood in the city, i think it is the only one where they have really specific -- it

is a different one. and have their own specific design guidelines that are outside of the generality, because is the generalized that is hard to really apply. it just seems that this is probably one of the criticisms where it becomes such a challenge because you have families that come to us with the horizontal and we tell them, because we have design guidelines, hot and they want to extend its upward. but by this time, then you have neighbors that would prefer the design that is in violation of

our guidelines. the family has probably spent the knows how much money on architects or whatever, and we are here saying, go back to what you're going to do originally, which would mean more money and more time on their end. it is really easy for us appear to say, let's make an exception to the rules and forget about the residential design guidelines because we are appear to really gages things the way we are seeing physically and we sort of empathize. in some ways, we look at the physical issues. it is hard to tell a family to go on and get the architect and do this again. >> as a staff, we're going to

take the hard and fast and more the conservative ruling in respect guidelines, respect to the policies. as a commission, you're given a certain degree of and with the room at the discretion and flexibility to look at the individual cases and if you feel that it can be accommodated, i think is well within the power of this commission to make that kind of action. as a department, we are not going to make that. it will have to respect the established residential guidelines. we have to respect the established policy and directives. >> the guideline is a policy, it is not as if they are mandated. >> is a little bit different if they were violating the planning co. i don't think either design hot, either the original or this one violated any aspect of the

zoning ordinance. it is fully code compliance, but how do we want a residential alteration that is so deep that it is going to potentially impact the bloc space. a visa the things that we factor as we evaluate a project. president olague: because of the size, even of the rear yards, that is why we value, also, the open space. commissioner antonini: a few observations on this. there are quite a few addresses in the vicinity that are listed, the pictures are there. i count about eight different instances of forty third had to on forty second of the third floor. i am not saying they are done very well, but they do have third floors.

but we run into the same areas, and now we're getting it in the sun said. years ago, these homes were built, usually right after the war. they were built modest homes, at a significantly lower price than you would pay anywhere else in san francisco. this is what i can afford, it is cramped, but it is a house. it is not like being in a flat. i have a garage, a backyard, it is significantly less. the differential between these houses and at some of the others have diminished, and people are paying a lot of money for these small homes relative to what they can buy outside of san francisco. one of the problems that we have is that it does drive families away, if they're looking for a

larger home to accommodate their needs because of the competition that exists, they make the choice to drive an hour and a half every day in the san francisco to have the additional bedroom or to have the second floor. one of the alternatives is to allow tasteful additions or you can make these houses competitive with what is available. italy, it is still probably a higher price range, because you talk to people and they are shopping around. there is a sun room in the back, it is a logistical problem. i understand what the problem is because i have been many of these houses and if you allow them to go out, they have a problem with the amount of with the as allowable to fit in a hallway in a fit in the other veterans and make the thing work back there. that is why you have the clumsy

sunroom configuration, but that is how they were built. it is hard to change that and make it work. i am happy with the way it is designed now. i understand the neighbors' concerns, but i understand the rest of the commission. commissioner borden: i understand. it is interesting because we have a quandary on this case, i appreciate the comments that we have put these people through a lot have to tell them to do something different is very difficult. we are in a 40 x and district. whenever we decide within this case, we are going to see more and more additions in the neighborhood. it is happening all over the city. there are height limits that people are planning their buildings within, and we have to

make a decision, are we saying that in this neighborhood, we want to see horizontal editions, and we should have staff go back and talk to people? and does that mean what we want to see, are going to feel that way 10 years down the road? i am just putting this out there. or would we say that we would rather have the smaller third story addition and doing it the way we're doing it now? i might point to a certain degree that this is precedent- setting in whatever direction we choose to go, we need to be comfortable when we look at the long view of what is going to have been, why are we most comfortable with? y personal opinion in this particular case is that i feel

really bad for this family, and i think it is a modest decision. i understand the neighborhood of's concerns, but i understand the fact that it can get really ugly really quick. you usually don't have any front yard, it is all pavement. the open space is the green space, the greenbelt, or the privacy. commissioner moore: i do believe hall that the existing homes shown in the adjoining plans here are small enough and compact and of with the scale of design that i definitely seeing the handwriting to have an expansion which doesn't make them her overly pancaked into

the lot. it is like a 58 by 25 foot footprint, expanding that. and you can create notches and variations of the whole thing does not appear as a solid mass and have an interesting addition to the rear. i do believe it is not going to interfere with the perception of open space. particularly, i have to believe that in this location of the city, and the feeling beyond is clearly the most important perception of open space. as we lived closer, her however we live. in this particular area of this building, a emulates a bungalow type of living on a smaller scale.

to repeat myself, i can see it in the architect's rendition, i could easily see in taking this out and allow the dimensions, the code compliant dimensions of the two-story scheme and still have a lovely building. those who would be my thoughts and i would support that. we put ourselves at ease and when repeated, we have quite a few residential buildings that did not make it the first go around because there were many concerns. i had to come back to or three times in order to do it correctly. i a would have the architect whole of the original plans, work with the residential design team and bring it back as a two-

story configuration. i believe it will be a more family value oriented building had than it currently is. commissioner sugaya: to the project sponsor. when your architect originally drew up the plans, i assume that you were thinking that a 2-4 scheme was preferable at that time? >> financially, doing the third level, there is a lot of structural engineering involved , so we were going for an extension rather than vertical. commissioner sugaya: i'm going to try to put you on the spot here? you have a preference at this point? i know you have spent all this money now for the third floor

scheme pirie >> exactly. we started this project and one -- 2010. it was after when my mom had another incident and we seriously had to talk about moving in with her. since 2010 delvalle, who had i think water to more incidents. it is just really hard on the family and doing all this waiting period we changed the plans once before with the architect, and we had all of these neighbors, and it is a long, drawn-out process. the only person really suffering is my mom. commissioner sugaya: is the architect here? gosh yes. commissioner sugaya: can i ask

him a question? >> you mentioned there are no third levels? on our block, there are four or five. just on the surrounding blocks. commissioner antonini: only one looks good. >> i'm wijames -- commissioner sugaya: how far back did the original scheme go back? >> there wasn't a variants. commissioner sugaya: did it go from property line to property line? gosh yes, it did. -- >> yes, it did. commissioner sugaya: nand you have the scheme.

>> yes. > commissioner sugaya:commissioh more work would take to bring it back to the planning staff? none? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: that's all. thank you. i hate to continue it out, but i can't support the scheme the way it is. what troubles me is the location of the house isn't in between other houses. therefore, a third story addition really will impact of the neighborhood. if it were in the middle of the bloc, if the property were in between other houses, i would not have so much of a problem with it.

given the location, there is an opportunity for a horizontal addition to work without bringing it 5 feet from both sides. commissioner antonini: and it has less impact than it was even a horizontal. commissioner sugaya: for those reasons, i will lead to make a motion to continue and have the project sponsor and a staff looked at a two-story horizontal position. president olague: project sponsor -- commissioner sugaya: i'm thinking from what commissioner borden saidm, it would not have to come back to the commission, so there would be -- there would not be another hearing.

reheat neighbors have to realize the extension will come pretty far back. >> a thing of the original design did encroach into the required rear yard. >> it was within the maximum allowance to your guidelines. >> i think it was 20 feet deeper. i believe 20 feet deeper than the current location. >> it has been over a year. coming up on two years. when we 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 clicng