to the microphone and the rest of you are able to line up on the side of the room that will help to move the process along. >> three minutes, yes. >> step forward and if you have not already filled out a speaker card if you could do so before or after you come up to speak and hand it to mr. pecaco that will help us in the preparation of minutes. >> i am giving three minutes. it is not a huge number. >> okay? >> go ahead. >> thank you. my name is tim stewart and i live at 1416 masonic avenue and my family live there and that is the street immediately west of beuna vist a and we live down right behind and down below 611. and this renovation and this

additional floor and this roof top terrace that is going to on be on top. it is based on the mass of the house of the lot and also, the out of proportion vertical to horizontal dimension that it is. the easy way to describe of the way that it looks from my house is to take a look at a shoe box and you put a light inside and you cut out the end of the shoe box and all of the light that is in the shoe box drains out the end of that box. and you put another box on top of that, and that would be the current design. and actually, the current design to us is proportionally fine. and it is the additional floor that bothers us. so you are putting another box on top of that with the same end of the box cut out and you have all of that light streaming down on us and not only do you have this massive

amount of light, shining down on you, you also have an unimpeded view of the light in the house and the activity in the house. the other houses on both sides also are imposing on us. but they have window and they have curtains and they have shades. you don't get this impressing looming presence of glass and light. so, for me and my neighbors, i guess, our opposition is to the sides of the house, after it has the additional floor put on to it. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hi, i am robin and i am here on behalf of the neighbor, joel who could not be here herself to show her support. but i have a letter that i would like to read. >> dear members of the board of

appeals, i live on the avenue and as a neighbor i support the new addition planned at 611. the existing house is a wonderful asset to the neighborhood. and the new third floor with green roof is the type of building that should be support inside this city. the neighborhood has a mixture of architectural styles that can be seen from the park and the new addition fits in nicely. the creation of family-friendly housing is also a great addition to the neighborhood and i think that architect you arally compliments the larger adjacent homes nicely. the appeal against our permitted addition is full of empty claims. as a neighbor, i can attest to the fact that no public views will be impacted and the adjacent houses will remain visible. the new addition is benefital to the neighborhood as an 8-year resident of the park neighborhood, a mother of two and a lover of architecture and a supporter of green design d

family friending housing solutions in san francisco, i feel that it is important that we allow well-designed structures such as this one to be built. i think that the permit should be upheld and this appeal denied. resident of 921 beuna vista. she asked that i emphasize that it is a modern home that is very respectful of the neighboring houses and she urges the board of appeal to deny this appeal and approve the permit. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening, i am on behalf of myself and my husband, we submitted a letter of support. as local property owners and neighbors, we would like to voice the support of the vet cal addition that they have planned for their home. we have reviewed the plans and visited the site a number of

times and contended that the appeal against the addition is unfortunate for san francisco. at peel seems founded on the notion that the greater san francisco xhint could somehow lose where the plans to move forward that is false. we visited the park daily and will attest to the fact that no public view, ocean or horizon or homes will be impacted by this modest addition. this design of 611 contribute to the fabric of the city just as equally of the victor ans owned by the appellants. diversity is a good thing and does not detract for the ability to enjoy the neighborhood. it is our impression that we continue the efforts to over turn and defeat the expansion to prevent any development, however sensible, reasonable and tasteful in the city, our wonderful city is not characterized by stagnation or should the architecture be. we ask that it be upheld and

the related appeal denied. >> i have a question. were you a neighbor or a resident when the first remodel or the first addition had taken place? >> no, we have lived in the neighborhood for five years. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> >> my name is reid gerstin, and i am a film maker and we actually shot a feature film in this residence and one of the reasons we chose it was it was something that we visually really liked or engaged with. we have a 6-year-old son and we live in the city and it would, and i would love to live in like the 611 house as far as size for a family and but we don't have the resource and so it seems to me, it would be really nice to be able to live in a house, that house and be able to expand it with the rest

of the neighborhood to give them an opportunity to have a family. i know that the people that would be more impacted are not here and are not opposing that, and also, throughout the process of following the process it seems that a lot of the concessions that they have been making as far as reducing the size, as far as doing the set back as far as making the sort of green environment on the roof seems something that seems to enrich the environment in my opinion. so. that is it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hi, my name is wendy. and i am a mother of a child and i live in the neighborhood. and i have been there for ten years and i have been with stephanie for a while and i fully support the project and i have witnessed the two of them work hard to make the project suit the needs of the neighbors

and i think that they have made many effort to work with them where they have not. and the project blocks no views and is modest in size and respects the existing award winning structure in the neighborhood. the neighborhood vision. and i live in the neighborhood as a said, and building family has been very important to me and i would hate to see him have to leave because they could not support a family in that size of a house. please, deny this appeal, and up hold the permit as is. martin and stephanie are just trying to have the family that they desire, in a modest family home, and i hope that you support that. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> overhead, please? >> i don't know if i placed this correctly.

okay. i know that you have seen this before, hi, good evening, my name is sue. and i am tim's husband we live behind 611. and they loom above us and we are on the hill down below, the rear of our house faces the rear of their house. contrary to what i have to go on record to say that contrary to what the attorney says they have not been sympathetic and they have not been em thet i can to all of the additions and any of our psychological trauma, the architect was not in proximity when i spoke with him and his girlfriend nor were either of them present when i approached the sponsor shortly after he moved in and he openly scoffed at my friendly suggestion, was he going to mid

indicate the glaring pans of these that were on our privacy and keeping our children who keep their blinds down and keep them closed. they feel that their privacy has been abused, and we are all suffering from it when we heard that they were going to put another story on, with these same amount of glazing, and no mitigation to that open reflection during the day and the glaring light at night, i again approached them at their home, sponsor's home and they were very unsympathetic and nothing has been done in the meantime and they continue to with their projector broadcast tv and movies against the walls in a 12 x 15 foot area if we don't have all of our blinds

down and our windows shut and closed and darkened we are obliged on watch what they are watching. so, the architect and the sponsor do not show you photos of the rear of the house and the impact that that addition is going to have on our house and on the neighbors either side of us. it looms, it distracts and imposes on our privacy and it has caused us terrible feelings of being uncomfortable as it is not to mention what they will do to us with another level. and they are completely unsympathetic to shading or putting blinds or shut ters or anything on this. thank you very much. >> excuse me. excuse me, question? >> the same question, were you present when they did the initial addition? >> we were just moving in, no i am sorry. we were, yes, we were there.

>> so can you describe what happened during the first dr process in were you a part of that? >> i was not a part of that. we did not know what was going on. we had not been there that long and we didn't know the neighbors it was only when the construction started and came looming up over us that we were so discomforted. >> so were not a part of that at all. >> unfortunately i would certainly have been a part of it had i known. >> thank you. >> also, just before you sit down, i did i thought that i heard the counsel for the project sponsor state that they were putting in some window systems for coverage, like... >> no the sponsor ship but there has not been anything. >> and as i said, it does not look like anything is happening in that regard and the attitude of the sponsor was such that it was very dismissive.

thank you. >> unless you or some board or entity says that they have to do it. i hold no optimism that they will do it. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay. seeing none, then, we will start with rebuttal. >> brent holly. >> you have three minutes. >> members of the board, you have the transcript of the planning commission and we submitted it as an exhibit to our brief it was not a compromise, commissions antonini and hillis wanted to deny even though they made the statements that they support and we support it was unusual that they found this in particular was not an appropriate extra addition in light of the impacts of privacy and light is the historic neighborhood in terms of the

pictures of the turrit blocked it does depend on where one is on the street to see where it is blocked. we also have problems with the overhead please. with the closeness of this new building to the building at 615, as you can see, when the addition goes up, it is going to block those chimney and in fact it always touches. eves of that building. mr. dean who has been involved in this process who is one of the owners of that building is not here tonight and that is because, because of this proposed project he has sold his home and the new owners asked not to participate in this matter. so, that is why they are not here tonight. i would like to emphasize what happened ten years ago. i don't know and pam shields also could not be here and a few other neighbors as well. none of the adjacent neighbors support the project they all support this appeal. and as you know from john, pam's submital to you last week they were part of the negotiations of the four

discretionary review applications ten years ago and they confirmed that they made an agreement to take away the proposed extra story, and that is now being proposed again, they feel that it is a violation of good faith, the appellants had just purchased their property in 2002, and so they were very aware of the negotiations as well. although they were not parties they did not file one of the discretionary review applications at that time but they can conform to you the agreement that was made. in the transcript from the planning commission, you can see property ject sponsor said that well, the neighbors said as long as we didn't put up the extra four now, it was fine with them, fine if we did it later and that does not make sense. and mr. shields confirmed to you that in fact it is not what happened. there was an agreement made and the dwell article that i read you from, confirms that. and you can see the drawings that the current house fits in, the addition will have not only

impacts on light, and views, and you can see that there is a ocean view here and it is hard to tell on the picture but this is the view from across the street that it will shadow the shields home and that will take up the last bit of sun that comes to them from that direction and that it is conflicts completely with the agreement that was made for that reason, we ask again, that you deny this project. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> i understand that the permit holders did not put on the additional story ten years ago? >> and many people have made reference in regard to the agreement. >> yes. >> was any of the agreement on paper? >> well, they did not make a written agreement. the only thing on paper that we have is that we submitted that

>> yeah, i saw. >> the plans show that there was an agreement. no they didn't get lawyers and sign anything. but, we know that what was proposed was an additional story ten years ago. and i was not representing anyone then, and nothing was put in writing >> were there attorneys involved? >> i really don't know. whether there were. there may have been and i don't know why nothing was put in writing but we do have some of the neighbors are still around who were involved because they had just purchased the home at 601 and the shields with indicated that to you as well. and i think that there is a credibility issue here as well when you see the site plan problems as well. that suddenly, you have... >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> >> commissioners? >> good evening, i would like

to cast the architect to take most of the rebuttal time and i just wanted to mention a couple of things, there was no written agreement ten years ago, they never got to a planning commission hearing on dr. because of cost and timing, our client simply decided not to pursue that addition at that time, but, said at the time that he would when the time was right. the time is now right. as to the neighbors in the rear, they are 89 feet away from my client's home, and one of the very first things that my clients did was agree to add luvers to the windows on the new floor, there. and also the windows on the back wall were reduced by about 25 percent. and i will let mr. caulder speak. >> hi. speaking about the history, i was in every meeting, and i am

the same architect and i will swear on my grave there was never a written agreement. the change from what was proposed to what actually got built was multifactorial and there was some opposition to it like there would be on any project. there were budget issues martin had, and he was a single guy and he said that i don't need all that have square footage right now so we did what we did. and his project was pretty cool. in the end. it attracted girls, and now he has got stephanie in the house and needs to get bigger. any how, so that is the history. on bringing up the floor plan that is a little larger. i would also like to say that what the appellant is trying to do, and he has been doing this from day one, he is just trying to stop the project. the only negotiation that ever took place that we were able to get them to respond to was when we proposed the project at 4 stories and th said,

and then they went, against the project in every way possible. even had to go to the board of supervisors over the sequa thing and so what has been going on and we tried to meet with them and could we carve this or or that and we are just going to stop you. we are going to stop you. and so they went to dr and did the normal thing and the three foot set back at the front and you have seen this and generally a lot of projects get set back and impact in all kinds of ways and to take this arbitrary point from the sidewalk like moving from a walk is bizarre. and any how, let me show you how it is to the left and the right. on the rear of the building, her comments about that. she is 89 feet away. it is a down sloping lot and she is one over. the claim that there is problems for her is probably stephanie and martin have talked about wanting to do more curtains to be good neighbors.

but, this is pretty important on the back of the building on the left, was one of the previous proposals and on the right, there is less glazing on the back, it is approximately 25 percent less. and so that has been addressed and now the lower part of the drawing on the left is predr and on the right is post dr when we pushed it back three feet and you can see the room and it was eleven feet and it was 14 and now it is 11. picture going back further for these guys to see it from a car, during a nano second i don't get it, i just want to clarify this. thank you. >> any questions? >> yes, do i. >> so you are the architect on the first project and could you walk me through the discussions that you had with the neighbors and their concerns and how you guys addressed them at that time. >> it was interesting. what i found since i design mostly modern houses and it is

hard to draw a modern house that kind of looks good. i mean, i don't know, they just look flat and boring and most people have bad associations with modernism. and mainly, when the neighbors came out they were against the modern house there and they did not really get it and i explained kind of the things that i was explaining to you guys. and what was interesting is that the neighbor at 615 was kind of neutral, but he admitted that he could not read the plans well and so he hired an attorney and he hired an architect both and he had the architect carefully evaluate my drawings, a survey or. >> not a survey ors and i wish that i did. the difference is that we measured to the turrit and not the face of the building. >> what you noticed is important. if we measure the turrit it moves it to the street but we are measuring off the building,

that was not the ques, when you said that, and i scratched this, my architect that he had hire i forget the name and she spent the time with me and are you doing the deep set windows and she felt and reported to him that this was going to be a high quality modern building and so, he had no dr. and he was satisfied with this and like i explained a little bit and i can't remember who or what there was no neighbors at 601, and they did not live there and there was nothing coming from them and there was a neighbor like three or four houses down and i forget his name and he was basically a neighborhood kurm udgen and he did not want any buildings in the neighborhood. he was the real problem for matter what we did and he just had kind of the big problem with anybody developing the property. >> so the change from one story down was like a nano second in the process and barely even it was part of the broad discussion. >> are you saying that there was not an agreement, and look

at how important that subject would be, and anything that would restrict the house by adding a floor would have an agreement, and it is pretty significant, >> and the other question that i have is that with the concerns that have been expressed by the person that is 89 feet behind, have you been to their lot and have you viewed what their viewing. >> i haven't but we have done the studies down there and also to the shaoeds property to where the sun may be blocked a little and i got to tell you that their concerns are, but they are like slivers of time, and... >> and let me finish please, and if there is a slither in time and you have been dealing with this and we are in the process that you would not at least walk the 89 feet to see what the concerns that that neighbor has evidently, they

are pretty strong regarding those concerns, correct? >> if i had been invited over there to look, i would have gone in a second. i did not want to impose and i didn't think about it that way. and stephanie has been very accommodated. you know the thing to realize those windows may not be as big but they are looking up at a block full of windows there is not much difference. >> and another thing that was raised a gentleman spoke earlier and said that there were certain promises and things that were going to be done to the current buildings such as either a smaller window or some terraces in the front and the windows were reduced and then after it was built, i mean, that was not completed as negotiated with the neighbors,; is that correct?? >> that was not correct. what was built is what was approved exactly. >> so there was no negotiation with that we are going to address this up or we are going to change that? >> no we want through an

approval, you know, somebody can bring up the drawings. >> there were no changes there were changes it was pretty much per the plans. and we get to view four hours of reading material. >> and i understand. i am on the arts commission. >> we are trying to understand what x and i am trying to understand. >> a lot of projects do change a lot. many of ours do for all kinds of reasons, this one went like it. one of the things about this building is that it is a small building there is not a lot of tolerance and so you have to kind of get it really figured out. >> it is a small building on a small lot but you have a lot of windows and like you said it is like having a lantern with a big lighter in it. >> we did make the windows smaller, quite a bit on the front through the process too, if i could take you there and there are like five variations. and i webt through a significant... >> was there a discussion

regarding window coverings for the existing levels that are there now? >> yeah, they have offered to do that very much. >> i have heard only the third floor. >> i have heard only the third floor. >> no. >> that is what i heard as well >> stephanie could speak to it one of the sponsors. >> i would like to say that we worked with the residential design team very closely for a year on this and you know, their concerns were embedded into the process where we did pull things back and we got it to the point where they felt like it was a positive process, it did go through there. >> could we have the window piece addressed please? >> the windows. yeah. >> so, right in the beginning, they did mention, my name is

stephanie, kercopalis. >> i am one of the project sponsor and right in the beginning one of the very first meetings they stated that they were concerned about the light and privacy issues and the things that we did immediately was that we reduced on two different occasions we reduced the number of window facing 601, and we reduced the front sides and the windows on the front of the facade and for the back of the house to accommodate the stewart, and we added on to the existing second story, we added on, in an external luver system that will be used in the evenings to close and that could be used in the eveningings to reduce the number of light coming out and closed and block the windows when we are watching movies as they complained and for the third story we will be putting in curtains on the interior of the house.

>> thank you. >> anything further? >> >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department just previously in regards to the previous views that were filed in 2002, there were four and withdrawn as confirming they are withdrawn prior to hearing there was no plan commission action and no conditions limiting what could be done under that permit. and i did see in the permit records that after that permit was issued there was another permit that did enlarge the windows and previously approved window and that was issued four months after the permit itself for the addition was issued. and so i did see one permit related to that. but otherwise there are no conditions, there is no even if there had been a written agreement, that led to the withdraw of the drs that would be private that would not be

enforcable by the city and that would be between the dr requesters and the sponsor and in this case, the project complying and the project before you now is code complying. >> i see in the appellant brief is that one in the exhibit these have, you know, part of the plans and this is final, she showed it on the... so that has no meaning or... >> i think that the only change that there were three permits that were issued probably after, and prior to the issuance of the permit in 2003 and one for the creation of a bathroom and modifying the approved permit and one for the previously approved window and none of those could have been to this board. >>