there is a 20 foot 2 inch bubble height play room addition at the basement level, which exits' out on grade in the rear yard. all of these extensions have been held back 5 feet from the home to the north, except for a small portion below the neighboring fence. there is a fully subterranean subbasement which is to be used solely for mechanical equipment. an elevator extends to all levels except the top level, which we chose to exclude because we could not get it to look good. on the issue of light, this addition has minimal impact on any shadows cast to the north and west. the d.r. requestor have included a roof edge that has never been part of our design.

we have corrected their illustrations to illustrate the minor impact even in the dead of winter. to the east, we have 1090 chesnutt, which is a very tall building. the shadows both of these buildings cast, for the most part, block out any shadow. on the issue of privacy, i believe we are approving the privacy situation. all of these houses have their privacy somewhat compromised by their existence of the larkin condos. that has windows with great views of the bay and their neighbors. that condition existed long before any of the current owners bought their properties. we are proposing to remove an existing exterior staircase that extends 18 feet 5 inches beyond the facade, double the amount we are proposing to extend our additions. each landing of the staircase

provide a perfect place to look back. a staircase has people going up and down all the time. it is arranged so people can see the bay. while it is possible to stand with the nose pressed to the glass, it is unlikely this would be a common occurrence. the condos would still have their perspective. the staircase will be gone. we will also remove existing? which are 8 feet deep. no existing -- existing decks which are 8 feet deep. our playroom addition is a permissible construction under section 136 of the planning code. there is a planted terrace, but be on it we have 35 feet 10 inches of rear yard, which is

over 1000 square feet of size. there are many different sizes of rear yards in the neighborhood. this is pretty close to the average size. as far as immediate neighbors go, at 2701, there is no yard. the seligmans, with their non- conforming pavillion, is notably less than a thousand square feet. the assertion there will not be a co-compliance set back is false. as clearly shown on the first page of our submission, which confirms our interpretation of the building code, which is not appropriate for you to be reviewing any way. as far as an easement, we are not asking for an easement on this project. thank you. president fong: speakers in

favor of the project sponsor? >> good afternoon. commissioners, peter fenton, the owner of the project, along with our daughter. our son could not make it. he is taking an afternoon nap -. i want to share our motivation. it is important we talk about that, and the guidelines we feel would be a corporate. finally, our request is to the commission. laura and i fell in love in brazil in 1989. we got married about 16 years later, in 2008. the year of our marriage, we bought this house. it was a developer house. it had the romanticism of russian hill, but was not functional for a family. we thought we would move if we had a family. what we did not anticipate is how much we would love the

neighborhood. i served on a number of boards of startup companies in san francisco. i have no desire to move out. we had a second problem when our son william got a little older. he discovered he enjoyed the back steps. hold on. these back steps create a fear in our house that is hard to describe. when we are not watching him, we worry he is going to open the door. there is a 15 foot fall on the side, and he is getting to a height where he can crawl over. he loves to run up and down the steps. it is frankly dangerous. here is a picture of the master bedroom, where he can have a diving platform. as a parent, you do everything you can. you do not expect that is going to happen, but there is fear. that motivated us to construct a would be suitable for children,

one that can allow freedom of movement without fear, one that can allow open space to play as opposed to drinking in views. the guidance looking into the project with is this architect had a history of building beautiful and appropriate structures. we asked him to address freedom of movement for children without fear and open space as a pooch -- as opposed to drinking in the view. that is the logic. there is a second thing the asked, which is critical -- that we bounced neighbor concerns and interests. nobody is going to be happy about a project like this. our biggest concern is for the large apartment building next to us. they had many concerns. importantly, none of them are here today. we addressed their concerns. it is a little embarrassing that the people who are most concerned do not have any views affected.

the fear we are left with, if we cannot accomplish this project, is we will not be able to raise a family here. our request to you hundley is that you not take -- humbly is that you not take d.r. president fong: thank you. next speaker in favor of the project sponsor. >> mary murphy, counsel to peter fenton and his family. i have additional letters of support. there were sent electronically to the commission. i am not sure if you got them. i would like to be very brief and return your attention to the legal standards this commission has adopted in considering discretionary review requests. we request the commission adopt the recommendation that has been in the staff report by the planning department. we completely concur and agree with the reasoning that was set forth by the residential design

team in that report. i will not reiterate it tonight. but i do want to remind the commission that you have gone to a lengthy process trying to look at what is an appropriate standard for taking discretionary review. you adopted a policy and a definition of situations of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. respectfully to the others here tonight, we believe the staff is correct that this is a situation that does not present exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. i apologize for seeming arrogant in our papers. we were simply pointing out the fact that this is a lot configuration which is the same as most of the lots throughout the city, all over the city. as you look at your own materials about what constitutes exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, you cite specifically regular configurations and unusual

context. this is the same as every block in a residential district of the city. we believe this project improves the existing conditions, especially on the point of privacy, to those that exist currently. as he stated, right now you can see into these homes from all of the units and the? -- the decks. with respect to the current configuration, you could see into these homes coming up and down the stairs. this change is one that people will not be standing with their nose pressed against the glass. most people in all of these homes will be looking north to the beautiful views of the bay, which are in no way obstructed. this is thoughtfully designed. the intent is to make the home child-friendly. we urge the commission to deny these requests. it does not rise to the level of

exceptional circumstances. we respectfully it would request that you deny these requests. thank you. we are here to answer any questions. president fong: additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> my name is paul keenan. i have been a project manager many years. among two states it is inaccurate that we have not reached out -- i wanrt tt to ste it is inaccurate that we have not reached out. all of our neighbors have been contacted for over two years. we have not been successful at finding common ground, i agree. in some cases, our immediate neighbors have made suggestions to revise the plan is completely to a plan that was not compliant with code,

required variances, and was not acceptable. that is the suggestion they had. when we moved back, that is the product we have before you. that is a true statement. thank you. president fong: any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? rh- -- d.r. requestor, you have a rebuttal of two minutes. >> someone said they do not need an easement. if you look at paragraph seven in the first page, "new basement exiting by the backyard if an easement can be obtained to the

street and to an opening provided at the rear wall fence of the property. this would obviate the need for egress stairs." its seems to me that is saying, if you want to obviate the need for egress stairs, something that would be expensive, we need to have an easement. on the business of the fact that the big building has access to privacy, this is what the building will look like after the improvements are made. imagine for yourselves that the people who are standing there have a direct sightline into your bedroom. the fact that there might be some people who have a window that is 100 feet away cannot possibly be compared with the

invasion of privacy that is inherent in that situation. the condo is there. it has been there. it has not been a problem. this will be a problem. one thing that i am asking you to do today -- if we have a direction from this commission to have mediation, i suspect there is an architectural solution to these problems, or something that could ameliorate them. but the business of our making proposals and then saying "no way, because we are going to do what is legal" -- the point of discretionary review is to refer to the discretion of this body. president fong: thank you. second d.r. requestor rubato -- rebuttal, if there is any.

>> the homes are called the three sisters. it is one of the very last streets in the city where a brick street that predated the earth and fire it is still standing. the blocks that are in the back of the home are those that were used as ballast for ships when they came into san francisco bay. these are survivors of the 1906 earthquake and fire. they are to be treated with perhaps a special respect that may go beyond what is in the code. this plan simply does not do that. i would only say to the commission that carol and i have had a policy of welcoming people

on either side of us who have done renovations and reviews in the past, and have been supportive of their efforts, and have attempted to be good neighbors. i had a meeting with the architect, with carroll. without getting into a he-said, she-said, i said to him, "why don't you design both houses an extension of the back in conjunction, and we can go through a review process together? because when they are through extending their house and blocking our view, we will want to extend hours out, so we will not have been scared into our house." of course, the neighbor who spoke will now be in the same situation, because we will be staring into his home. i do not understand the need for it. we want to be helpful. we want to support this young

couple. but it is not possible with the attitude that has been displayed so far. thank you. president fong: thank you. next d.r. requestor rebuttal. they technically get five, right? technically. any other rebuttals? ok. project sponsor rebuttal. >> i believe you. ok. again, regarding the easement, that note was there. we have provided an exit stairs, so we do not need the easement, just to be clear. on the perspectives that were showing the privacy issue, honestly, the perspectives that were provided to you are inaccurate. we have used very sophisticated

modeling software to make sure -- faces a more accurate representation. on the top is the existing condition, showing the stair. sorry for the fuzziness. the red forms are potentially people standing there. here at the bottom you see a more accurate perspective of what you would see out of the library window. the figures in the windows are correct. someone could stand there with their nose to the glass. but i think this is far less a privacy issue than the staircase itself. thank you. president fong: ok. the public hearing portion is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore: is this a" compliant project?

>> this is a code compliant project. commissioner moore: thank you. the expansion as to whether it is considered too large or small already is not within what we are discussing. in addition to the fact that the three buildings, as historically interesting as they sound, have not been identified to us as a historic district or as historic property. the building in question has been insensitive it altered a number of years ago. the first move is to pull back on a somewhat irrelevant stair, which seemed to be taking up quite a bit of space in the backyard. and i am very sensitive to the fact that we do have a he said, she said. i do regret that those people, who have a large home and the

ability to enlarge it, do not have the ability to talk to each other. that is hard for me. we are here all the time with people with very modest homes, people with project three times as large as yours. we always get put in the middle. however, this commission is not asked to be a psychiatrist or peacemaker around those issues. what we are doing here is relative to many other projects which propose similar things. we see if that our code compliant, if there is an interference with those things which we can govern. if i look at it and i am particularly going to be referring to a growing -- a drawing, a103, i do not see that this is exceptional or extraordinary, except that the house itself is extraordinary.

that is wonderful. having said that, i actually believe the apartment building is one of the big interferers, being built almost to the rear of the property line. 2709 includes further into the same space, which the building we are supposed to look at does not at all to the extent the others do. i congratulate you for providing this drawing. i can only conclude that in the application itself there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary. i appreciate you getting back to us. do i?

i am not asked to comment on it, so i will not, and there is really nothing. it is just what is. >> could i ask you a question? it has been represented the new extension is 9.2 inches further back from the position of the stairs emma is the correct? >> we are building of 9 ft. 2 commo, so we are building out l. >> i look fat in wrong, and that answers a lot of my questions. we talked -- it looks like that

is wrong, and that answers a lot of my questions. the other situation is there has been some shadows studies, and as far as any radiation of light or heat, i assume that is not going to cause a prism affect on neighboring homes? >> the original design was submitted before standards went into affect. we talked to planning, and they suggested we conform to them, so we redesign them. now all the glass pieces are less than 24 square feet, and he sent the planning department a letter saying he was in full support. >> there have been some changes?

>> i think you have elevations. if you do not, i am happy to show them to you. you have some on the side. >> they delineate from the original, but it is a similar would. it will age to a similar color. >> i would like to ask some comments on the dr requester. it has been presented at this agitation -- this addition is not as far back as the stairs were, and i want to ask

specifically what you would do differently if it were up to you to change the addition. >> it is a little deceptive the way they are describing it was four stories over two stories and how far it is going out. if you look at the pictures, the two stories come up to about the second story from the house. there's goes above that, so what happens is on the property line there is a huge height, so you will be standing next to it, and the amount of area it comes out is greater than what the

pictures are indicating, so today you a home with a beautiful view of the golden gate bridge, and you do not see the homes next to you. when this is complete you will no longer have that view. it extends so far, and it has an outside for the other stories. it is going to be uncomfortable for everybody. it is not going to be pleasant to see people in the house directly adjacent to euayou. there is no way to have that not

occur. >> your concern is height, not decisions, because this is less than it was with the stairs. presumably, someone could be looking into the room. >> it was an awkward thing done for fire occurred, and a thing about stairs that is different from what the architect is proposing is a that the stairs are open and it is not continuous, so what he is proposing will be continuous, and you will not see through it. >> thank you for your comments. i was reading the various reports. there was a question of height, but this is code compliant, and the height is susceptible, and

the design team feels the additional height is susceptible -- is susceptible. >> it is well within the height limit a. >> we always look at it as appropriate, and it was felt that would be appropriate, and we have already dealt with the height issue, and the only thing that goes further is the two- story base, which is generally below what would be a factor, from what i understand. >> that is correct. in addition, it is set 5 feet from an adjacent buildings. >> just a few comments. i did go out to see the property.

however, they are not historic. i live in an 1870's house. it has been remodeled so many times it is no longer historic. the comment is the same as in a lot. i winced at that. it is an exceptional lost. it may have the same dimensions as many lots, but these are exceptional properties, no question about. we do not often get something brought to us, particularly an enlargement of this size that is

code conforming. that is very unusual. the first thing i asked is where are the variances. not only is it unusual, it is pleasant to see. if you look at a neighboring house, you will have up referral -- up referral euan -- will have a peripheral view you did not have before. that is what happens in san francisco. i happen to like the expression in the rear. i wish he had done the front of the house rather than who did it before. there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary