existing building footprint. and including front and rear setbacks. proposed roof deck would also be at center of the roof. with setback from all four sides. there are two applications filed. staff would like to make a clarification regarding the dr requesters. that is page three in discretionary review analysis. because department's policy does not entertain dr application filed joinly by more than one person, interested neighbor or persons should file their own application. the first was filed by the owner of adjacent home

after buena vista, immediately north of the subject property. joined by mr. matthew lafers, owner of property adjacent of 611 west. because department policy, mr. lafer is yielded official d.r. requester to mr. bill king. however, mr. lafers still endorsed the application filed by mr. king. the application was filed by two owners of single family home at 1460 masonic avenue, directly behind and southwest of the subject property. there are a number of concerns in application and

address in analysis. says here in the report the most concentrated or concerned under this application that is existing building, a neighborhood building character. the first d.r. application or d.r. requester concerned that the current building design that contemporary architecture is errant with surrounding earlier 20th century architecture, therefore proposed third story addition will increase this currently anomaly. the next is third story is -- well, makes the building disproportionate. large on the lot. next project does not

respect the mid park open space. finally the current available light to the third story windows will be affected. there is a further concern, which is not typically related to the application that is subject to the one-car garage used as storage, not for parking. * storey) >> in the second application, basically includes the concerns regarding third storey -- will result building to be out of scale. not comparable with surrounding buildings. then there is too much area under third storey rear elevation, which will result in loss of privacy and light pollution to the d.r. request err's house.

all three suggest proposed petition be denied. staff as well as sponsor has addressed to all these concerns in the report. would like to mention building scale and building street proportions. and building height along the subject block and adjacent of buena vista west range from two, three and four-storey above street. with the third storey addition the subject will be three storey tall. further more it is neither uncommon nor unprecedented to find contemporary and older architectural styles on the same block as well

as on both adjacent blocks along buena visit to west avenue. regarding the parking space removed from the current garage, as well as one concern that was raised not stated in both d.r. applications but during process and review of applications, that is additional unit, disruptive property concept and alleged second unit, which was illegally constructed without building permit, occupied single-family's basement floor with independent access to and from the street. the two concerns regarding parking space removed from garage and this alleged second-door unit has been

investigated by housing inspection as well as the department's code enforcement division. the parking space was ready and available once it was inspected. the alleged second door on the unit was not found in inspection. both have been abated by both agencies. this application has been reviewed multiple times by the department's residential design team. prior to mailing out the second building permit notification. reviewed again after both d.r. applications were filed, as well as reviewed by the department's senior management. it is determined that the

project would not result in any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; that no further changes to the final revised design of the project were necessary. in conclusion the basis of our recommendation to approve project as proposed, that includes project is proposed to be well-integrated with subject -- with third story will not be incompatible with adjacent buildings because it appears smaller than both adjacent buildings and it is in existing mixed neighborhood character. the project will not affect the open space because it does not project beyond the existing building footprint. project will result in lowest sitting impact on

light privacy to all d.r. requester's houses and project will result in no significant current view in city from buena visit to park and project with applicable provisions of planning code and is consistent with the residential guidelines. this concludes our presentation. if you have any questions, i would be happy by to answer, thank you. >> thank you. can we have the first d.r. requester. >> you have five minutes. >> good afternoon vice president wu, commissioners jeremy paul. i will be speaking on behalf of both requesters today. * and in all due respects

to residential design team and to mr. wang, a very experienced planner, i think they got this one wrong. there are clearly exceptional circumstances at the vertical addition. if i can go to the overhead. the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are shown in plat map. we have two adjacent with historic landmark quality homes on 60 and 50 foot wide lots. the prior garage, one of these parcels, was separated off into a separate parcel in the 20s. and was allowed to be developed as a small single-family home wedged between these two large parcels. in 2002, this same owner and same architect brought forward an application to

do avert ^ addition. several d.r.s were filed, four, as a matter of fact. negotiations took place with this architect and with this project sponsor. this vertical addition was eliminated and the building was replaced with a contemporary design but low-profile, attractive building. it is a single-family dwelling that went from 900 square feet to over 200,000 -- to over 200 with that modification. the vertical was not approved but dropped with neighbors in consultation and agreement each of the four d.r.s be dropped. this is the building before it was remodeled. it had a pitched roof. you see a dumpster in front of it. you can see the roof line of 615 and 601 very

prominently from this point up the block. this came from google street view. you can see the building between them on the 20-foot lot. the question is what are the discretionary review criteria xwra and does this proposal create an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. i think it could be argued that it does. these homes are very important homes as a potential historic district. it is surprising to me that this isn't already a historic district. the fact that the roof line of 615 buena vista would be so obscured by a vertical addition would be enough for discretionary review and deny the vertical

addition. in 2002, 021104dddd was withdrawn when that vertical addition was withdrawn by the project sponsor. if i can go to the overhead projector, please, this is the plan that was submitted at that time. it was part of this discretionary review docket. changes have been made to the profile and to the siding, but essentially we have a similar project proposed. the same neighbor proposing it in front of the same neighbors. back to the computer, please. the residential design guidelines are pretty thorough. it comes to the issues regarding a project like this. in every one of these elements in the design guidelines, we can't make the finding that there is

compliance. the visual -- neighborhood character is very strong in this district of larger homes, older homes. this is not about introducing contemporary design. nobody is suggesting some faux historicism should be put here. this is good design but just proposed for the wrong site. the site design, there is a 20-foot lot with a zero lot lines proposed. each side of this site we have significant setbacks and gables that protrude and come close to this line. as a matter of fact, 615 adjoins 611 buena vista towards the rear. i could go through this but this is in the written materials. if you have questions about the residential guidelines

as applies to this case, i would be lap by to discuss them further. back to -- >> so your time is up. >> pardon me? >> the time for your presentation is up. >> speaking on behalf of both d.r. requesters, so i'm going to continue to speak on behalf of mr. stewart. >> i don't believe that gives you another -- >> our rules don't allow that. it is up to the president. if that is what you want. >> rebuttal. >> the second d.r. requester continue with that second five minutes. >> okay.

>> somebody is coming up to represent the second d.r. requester? >> you want to state your name for the record? >> ken stewart. >> thank you. >> little discombobulated here. if we go to the visual here, i will run through slides. computer, please. >> you want the computer on? >> please. >> there you go. >> this is a depiction of -- >> can you speak into the microphone? >> sure, sure. these are depictions of the current building with the additional floor on top of it. a front view from here.

you can see on top of the roof it is the penthouse stairwell, which goes up to the rooftop living area, set up with a fire pit, chairs and a table. this is a view from my house. i'm southwest down the hill from 611 buena vista. this is the view with the additional story on top, along with the stairwell. you can see that it -- at least from this level that it cuts out some of the view of the buena vista park trees. this is a view from the public park from buena vista. this is what the suggested addition would do to that

view. again, this is from up the hill on buena vista west looking north. you can see that it is -- you know, it is quite out of place. to me it is the -- it is a very massive building on a small lot. i think that it is out of place and out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. the other point is simply enough is enough. it was around nine years ago the city and community and current owner actually agreed to change it to that carriage house jeremy mentioned used by the residents on the corner of java and buena vista west. the size and character of the building was dramatically changed.

all parties agreed to the resulting structure, to the existing structure. we have all learned to live with that change. we have learned to live with the residents and live with each other. we say now that enough is enough. back then the current owner of 611 buena vista wanted an additional third floor to the remodel project. many neighbors objected. they submitted d.r.s. to the city planning team and to -- because of that the owner agreed not to on the third floor. it agreed the remodel was acceptable except without the additional floor. this time around the owner initially suggested two more floors, which was completely out of whack

with the spirit of the agreement we had made in 2003. the current design under consideration eliminates the second of these two floors, which suggests a compromise on the part of the owner. however, it is obvious he will now get that additional third floor, which he had agreed to not build. this project may technically be within the dimensions of the code but it is way outside of the agreement we had with the neighbors in the past. this project should not be allowed to go ahead and not be allowed to overthrew the good faith and goodwill that actually all participants exercised in 2003. so we ask that the commission do the right thing here and reject the

proposal and preserve the agreement, compromise agreed to by this very same owner several years ago. >> thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r., i have a number of cards. judy sun, christy lafers, susan rutgif-stewart. as i call your name, you can line up on the úide of the room with the monitors. >> on the railing. put it on the railing. >> please approach the podium.

>> i'm judy som, 757759 buena vista west. i totally agree the character of the proposed building, it doesn't look right next to the the two, three houses up the block. the other thing is i have been in christy's house next door. there are side windows. now i think with the additional addition, you lose a lot of privacy. people can look into other people's houses very easily so that is my objection. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> i'm christy, i live at 601 buena vista west. i'm actually reading a letter from luke and sarah, who live directly behind

611 on masonic. this is their -- sorry. my family and i live in 1891 queen anne style home directly under 611 buena vista west. our address is 1450 masonic avenue. -- photographed our home from masonic and buena vista park. now the view from buena vista park is not obstructed. that would change considerably with the proposed addition. we frequently travel around the world and are constantly shocked to see cities filled with cubed that look awful and makes one wonder how one finds the courage of living in such ugly environments. we believe in a beautiful city which is quite unique. clearly it is only protected by citizens and a planning process that ought to prevent every piece officerland turning into a cubic tower. we live intersection to the a beautiful park where we, our visitors and neighbors can walk and have a nice view of the city and out to

the ocean. walking on the path in the park it is obvious 611 buena vista west is a giant but suggested additional construction would make it obnoxiously so. butting next to the the beautiful homes on either side. for us personally it will change the feel and privacy of our backyard. the proposed construction represents an unacceptable foreign tower in the local skyline. if we allow for this, we will lose the block. after this block, block-by-block we lose the city. if all the beautiful houses in san francisco can be thrown -- does that mean i'm up? >> think you have thirty seconds. >> so i will go to the end. we also support position of our neighbors. thank you for considering our comments. unfortunately we were not able to attend the hearing. then respectfully. then talk about the previous d.r. as well. they did not live here then but people they bought the house with filed a d.r. against the project. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, my name is susan redtiv. for 42 of 43 years i have lived at 1460 masonic with my family. behind and downhill 611 buena vista west. i will try to put into words partly intangible but really weighty effect i believe this plan would have on the contiguous block of homes of which we are part with 611 buena visit to west. they are venerable homes, as in distinctive with an atmosphere that reflects the era they were build in more than 100-plus years ago. things like the spaces in between the homes. the light and the dark. the solid and the glass and the fact we -- whether our

curtains are up or down and lights are off and on, there is a wonderful balance created without any offense to anyone. that was up until nine years ago when, to our mind, 611 buena vista west encroached on that fragile balance by adding another story to their house. which among other things caused my children to retreat by hind their blinds steady of continuing to enjoy the light and air and view of our small garden. it became an unspoken sense of invasion, which leads me today to realize that this further vertical plan, which is so enormous, would make such a visual and psychological impact as to cement forever an ir retrievable disruption that

would damage our lovely neighborhood's character and aspect. therefore all of us who are against this project, i hope you will reject it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is john shields, 1430 masonic. i have lived there with my wife for 18 years, raised our family there. became aware of the first remodel of the property about ten yearsing a. when i saw the plans i was quite concerned because just the nature of the location of that building versus ours means it is in the one spot the sun comes up. the only sun we get all day happens to be the sunrise before noon. the nature of being on the north slope. a lot of tall buildings and so on. with that third floor as proposed, that would be the end. we would no longer get sunlight into our backyard. i was naturally concerned.

i was one that did file a d.r. ten years ago, 2002. we went through the process. i think we came to a compromise, which i'm content with. i'm happy with. the building is low enough. the sun comes in. we went on with our lives. i don't understand how we are back again, looking at the same issue we already compromised on. that is all i have to say, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> malcolm hilin. i'm an instructor of environmental horticulture in san francisco, certified arborist by the arbor culture, licensed landscape contractor with the state. i'm a member of the -- right here in these chambers of the san francisco urban forestry council. i'm here to address the viewscape from buena vista park. i have a statement. the stand of monterey

cypress that is natural carpa populating the west slope of buena vista west consists mainly of mature and overmature trees, evidenced by the tops, lateral branches and failure of some on the stand. the interior have lost branches due to shading. the larger and more row best retain more lower branching due to abundance of light on the exposed west end of the stand. these trees currently frame and some points obscure westward views of picturesque frederick rooftops, golden gate park and the ocean beyond. these views are best exemplified from the landing at the top of the first long set of steps rising from the sidewalk circumstance navigating the park. as stated the trees frame the view but this will change * as the stand continues to age. trees of this ma chuter will lose lower branches in evident currently on the most fully exposed

individuals and stand to pail in event of storming conditions such as the windstorms of 1995. exposed trees on the west edge of stands such as many in golden gate park were most prone to failure during that event. the asian trees of this stand are also vulnerable to such failure, especially at the outer most locations. these straoes continue to lose lower branching and trees fail entirely the current view will be altered for a long period of time as younger trees to replace have not been established at this location. loss of these trees will fully reveal the homes of buena vista avenue west and the horizon visible between these homes as viewed from the park. these slides were shown of this earlier. efforts should be made to preserve the quality of these views that. is all i have. any questions? thank you.ath