>> when i show you the picture of this and people think of the golden gate heights it is a single block of junior five houses, so it is, they are very small homes and two bedroom and one bathhouses without the dining room. so, any way the reason that we are bringing this to the discretionary review we have

actually made a number of attempts with the owner, and many are around my dining room table to come to resolve around with that expansion plan will look like and the short of it is that we have agreed to disagree on the third story, primarily. that is our number one sticking point. the attached discretionary review this was an eye sore and was built way before the guidelines were put into place and it creates more and doubles the current size of the home

and it clearly impacts the rear yard to the space and i think that we are going to expand a little bit more on the way that the back yards are shaped due to that rock ledge that is behind our property that actually impacts and the second thing is that we will address the shadow study and some of which is done in the sponsor's architectural plan that you have and that shadow study was actually the month that is captured is during the foggy month and that helps the magnet for fog and so the sunnyist month are not the ones that were captured by the study.

>> there was no issue with the property just south of 2162 and that property is actually owned by the sponsor's son. and so, and that sponsor actually made a comment to me at one point that had he been in the country at the time that my house was on the market. and i am a little concerned about the precedent of actually adding the third floor and that might become what the neighborhood looks like and maybe changes the neighborhood from being a medium price of a san francisco home and have a block that is over one million plus. and so that is one issue and the other thing is that there is evidence on the record that the owner and family members of 2166 avenue, have developed numerous residential properties in san francisco. and we have actually spoken with them 2170 like i said just

south is the property's owner's son and that there has been recent work completed on this property that would suggest the preparation for further expansion and the last point that i want to make in that is that the issue of this not being a house that is desired for development is that in some of the other cases where the owner has developed the properties and the exact same story was told to those neighbors about the intentions of the use of the expanded homes that they were told. that is a few quick arc facts. so this is what it looks like and you can see that all of the houses are homogonous and the yellow is what the proposed addition looks like and you can see that behind that the other eye sore was just the box that was put on top of the house

before the guidelines. and i am out of town, thank you. >> second dr requestor? >> you

>> it will be 22 feet from the closed edition. this view is the vertical wall actually cuts in to the north and further federal or state to the north. the useable property in the rear is considerably smaller. this shows the vertical wall of the existing house. this is the existing proposed vertical edition. i showed the shadows during the

spring and fall. so in the morning 10:00 a.m. it casts shadows at 10:00 a.m. if the rear doesn't cast too much shadows but the 2:00 p.m. is rather significant. the shadow for the two-story edition and the rear story edition almost eclipse the property federal or state to the north and the shadow casts across two other proprieties. it's a rather size able to the neighbors. we use our yards all year we have a garden.

the usual formation of the propriety limits our access to sun and air. is other concern i have is about the integrity of the propriety and the safety. i discovered that the owners have bought and developed over 15 other properties. the complaint records for those properties has a questionable and unsafe practice. it shows violation and permits filed for work that was not fully inspected and it was done without a permit and the ceilings not matching the plans

and work preceding after the notice of the vision is posted and there are additional items that were submitted. the work was done at 2170 the property owned by the subject propriety owners son and it had complaints of electrical work >> thank you. >> u thank you any speakers in support of the dr? okay seeing none, project sponsor you have 5 minutes >> i have 10 minutes. >> 10 minutes but you don't have to use all the time. >> i'm the architect for the project sponsor my clients, you know, i don't know about their history with regards to other properties i

was only advised on this property to quality some of the things said. my clients are basically trying to move into this house they purchased it in 2004 they went through variations of going back and forth with the neighborhoods and scaling back the project over time. the house itself is the habitualable area of the house is 12 hundred and 67 square feet. the main level on the top is about 8 hundred and 88 square feet they want to add 1 thousand plus square feet. i didn't include the garage by

it's about 2 hundred something square feet. the homes are small as the requester has requested. having a home with habitualable area of 22 hundred square feet is not akin to other, you know, large apartments that are made for families. mr. lie and mrs. lie and the two children and the father who is 80 years old are going to live in the house. i'm not sure what the record is based on the dr record of serial housing but they've had an ambition to live in the house for seven years. the intention here is to deal

the horizontal position 15 feet back and the cropping where the landslide zone is much further back from the property itself. and the rock cropping does come around as the dr suggested but i think it's a little bit exaggerated there's a slope on the property. and based on earlier sketch from the requester - can i have the overhead please - so the rock cropping isn't as represented there's more room between the back of the property. the project is not - i don't

believe it's the taught u tallest house on the block it's a little bit less. this is the vertical edition here and this the the horizontal position but we've scaled back the house we've made a 10 foot by the 10 foot deck that have covered the 17 foot extension. we've looked at privacy issues with respect to the requesters suggestion for windows we've added clear story windows ease the windows lie to the north. there's a 6 foot if he has a lattice rail above that so those windows don't look at the

adjacent properties. i'm sorry. i'm talking about those windows here. you can see the deck is 10 foot by 10 foot deck so no one looks into the privacy of the neighbors picture it's a fog belt fog couldn't u comes up to this height and having more internal stras space is important. the property at the back is the addition and the back structure is the front of the property and there's a roof that hides part of the property. again, it's to look at the cross section from across the street

and i know that cross the street direct shots don't do a lot but it's lower than the lower vertical edition. the rock cropping in the cross section might be more realistic with respect to the addition. this is the vertical edition. the rock outcropping is more like this and the sketch that the requester had put on was this and this suggested sketch our building is about 27 feet and this is roughly the slashed red line. and again, the fence line comes up with the lattice and so what we're trying to do is we're

trying to do a house that the project sponsor and the family can live in the four bedrooms the primary parents and the two children and the senior father on the grounds floor and someone from the family is here to speak right now >> hi good evening. i'm the owner of 2160 i'm here to express we've about that waiting 8 years and my husband has tried so many times to work with the neighbor we couldn't come to a conclusion. and also about the complaint about the 26 we have no vision

at all but for 2170 when we about bought the house we didn't know that the in-law was 11. i hope you vote in our favor and we can move in thank you very much >> okay calling speakers in support of the project sponsor. there any? >> okay seeing none. dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal >> just regarding the reiteratetion i provided there's documented each meeting that i had with the owners and i can assure you from november 2007

those were the items and it take a took a year so there was nothing to meet with the family to a continue to neat. we'd work anti some other stuff and wait, wait, wait. when i came there was a different architect and there was different plans and so they restraining order i brought on a respectable firm. i want to going go back to the third floor the shadow indicates a there's some dramatic impacts. i said there's a need to have a larger home.

i have a home for 5 kids but - is this reasoning? i want to point out that i don't think the other edition billed build in the n 60's and the height of the home you can see how the neighborhood is by looking the entire block on both the ocean side and the homes that back up onto the cliff thank you >> second dr requester 0 two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. the home is visible the proposed

edition is visible. in was taken from across the street and i see the neighbor two doors down it's not a vertical edition. the first time we met with the homeowners and wanted to move their family into the home and a couple of years we met another neighbor and they received the same confirmation for their family. the children are now grow up and the son is the property owner at 2170. so it's my understanding they didn't tend to move into the facility. the reiteratetions of the

drawing h have been from 17 months from one revision to another and another 21 most have elapsed. the rear yards also the photograph there doesn't really lie. the rear fences have 4 feethystero high not 6 feet. and sharing that open space so the vertical rock formation is actually rather close to proprieties and i can see that by looking at the top photograph. thank you >> thank you. project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal >> i think there's a little bit of adjust in what you saw but i

know i really would prefer that the homeowner come and speak to the fact they want to live here. this is really their intention at this location i don't know about other locates that have been dug up. the tint is to have a family sized home that's useable and have a floor plan that works for furniture when you lay out a 8 foot couple your squeezing things to circulation didn't work very well. the vertical edition yes. there's not much of a persistence in the neighborhood but the vertical edition is set back and some of the adjusts on the facade was suggested by the

neighbors themselves. i'm hopefully, you can support in project and support the edition f to the rear as well with the vertical edition. thank you >> thank you okay. the public hearing is closes and opening it up to commissioners. thank you. i've - i'm familiar with this area it's the area a hidden it where the steep wall is is above that wall is called the sack that comes out of forest hill and, in fact, it's the site of willie mays second home on one of those homes. the only reason it's significant there will be no blockage by this vertical edition of any of

the homes above them because they're up so high. there will be as presented by the dr requesters i guess in the winter months in the moorings some blockage of some sun that that would be lower in the sky and coming from the south but in the summer months it move forward toward the north so it will have less of an impact then. i kind of agree with the staff on their feelings about this but, however, it's my understanding that the application includes the movement of the second floor 5 feet from the south is that how it's configured >> the two rear edition must be

5 feet along the yard line as that's my feelings i won't make a motion yet but to take the yard and a move the two-story edition and move that. commissioner wu. i rarely take the advice but take the 5 feet on either side of the guideline. i move to move the modifications approved by staff >> second and a commissioner. >> i'm going to vote against the motion it's two at all it's out of character with the neighborhood. >> there's a motion to take dr and approve the modifications

approved by staff on that (calling names) so move forward commissioners that passes 4 to 1. commissioners that places you on your final agendized marathon hearing. oh, excuse me. we're two zealous to move so the minority didn't get to move his action so we'll call up united states ordinance and 81. we'll grant the hearing noting the planning commissions

conditions and good night >> now we'll move ton to the final item 15 at 2445 through 2549 larkin street. >> good evening members of the commission. planning department staff. you have before you a request if a building permit to raise the building by 6 foot 2 inches. insert a new 3 car garage and expand the penthouse level and replace the desks and there is no change in the overall rear decks. although the building is being raised by 6 foot 2 inches due to the ceiling heights the variance

is so. we have 188 for capitalization were granted by administrator on february 27, 2012. the dr requesters proposal facts the light and air to this property. his penthouse light well has four windows within a stair and bathroom. it doesn't match the adjoining light well. the lack of matching light wells was overlooked you but the department accepts this

modification. the dr folks are concerned about the post panels and roof access. the planning department is remedying that the planning department match the dr south light well, to adjust to 5 feet >> thank you. dr requester. >> good evening president fong and commissioners. this is my wife. i live at