victorian homes on eureka street. there has never been a problem. being neighbors we have avoided problems by being neighborly. we are not opposed to expansion. we have expanded our home the same as mr. brown wishes to do and all done with the support of everyone. this is the first time we disagree with the expansion of a home, the first ever. what we don't want to see is here are the people, we had five people on each side opposed to it. here are a listing of their names. we don't want to see the character style of our neighborhood bastardized owl of control with multiple balcony

and patios. we tried to have reasonable. we have two ash arbitration to no -- a veil. i have an approached him once on the street and he ran into his house and slammed the door. we have tried everything. for example, when mr. brown went to michael and clays house and sat in the back where they sit in the back, there was a 25 footwall and he said what about the 25 footwall, mr. brown did not respond but later added that he would paint the wall white to reflect sunlight. we have spent thousands of dollars on this. we have taken time off

work. here is the example. i built scaffolding in the back to mimic roughly of his house. it's still not correct because it goes out. >> sir, your time is up. >> your time is up, sir. you are welcome to leave that information if you want. next speaker, please. >> you didn't call me, sir. i told you there is public comment available toed. >> my name is james frost. i

live at 258 eureka street since 1984 and raised a family there. there has been much mention of historic preservation and residential design guidelines today at this commission. it seems to me that these guidelines are mostly concerned with preserving the facade of our buildings which is mostly what people are concerned about. there seems to be little of what addresses of what goes on at the facade of the buildings and directly impairs the quality of life. i'm proposed with the model not harming. i'm not sure what anybody can do about it since there is very little response from the owner. i feel this project would set a bad precedent for the character of our neighborhood with mostly 2-3 houses. something that is

actually affordable and this project will bring it to another level that i don't think this city needs. this project goes beyond. no one else has done a third floor extension like these people are proposing. they resubmitted a roof line that is taller than it was originally. so i don't get that. there was at the last hearing an instruction to provide more detail with measurements and they have come back with a larger project than a smaller project. i'm not sure what's in the powers of this commission to effect any change on this design. so i'm hoping there is something that can be done to reduce the scope of this project, help bring it to line to the rest of the block and whether this commission can have empowerment to deal with what goes on behind the facade and let's try to maintain the character of our city. thank

you. >> my name is michael zam prerney. i spoke on february 21st. i don't think there is much to add other than again with the dark line being our existing area. this area being a glassed in shelf of rural room we are now going to be blocked in. it's not just a loss of privacy, it's a loss of air. we were above 238 and now the other way. we ask that you consider the bulk of it and disapprove that. thank you very much.

>> is there any additional public sdment -- comment. >> my name is rick brown. the owner of 238 eureka street. i have been necessity -- in the house for 5 years. the project beauty fies the neighborhood. it adds space to provide for current residents, a home office and addition for my family, an extra room to have my parents with me and provides access for friends and family members with wheelchairs or other mobility issues. the main issue we reached with the neighbors is expand the basement to the sidewalk as two other neighbors have done.

planning department saying building a sidewalk is not an option therefore we need to build to the back. as two doors up the hill has done at 250 eureka. there were comment about the roof line, but as commissioner antonini stated at the last meeting said he would prove approve the project as is and changing the roof line would lose space at two sides. we provided an option and worked with the architect to modify the roof in the back but as you can see there are disadvantages to that as well. in summary the project requires no variances, it meets all the codes and guidelines requirements and neither creates or any extraordinary circumstances. it's been reviewed by the neighborhood design team and neighborhood association and that is support

of many neighbors. several individuals who came and supported last hearing were not able to, provided letters, not just signatures as well due to job and medical objections they were not able to attend but their support remains stead fast on this. we respectfully request you follow the planning department's recommendation and do not take drn and approve us as proposed. thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i would like to pick up on that. >> i'm sorry, there is another speaker. my apology. i called all the card in the box.

>> good day, commissioners. my name is betty brown and this is my husband jerald. we are the parents of rick brown. i'm 86 years old and i have had both knees replaced and have eye problems. my husband is 87 and has medication for diabetes and has had one minor stroke. rick currently handles or finances and bills and helps us make decisions. for the last several years he's been spending a lot of vacation time helping us do what we need. we find that the help we need with simple task we don't know what we would do without him. we have been fortunately we've been able to live independently thus far. we are fortunate that rick is including space for us in his plans to remodel his home to make it easier for us to get

around. this makes it easier for our lives. having an elevator would allow us to celebrate visits from family. we ask that you allow this to go forward to keep our families together. thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is jack. i'm reading a statement from caroline who is in a wheelchair. i have requested that my statement be read. although i'm not a resident of eureka street. i hope you are consider my reasons below. rick brown and i have been friends for several years now. i have been invited to his home and unfortunately his home is not

wheelchair accessible and the location in san francisco has many hills, few of the homes of my friends are not accessible. rick has provided me a copy of his plans which were mailed to the neighborhood. he told me of the concerns of the neighbors. i support the project as a whole in addition to the elevator which will allow me to participate in home gatherings. if he can make the floor accessible to me would be fantastic. with the implication that this is something extravagant. please remember that for some the elevator is a necessity. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i would like to remind ourselves that the reason this project

was continued was to not taking a conat the time we heard you the, but to better understand the side to side relationships between the proposed project and the neighbors to both sides because the drawings we had were insufficient. what we have in front of us today are clearly delineated drawings. i would like to comment because i will suggest that we take dr. let me explain why. i believe that the expansion is large and -- the building is not unreasonable and i agree with the design review since this project is code compliant. it does not do anything exceptional or extraordinary. when i looked at the drawing no. 310, together with the alternative set of roof plans which the applicant has provided, i would like to make the following comment. on the

proposed drawing, 3.10, i believe the 3-12 is too flat a pitch. i believe the alternative drawing alternative 3.1 is too steep a pitch. that is a 12 x 12-pitch and excessive and alien to its neighbors. what i would like to suggest is we consider a pitch of 6 x 12 which makes it steeper and brings it to a slightly more slender building expression particular with the caveat that we would hold a roof overhang and trim at a consistent line. we get a slightly steeper pitch which is a 6 x 12 and i do believe it

will be a better looking building. that would be my first suggestion. it's very easy to draw a 6 x 12-pitch. i will hand you my drawing, i will do it by hand. the other thing, commissioner antonini would be very interested in that, when we look at drawing no. 2.01 and we are looking at the roof deck on the third floor, i believe that that roof deck is slightly too steep and allows people to stand on that roof deck to look in the bedroom of the adjoining room home to the left. i believe the bedroom, i would like to pull the roof deck back by four 4 feet in order to allow the maintaining the privacy and no ability to look into the bedroom. for the roof deck

would still be 10 foot 3 -foot 3 inches which is a very large deck and would not impale other move intended for the building. there are two decks. a 10 x 3 bedroom is very large. i would suggest for the reasons of the adjoining neighbor the plan would be modified to effect that. otherwise i'm in support of the project. and that would be my comment. yes? >> commissioner, moore, i just wanted to clarify when you are referring to the deck to be adjusted you are referring to the third floor deck and you want it moved in four additional feet from the rear? >> that's correct. the rail would move in instead of being flushed with the exterior

building to pull it back to create a slightly less intrusive deck for the adjoining neighbors. >> but the width is fine? >> yes. the width is fine. we are already holding back anyway. those would be my comments. >> commissioner, you are not suggesting the roof be higher or lower, the starting point is still the same? >> the pitch is basically it will be slightly higher, but i don't think it will exceed the prevailing height. you see the difference? the 3 x 12-pitch is very typical for the remaining homes in that area by making it slightly steeper. i think it's going to be a sharper building. this is only said in response to the applicant already showing us a much steeper pitch which he

would be suggesting and i'm saying let's mediate in the middle of the two. >> okay. the project sponsor or architect have any thoughts to that, response to that? >> is that a motion? >> we need a motion. >> i would like to ask that the commission take the r modify the project ascribed and support the project as proposed. >> is there a second? >> second. >> commissioners there is a motion to take the dr and modify the production to reduce

the deck to the third floor by 4-foot deep and the roof to 6 x 12. >> and matching the overhang of both surfaces. >> on that motion, commissioner borden? commissioner moore, aye, sugaya aye, wu, fong aye. that passes 4-0. that places you to item 15. item 15: 2013.0886d a. a. putra; 4155 575-90799 >> good afternoon, this property contains a single dwelling at 15 allison. it's on a lot measuring 25 by 20 feet

deep. the original proposal involved the construction of a 20-foot deep 2 story horizontal rear addition and 1 story vertical addition 16.5 feet from the existing front building wall and 3 feet from the south facing side property line with side set backs at the second story. since the finding of the discretionary review the department has revised the project to address concerns raised including one providing a 3-foot wide 1/2 foot notch at the southwest corner at 23 allison street which had not been shown on the existing plan and two, to provide a 13-foot wide on the rear addition on the second floor to extend the

rear deck. the residential design team reviewed the project following the dr application and determined the project met the standards with residents guidelines and not extraordinary. because the residence is reasonable in size and thus minimizing potential impact to neighbors, immediately at the notch of the third floor are consistent with design guidelines, the department supports the project and recommended the commission does not take discretionary review. dr. requester? good afternoon

commissioners. i represent my mother. she is the current owner of 23 allison street and the filer of the dr.. we respectfully objected to this project basically for three reasons. the first objection was the light issue. as it stands right now with the vertical addition to make the subject property a 3 story, it will effectively cut the light we estimate 50-70 percent to mid-fall a month. that's basically -- let me just backtrack. we made that concern felt in the dr. subsequent to

that, the project was changed to incorporate a light well. now, the reason why we appreciate the addition of the light well, we do not feel it's going to mitigate any of our concerns first of all because there is an existing light well there already. and it basically incorporates the second story bathroom and the first story bathroom. the difference in light between the 2 stories of my mother's house is about 70 percent. i measured that by taking a light meter reading. and just by that factor, we don't feel the addition of projects light well will do very much to mitigate our

concern. also, the way my parents have lived there for 50 years. i have grown up at that home and we are familiar with the sun movement. my parents are active gardeners. after april through october, the sun is basically at a 45-degree angle. formula -- from our house facing north. that's basically the sun on the mountain davidson horizon. given the angle of that and with the addition of the light well and the height of the proposed addition, the basic rays of the sun which come in depending on the time of year,

june 21st to the summer solstice comes at 45 degrees which is not sufficient, those rays will be blocked because of the height of the vertical addition. and so, for that reason, we do not believe that inclusion of the light well will effectively erase our concerns. moving on to the second point is the privacy concerns. the second level bathroom looks directly to the north on top of the room of 15 allison street. during construction, they will have easy access to peer into the second floor bathroom. my parents have 8 grandkids who regularly visit the house and use that bathroom and we don't

feel it be appropriate to be builders on the second floor. in addition if the project goes through as planned, the way i see the design, the people in the third floor to walk out of their patio and come across and look through our second story bathroom. finally, my parents have lived at that house for over a half century. i believe because of that, they have paid their taxes, they have supported the local merchants and i believe they can be afforded some consideration from the commissioners in this regard. the owners who purchased 15 allison street have been at the property a little bit over 1 year and we still have reason to believe that they will do the remodel and sell the property. thank

you. >> are there any speakers in support of the dr. requester? >> good afternoon, my name is john. i'm my mom's other son. i just have 3 points to mention, one is a repetition about the light well. the light well won't do any good if you put a big box in front of my parents windows which is what's going is to happen. the second point is that the scale of the additions indicates that for us at least that the intention of the build seems to be to house as many people as possible. this means there are going to be lot more cars on the block where there already exist a nightmare. people are forced to

place their cars -- away. you can't park on mission street because there is street cleaning. the third point for my parents who have lived there for over half a century. their garden. it's been their primary joy. in addition to flowers they grow, they continue to grow fruits, and the list goes on and on. they have grown these fruits because of the minimum light already. the house there is set to the rear of the light and it blocks the morning light. if the proposed addition to 15 allison street, it will block what's left of the light, it will block the afternoon light and it will do

my parents garden. i feel they just deserve a little more respect. they have lived there and they want to die there and they have lived there for over 53 years. >> thank you, any other speakers in support of the dr. requester? >> ma'am, are you the dr. requester? >> yes. >> your son has spoken on your behalf. you can't speak. however you are speak at the rebuttal. >> if i try? >> she can speak under the 2-minute rebuttal. >> okay. project sponsor? you have five minutes.5 minutes.

>> good afternoon commissioners, my name is bill quan of the project. i'm speaking on behalf of my client. first i would like to emphasize that the every owner has the right to develop their property and no matter where they are located. given the condition of the property, me and my client have tried very hard to work out our design that fits this side. we have worked hard at the beginning of the project, we worked with the neighbors. we tried to communicate with them. but however they just turn away and decide to file a dr. we reduced the scale of the project from

30 feet rear addition a 3 story we reducing by 20 feet. that is significant. i think the owner is trying to respect the neighbor. the design has been very little impact to the south property of the dr. because the property is facing west side and the rear of the property is facing east and the sun rise from the rear yard. my dr. they are getting plenty of sunlight. we did a shadow study. we have 3