them to date. the record speaks for itself. i do not think i need to engage in some of the misrepresentations been aimed at us. all we're asking for, everything on this list, we discussed with valerie. her husband was supposed to be there, it took him the better part of two hours to find parking. be that as it may, there is no surprise. we are not pulling any punches under the belt. the biggest item that we were requesting, that we gave up on, we pulled it out. everything else is reasonable. with respect to item number four, the proposed west elevation, this is something i just found out a couple of weeks ago. in good faith, if she could work to have that removed.

the 6 inch encroachment, they have built a house 6 inches away from their property line. that is not realistic, it is a separate issue, i understand. that is something that she said she would look into. other than that, i think everything else is fair and reasonable. we hope that you take -- you incorporate the special conditions. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i just read through some of these items. i am not sure if i can address all of them. [inaudible]

i can try to explain. what he is talking about is that years ago, a gentleman filed some sort of judgment, when that judgment, that the property line is 6 inches over from our wall. i do not know how to go about addressing that. that is not -- legally, i do not know if it is within our means. i know -- much of the other items, i have not been able to read through. they're similar to some of this. the windows looking into adjoining properties, the east

elevation, that is all of our windows that were pre-existing. that is not possible. that requires all of those windows to be closed. people have no light and air. on the west side, there are no windows. again, the list, i can go on and on. our plans have addressed all the other issues. we really have to move on. thank you. >> the public hearing is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore: i am basically confused. when the applicant first started, it seems like there was

an agreement. the majority of points seem to be not acceptable and not studied well enough by the applicant. i assume that you feel the same way. i would like to say, the original continuance of this project started with this of standard set of drawings. they were -- they are simply stick drawings. the issues cannot be fully addressed, property line, windows, those are not things that are negotiated. however, since this set of drawings does not constitute anything, i think it is

difficult to have the applicant understand the conditions. i think the dr requestor use -- the d.r. requestors may be more familiar with the requirements. if you want to downsize the windows, you need a line drawing, preferably by an architect. depending on the agreement between the parties, it is nowhere fully documented. basically, i do not know what to do. i am curious what the other commissioners have to say to this dilemma. commissioner miguel: the first thing i have to say is i do not see an architect and has dealt with this. is there an architect?

not present. bad mistake. ver bad -- very bad mistake. your other mistake was buying a property that had a lien on it you did not know about. either you did not look at your papers, or you have an incompetent real-estate agent. third bad mistake was not dealing constantly with your neighbors, who you knew. this does not work, as far as i am concerned. it does not work at all. if you want a commission to deal with something, the purchase the property was non-conforming, that had work done without a permit, and you expected to go ahead without any actual people to work with you or testified to this commission that our experts in the field.

i cannot deal with this. it should not be in front of us in the first place. commissioner sugaya: i would agree to the comments from the commissioners before me. on the other san -- on the other hand, there are certain conditions i cannot except either. opaque windows are not going to make it with me. forcing them to close everything on the east side is not going to work. i do not care whether they have a deck or not. i think that is egregious. we cannot deal with the lien anyway. i am sorry you used your two minutes to talk about that, but

that is not the condition we can deal with. so i do not know. i hate to continue this, because it is going to come back and be just as bad as it was now. i will try to make a motion. i do not know. commissioner antonini: the easiest way to do this is we do have a recommendation from staff. it sounds like if the conditions can be met, or some of the conditions, that we could have this finished today. maybe we can look at these conditions, if you would. some of these, i do not think

are before us. i think eliminating those would be good. we can concentrate on what is left and may be draft a modification. >> do you want me to go through the list? commissioner antonini: some of these sound like they have to be as submitted. that is obvious. >> just so you know, this is the first time i have seen this. number one, that is fine. they should do what they are going to say in the drawings anyway. property line windows on the second floor shove the fire rated, and as required by code the non-opening and opaque. property line windows have to be fire-rated. i do not think fire-rated windows can be openable. perhaps cross fat off.

-- cross that of. -- off. commissioner antonini: just take the opaque part of. >> the upper living room will not be used as a deck. it is not shown as such on the drawings. commissioner miguel: i see no reason why they could not have a legal deck. >> ok. take that off. the doctor shall be added to the second floor. that is not really -- the gutter shall be added to the second floor. that is not really a planning issue. the proposed west elevation is seeking to do a clear story -- clerestory window, the property window. commissioner miguel: does it have to be opaque? >> that is your call. commissioner miguel: no.

>> the sighting should match. the fence is not really a planning issue. i recommend you take that out. that should be something they deal with. number four should not be in there at all. the project sponsor has already removed the stair and deck, if you want to keep that in there. it is still physically there, but on the plans. number two, i think you should

take that out. that is up to dbi. d1 is in the plans already. but we can keep it in there, just to reemphasize. to restore the curb cut using the same materials that were there -- apparently, it was a granite curb cut. commissioner sugaya: there is a source of granite in the city. you can call architect joe butler and ask him, because there is a stockpile that he knows of. >> to restore the sidewalk is

already part of our requirement. just to go over on sheet a, 1 and 2 are ok, but not opaque. take away 3 and 4. section b1 and 2 are okay, but take away 3 and 4. and opaque. section c1 is ok. section d is ok. section e, both of those are ok. f, if you want to have them review the plans before i approve them, that is fine with me. commissioner antonini: thank you. maybe i can ask mr. marquez to go over these.

how do you feel about these changes? >> 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,