>> thank you, commissioner. there is of order of abatement the have not complied with which is about a year and a half old. it is the portion that is illegal. they are building on top of that. they started to build the full deck. it remains there. they have not abated it. i would like to have that on there, just so they can comply with it. what they are hearing now is the can go ahead and build it, when dbi has sworn to take it down. the only reason for the opaque windows -- we are only asking for the window -- i think there are maybe 14 windows on the east side. nobody has asked that they be opaque. it was only one that wanted to

look directly into a bedroom. it was just a question of privacy. they have agreed to do that. the had also agreed to do the opaque -- one window that looks into the living room of mr. wulfe's property. i understand if you are not able to do that legally. but that was something we have agreed. it was two windows. the third window, item number one, the have also agreed to do that. it does not bother me for the privacy of their tenants, if they want us looking into their property. that is their prerogative. we can do that. i do not have a problem with it. my big concern was that it was finally the window. every time somebody walked by, our dogs would go crazy. that is the rest, i think.

i think everything else is ok. commissioner antonini: i have a question for staff about item three, which mr. marquez was referring to. is it true that there is a requirement to remove this partially constructed deck, or not? >> from my understanding, the deck was made illegally. i guess when i was referring -- are you speaking of the roof deck, or the deck on the second floor? the one on the roof, which is off the third floor. this is the second floor. it is a flat roof. the plans do not include it. when i approve plans, if they exceed the scope of the permit, dbi can go out there and tell

them they have to take it out. if you say it cannot be used as a deck, it can never be used as a deck. commissioner antonini: we are talking about existing flat roof without a parapet, new skylights. just leave it alone. commissioner miguel: it is probably a moot point, because it would not be allowed any way, is what your saying. >> they can put a back on it. -- a deck on a non-conforming structure. we allow that. these plans will not allow it. commissioner antonini: there is not a back in these plans. any future plan -- that is an understanding. it does not have to be a condition, but it is an understanding.

commissioner moore: i would like to remind the applicant that much of what has been going on here could have been avoided if you, after the first continuation, would have made a more concerted effort to describe the existing and proposed conditions with drawings which are appropriate to what this commission approves. then the misunderstanding about size of windows would have been properly addressed. should you ever apply another property for do something similarly, i would strongly advise you to work with a group of professionals who can help you deliver this in a more communicable language other than words. this is not about words. it is architecture. it has to do with physical design and understanding the

circumstance of what is going on. there are no color revisions, no discussion about material, except asking for the granite curb, which leaves a lot of mistakes to be made. i hope the parties can offer all of the rustling -- i hope the parties can in the future arrive at think that are mutually agreeable. >> consulting with the city attorney, i want to caution you that these conditions should not attempt to impose anything governed by the building codes. staff understands the building windows are likely to be fire rated, but that the specified by the building code. >> thank you. commissioner antonini: motion to take the are -- d.r. and approve with the following conditions.

reference to the zoning administrator's comments on things we cannot condition, we will not condition. the windows must be the size shown on the plans, which is redundant, but in there. and again, the redundancy of number two. property line windows will be required by code to be non- opening. and we go on to the various others we have just talked about -- windows at property lines raised as high as possible, size decreased to 10 inches but extended in width to 36 inches. we do not have to go into fire rated and non-opening, because i think that is already understood. the west elevation shall conform with the same type of material

matching the rest of the structure. remove the stairs and the deck in the rear. restore the bay window to it's original configuration. restore the curve cut using the same materials as the rest of the street curve. -- curb. and adjoining property owners up the specified addresses show received copies of the final plans, to be submitted to dbi. >> commissioners, the motion is to take d.r . and approve the project, based on some of the conditions. >> last says san francisco department of building inspection. should that the san francisco planning department? commissioner antonini: that is right.

>> the conditions are as they have been agreed to by the commission and staff. proposed rare elevation. all windows must be shown on plans. property windows on the second floor show the fire roy, as required by code. the proposed west elevation windows at property line to be raised. >> i am sorry. the cannot have any reference to the fire rated. the windows must comply with the fire code. >> other than that, we cannot specify. windows raised as high as possible. decreasing the length to 10

inches, but may be extended in with 36 inches. on the west elevation, conforming of the same types of material. east elevation, remove stair and back. return to original configuration sidewalk and curb, using the same materials as the rest of the street, and restore sidewalk tree to its original condition. and provide adjacent property owners with the plan submitted to the planning department. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: did you want to time index -- chime in? aye. >> that motion was passed unanimously. commissioner sugaya: next item.

>> item 14, case 2012.135ddddd. commissioner sugaya: i asked the department to reduce. -- recuse. we have a direct financial connection. >> the motion to recuse commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: ay -- commissioner miguel: aye. vice president wu: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. >> thank you. you are recused. >> good evening, commissioners.

department staff. the project is located at 2705 larkin street. this project proposes a four story over basement rear horizontal addition. originally, six requests for discretionary review were filed. however, one of the request was withdrawn prior to publication of the agenda. most of the requests for discretionary review have been filed due to concerns regarding the scale of the rear addition and its appropriateness, its impact to the mid-block open space, light and privacy to adjacent neighbors, and although not under the purview of the planning commission, the direction of construction for the project. a side note which is not addressed in your case reports -- an elevation provided by the

architect, showing they are continuing to work with staff to address the standards put in place after the project was filed. at this time, i feel the project does not have any exception or extraordinary circumstances and recommend you do not seek d.r., and approve the project as proposed. president fong: for clarification, there are four d.r. requestors, correct? >> there are 5. >> 5 ? president fong: first rh-, -- d.r. requestor, you have 5 minutes. >> i represent carol seligman, the property next door on the north. the residential design

guidelines make privacy and light interruption factors to take into account, notwithstanding the fact that a proposal might be in conformity with the code. this is an issue addressed to your sound discretion. the reason for that, obviously, is that the things the code would allow from time to come have sharp edges that need to be made more compatible with the neighborhood and considerations of the neighbors. i would like to speak primarily about privacy and shadow. if you look at the pictures we submitted, you will see that it will be difficult to imagine an improvement that would have less of a direct affect on the privacy. it is almost as though that was the plan. i will not accuse them of that,

but it is something they did not take into account. there are windows right into the most private places in the house. their response is we can always drop curtains. think about that. these houses have been sitting next to each other for over 100 years. somebody comes along and decides to push one of them out about 20 feet, 15 feet. it is a significant distance. it looks into the private and most intimate parts of the house. the answer is the neighbors by curtains and sacrifice the main amenity of the view. i cannot characterize that in a way that is appropriate. to me, it is a little arrogant. i do not think it should be allowed, when there are ways that could be explored to mitigate that. the impairment of light -- they put in some shadows and said

light is not impaired. i have been around since the 60's. it reminds me of a line in a bob dylan song. who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? either the sun is too low to bring light, "or to high for the house to interfere. but there will be significant interference during four months of the year, in the spring and fall. one last point -- on the first page of their plans, you will see under note 7 in reference to

an easement they hope to get. apparently, this is an escape from fire protection easement for part of the house. i cannot comment on it beyond knowing they need that or cannot go forward with the project. in any case, we would like to get a direction from this commission that there be some negotiation and communication. they say they tried to communicate with us. we say we tried to communicate with them, and there was a passage in the night with no communication. there is a certain amount of cordiality, but also a certain amount of attention. i would like to see the party is directed to have some mediation. i think there might be ways to

solve the problem. up to now, there has been no attempt to solve it with design considerations. thank you. president fong: second d.r. requestor. >> good evening. my name is scott seligman. i am part owner of the home. i apologize for being here. with your enormous responsibilities that you have to mediate between two one percenters arguing over expanding a huge home to a larger home. i tried to compromise and failed. i am sorry. peter fenton is a brilliant venture capitalist. not yet 40, a general partner at benchmark capital.

that is a leading venture capital firm in silicon valley. he is self effacing and a practicing catholic -- triathlete. his wife is a graduate of harvard and yale law school. the architect is one of the leading builders of a great city. these are the best and the brightest, a credit to our society. i am at a loss by their attitude in this project. this is no david and goliath struggle. it is goliath versus goliath. i own commercial property in the city and have developed property in the city. i own sterling break -- sterling bank and trust. we have 14 branches in our community. we frequently have to deal with securing permits and working with community groups.

our commercial and residential loan portfolio in san francisco is $500 million. we consider ourselves the largest community bank in the city. as a matter of principle, i favor growth and development. within the last five years, both houses on either side of us, including the fenton house, were substantially expanded. we gave them a housewarming gift when they moved in. i will not stoop to direct criticism. there inappropriateness speaks for themselves. their admission of needing an easement even renders these proceedings moot. however, the true lesson is that they have failed to recognize that even with unlimited money

and power, the victory should never be at any and all cost. these are people who never lose and never give up. i admire them for it. the have lost their sense of proportion and judgment as it pertains to this project. i pray that this commission helps them by rebuking them in such a way as they will cast aside their arrogance and work with their neighbor so that all sides are content. thank you very much. third and -- president fong: third rh d.r. requestor. >> my name is jim stafford. my wife and i own 27 online

larkin, to homes down. -- own at 2709 larkin, two holmes down. they have all survived over 100 years in essentially the same format, although they have been renovated. they are designed to line up in the back in order to preserve each other's views. they have stayed that way for over 100 years. that are each large single- family homes. in fact, they are all over 4500 square feet. one would imagine it -- we are a family of four. we seem to survive just fine. our hope is that we could have had much more time.

our experience is there is no interest whatever in listening to the concerns. it is their way or the highway as they move forward as fast as they can muster. what they are asking for is a huge wall of glass that juts into our back yards. they want changes that completely changed the privacy and character of our three continuous homes. it is too much, i think. i am a fan of development. my company, restoration timber, sells reclaimed would to new homes -- wood to new homes.

what i am not a fan of the is a wish to impact a historic neighborhood in a significant neighborhood way. this is out of context. it will have used into two residences. the light in the backyard will be compromised. they need to live next to each other as neighbors. we would like to enjoy our privacy and views, and would like to create something that is more of a compromise. i hope that this commission

recognizes there are three historic homes that have remained in their same relationship for over 100 years. that is worth preserving. i think that mediating a compromise that gives the sentence -- the fentons extra room and protect the neighborhood could be struck. our house, when renovated recently, worked in conjunction with the needs of the neighbors. what we are asking is that they do the same. thank you. president fong: third d.r. requestor. was that third? fourth d.r. requestor. >> my name is steve gunders. i represent several signatories.

i have also been asked by a fifth to read her statement. as a granma, she had to pick up her granddaughter and could not be here today. i would like to begin by reading her statement. just to clarify, her condominium is owned by herself on the top floor and another gentleman on the bottom floor, who is in concert and agreement with her. it is effectively their backyard that focuses on the fenton property, just so we understand. i am reading her statement. commissioners, my apartment? into an expansion. the architect who designed these properties -- the concept of space is essential. this expanse is closed with the

new expansion. there is so much beauty in the city, and that would impact that as well. her request is that the d.r. go forward and there be a negotiation. for commentary is at the moment the space recording additional requirements for a family of four is a serb. how many of you consider 6000 square feet enough for each of your children? however, we have other considerations around like, space, and encroachment on -- light, space, and encroachment. we basically have three reasons why we believe discretionary review should go forward.

one has already been commented on by others. we have had an encroachment approach in the whole area. if you look at the water, i live on the other side of the road. while we are not directly impacted by this because we do not look at it, although we might be able to see bits and pieces, we are in a condition where we feel we have other properties that have been built up to a point where we are going to lose green space, air, and so on. in a broader context, this is more than building codes. this product is going to be the biggest square footage of any single family home on the block, and will impact the other homes. it will have a serious impact on the character of the

neighborhood. each individual is entitled to build up their home. i believe you need to look at it from the standpoint of character. the open yard space will be impacted. i think the scale is out of proportion. we are up against the apartment building next door, rather than the homes in the surrounding area. for those reasons, i would request that perhaps mediation or discretionary review go forward, and that the parties meet and try to come to some compromise where we are not changing the character of the neighborhood. president fong: the fifth d.r. requestor? okay. speakers in favor of the d.r.

i have three cards. scott selman already spoke. are there any other speakers in favor of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this design is a 1250 square foot addition to a house in need of architectural assistance. the existing residence was remodeled by a developer in 2005, with features that included a rear facade treatment and an exterior staircase that dominates the entire rear yard. our design calls for the removal of the staircase, which projects beyond the rear facade.