structure. >> on that motion from the president -- the vote is 3-1, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> commissioners, we still have the jurisdiction request open and before you. ipresident peterson: i will make a motion to deny the jurisdiction request. >> ok, thank you, if you could call the roll on that. vice president goh: what was this jurisdiction request for? commissioner garcia: the original permit, not the revision. vice president goh: 1 1/2 years

ago? >> yes, is remodel the envelope. vice president goh: i got it, thanks. >> on the motion from the president to deny the jurisdiction request, commissioner fung? commissioner fung: aye. >> > go > goh? jurisdiction is upheld. >> we could call item five, or i am wondering if you might want to either call that or item seven, because we have the department of public works sitting. >> i think we should go with five. >> if people could clear the item quietly, please. >> 5a?

>> a and b. >> 5a and 5, appeal numbers 10084, 10085. for both appeals, 1321 de haro street. it is the protest of the granting on july 20, 2010, to bedrock structures l l c a rear yard variance. this public hearing was held and closed october 6, 2010. for further consideration today, both matters will continued to allow time for the variance holder and the zoning administrator to submit additional documents pursuant to the board's comments. president peterson: i want to make sure that everybody who needs to be here is here. i see the attorneys are here. i know the architect is here. ok, great.

we're going to give each appellant three minutes, and we will give the permit holder six minutes. >> thank you, i am here on behalf of the potrero boosters. we got the supplemental submission. i don't think there was anything particularly new in it, except for the fact that the permit holder now is saying that they are not going to put their garage on de haro street, so the whole time that we spent talking about the easement, we don't need to talk about that because it is not going to be on de haro street. but we do need to talk about the fact that even though it is no longer going to be in the back of the building, and it was what was presented to the planning department, the permit holder

still wants to keep the same two stories in the back. i assume it is going to be a living space. one of the things the finding from 1993 was a much smaller addition would tower over the open space and would create problems with views and it was not necessary. we did a little bit of a sketch on the plans that were submitted by the permit holder. if we could turn on the overhead? you see what we have done, in the black lines, the existing dwelling, and the rest of everything is the proposed building. what the permit holder said was the proposed building will be the same height as the existing

building. you see from this sketch that is misleading as to the effect that the new buildingp6 have on open space. it is going to be massive. it is going to be and the variance area as its slopes up the hill. it becomes even bigger and intrudes more on the views and a shadow on the open space. the recreation and open space element talks about the need to have some light in public open spaces. that is what we have here, the need to preserve some light and public open spaces. there is no need for the various area to be two stories. it is should not be in the variance. they've not establish the need for one, but if there is going to be something, they don't

need to spaces. they took out their broadcast -- they took out their garage, and they have more living space. vice president goh: i have a question about that drawing. could you put that back up, please? will you show me on the drawing where the rear yard setback should be? i think you have it written there, but it is hard for me to read. >> it is hard for me to read. vice president goh: we can see it on the overhead if you point to it. >> i have asked that the gentlemen who did a drawing, if that is all right with the commissioner, to have him come. vice president goh: i think so,

because he is pointing to a line. >> he is also an architect. if he could show as the variance. >> the old building, the existing building is in the rear yard, but it has the whole front. so now the new building is taking up the front as well as the rear. >> mr. will? >> good evening. i will share my time with the president of the open space. you have in front of you two variants decisions on the same lot, and we have never heard an explanation as to exactly why they are the opposite. there was no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances found in the 1993 decision.

there were found in this most recent decision with no reference to the old decision at all. it was written as if it was in space and the old edition never happened. it says the nature and the siting of the adjacent property is what creates the problem and this extraordinary situation, which is a hardship that has to be overcome by doing away with the code minimum rear yard. that is just not true. the rear yard is the same for every building except this one on that lot. this building across the open space is in the exact same situation as the current building. there is no reason why that line should not continue all the way across. that is all the way it -- that is all i have to add to my briefing. i will give the rest of my time to caroline. >> good evening. i will follow-up on what steve just said. the drawing on the overhead it

again? this shows from the open space we have sweeping views of twin peaks and of the city. this is over the rooftop of the houses. you notice the one place where the views are obstructed is as it currently exists. that is because that is in the rear yard area and therefore much further of the steep hill. the proposed building, they talked about the height. the height we are measuring is from that peak, but horizontal. it will block more. a big concern is if this house is granted a rear yard variance, the next house will have that as precedents. if this gets covered with rear yard variances, we will lose that entire view. we talked about the definition of public and open spaces. it it should be granted on the

master plan. the open space belongs to the community and it is for the use and benefit of all. that is the definition of public in the webster dictionaries. that is often supported by government funds, that is not what makes them public. it is created with the assistance of the city government as mitigation on overly dense development nearby. it needs protection. what you saw on the drawing is significant. this is adjacent to an elementary school and also to public housing. there are a lot of people who cannot get access to parks outside of the city, nature, and all of that. we're hearing more and more about children not having access. thank you. vice president goh: i have a question. you mentioned this last time in just touched on it now, he said it was created as mitigation for

overly dense development, and you are talking about the building on the south side of the hill, adjacent to the open space? >> yes. vice president goh: i am familiar with the area. those appeared to be some kind of townhouses are something that are built on a road that was created for that development. could you talk more about that? >> originally, that land and where the open space is now was all government housing, and then later public-housing. it was torn down. my understanding is the developers to purchase that prop. one it to do very dense development with the rear yards -- the developers who purchased at property wanted to do very dense development with the rear yards and half of the land was set aside with open space. essentially, the rear yard of

the house is that occupied part view heights, to balance out the lack of rear yard. it was set up as a non-profit, volunteer board, to govern for the neighborhood. vice president goh: looking : looking2, there is a photograph -- looking at looking2, there is a photograph and you could see the development. there does not appear to be any backyard. >> there are some people in the audience who live in park view heights. vice president goh: maybe they will speak. it is the agreement that was made it to keep this property open and mitigate that ultra- dense development, is that written any place? >> i know and are articles of incorporation is a nonprofit.

i dunno if they say it is direct mitigation, but the articles of incorporation made clear that the land is to be undeveloped and unencumbered and maintained by a nonprofit board. vice president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: the photo that you showed that looked at the roof of those homes, from that point, the hill slopes up words, doesn't it? >> that was looking west, and little bit north? commissioner fung: yes, the open space slopes up from that, doesn't it? >> that was pretty much where i was standing, when i took that photo, it is the main flat zone, the open space slopes down, with the same slope the buildings are built on, adjacent to 1321.

the open space goes to the side view of the house, as seen from the open space. it commissioner fung: thank you. president peterson: thank you. you have six minutes. >> thank you. i am the architect for 1321 de haro street. we have an exceptional property here. unique circumstances. the property is not like any other property in the area. that is landlocked with no street frontage. it's it's on a hill -- it sits on a hill. it is more like a backyard and it has a side yard facing an open space. this property does not fit the standard residential what configuration -- what

configuration, and therefore should not be held to the liberal enforcement -- the literal enforcement of the required rear yard code. r five at various findings which are before you are clear and concise. they depict the specific circumstances of this project and site. our proposal actually turns things around and brings the front of the project back down to de haro street and creates a rear yard where one did not exist before. of the requested variance is connected with a larger architectural design a solution, or the side yard front entrances of the units are connected with an exterior pedestrian staircase that goes from top to bottom. they follow the natural grade and work with the stepped hillside design. if we were to slide the project forward to comply with the required to europe -- rear yard,

the stairs would no longer work and would need to be modified away from the natural grade, which could be possibly detrimental to the adjacent neighbor and accessibility to the units. in regards to the proposed foot. , please note the footprint is not the largest footprint on the blocked or the area. i have attached that perry -- i have attached that. in terms of the required rear yard, it is 924 square feet. that is the required square feet. the granted 12-foot encroachment, or the encroachment we're talking about is 331 square feet. that means we are providing approximately 600 square feet of the requirement. if you include the voluntary side yard setbacks, which no one has really mentioned, we actually surpass the required

yard by 125 square feet. if i could have the overhead? uc on the side here, each side, the north and south side, these side yard setbacks are quite important to this huge site, specifically the northside setback, which adds great relief to the open space, yet is not recognized by the strict enforcement of the code. this is really a unique property. i am not going to take up all of my time. instead, about two letter answer any questions you may have. we made a commitment years back to set this back into the middle of the site. we are committed to see it through in a good way. this complex project was

reviewed by staff very carefully. the zoning administrator not only walked the site, but he met with all of us on the open space prior to the variance decision letter. when i say he met with us, this includes key members of the open space, the board of directors, booster members, the owners, and the president of the planning commission. this has been looked at very carefully. the decision was carefully considered. i give the rest of my time to my partner architect. >> good evening, my name is theodore brown. instead of talking about the architecture, i want to talk about our clients, who think are very special people. when they first purchase this property, they met with the neighborhood and they spent a lot of time. they spent twice a week meeting with neighbors. the neighbors were complaining about the trash and garbage on

the open space. they worked together and took out 10 loads of trash on the open space. garbage, and just trash. also, it is a big dog walking area. they have provided a trash can right next to their property for the people to drop their doggie doo. they've been very good about cleaning up the open space. also, we met with a famous geologist and botanist to see how we could naturally improve the area, and we offered to do a pre-master plan for the site and help keep the nature of the site. we were turned down by them. they did not want that. we offered to dig up the concrete, tear it out, and put it back to natural. we were turned down on that.

we have tried to be good neighbors, work with them, and improve the area. we have asked them for their support. we have sculpted the building, lowered the height. they did not want to be 40 feet. we have also not received any support. we ask them to receive the extension of de haro street, and we have been denied that. president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the last hearing, there was confusion about what product was before this board. there were several deliberations that were developed by the project sponsor, the most was no parking to the building. they have withdrawn the request for a parking variance, and the variance decision that is before

the commission was based on the decision of may 3, 2010, submitted by the project sponsor, showing parking in front of the building, accessed off de haro street. that is the product before you. this is the project and concept that was approved by the planning commission last october. the building permit is planning -- is with the planning department because it is not new for -- because it cannot move forward until this variances reviewed. the full scope of the development is something that would be able to be appealed that a future date. with regards to the variants that was applied for in 1989, granted in part in 1993, this is a completely new project. it was not contemplated in the 1993 variance decision. even if it was the same product, the law allows the

application to be made again. iyou can, and more than one year later, and that is conceivably could get a different outcome in get a different decision -- and get a different decision. i think the appellant would tell you it is set in stone, they cannot do anything more to the site. that is not true, we have to review this on the merits of the project and move away from the previous variance decision letter. i think the private sponsor has addressed some of the unique considerations of the site, a top-loading a lot, the setback of the adjacent property that abuts to decide on the open space. there has been discussion about the impact on the light to the open space. it if that impact is something that is going to happen regardless, if the building shifted forward, there would

still be a building next to the open space and that would be something that could be considered under the building permit application review. those are some of the points that i wanted to address it, and i'm available for any questions. vice president goh: last time, mr. kornfield said something about requesting to change the address from de haro street to carolina so it would be addressed in the rear. i am just wondering about that. how would that help or hurt or affect the variance request? >> this variance was granted for a very specific project for a project that hasa garaghe fronted on de haro street, so we would have to review it all over again if they want to change the product and try to seek somehow

-- and we would have to change the project and try to seek somehow. i think it makes sense to have this be reviewed with the project frontage and parking on de haro street, and adding three units per it -- and adding three units. vice president goh: thank you. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, the d.r. hearing had a number of points. do you feel that those points have been addressed in this particular iteration of the design? there was the garage parking. the other was the drop in the stairway enclosure, to reduce it to the minimum required by code.

>> yes, the department's staff worked extensively with the project sponsor at the combined hearings that were held in october, before the planning commission, and it took a while to get all of those changes made. they were made to the satisfaction of department's staff. commissioner fung: in conformance with all the comments made? >> that is correct. president peterson: it seems there is still some concern there would be a snowball effect in all projects would be of the same height, but because of the downward sloping, i concede that is the case. >> one is the worry about the snowball effect of rear yard variances. as we have seen before, variances are unique by definition. just because there is one granted for this property does not mean variances will be granted for all properties in the vicinity. i don't think there is the potential for a snowball effect

there. and then the full public process for variances anyway. about the height, the code allows the building 40 feet height in the zoning district, and given that it is an upward sloping lot, it could follow the grade of the slope of the lot. that would be subject to neighborhood notification and discretionary review. the product would have to be reviewed by the residential design team. there is a lot of review that would be given to this project. president peterson: thank you. commissioner garcia: mr. sanchez, the representatives for the variance holder architectural firm, the project sponsor, stated the footprint was not the largest. does that hold true also for the massing? >> i don't have those calculations before me. i would not want to give you an

accurate information. i did not have that before may. commissioner garcia: it seems the real issue has to do with the size of the building and has to do with the variants and shadowing. >> it would be contemplated under the building permit application, as reviewed by the commission. commissioner garcia: so if it was significantly larger in comparison to houses in the area? >> that is correct. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: we are open to public comment. i would like to remind you that if you are with potrero boosters or others, your time to speak was with your representatives. we're sticking with one minute per speaker. if there are other speakers besides these two, please lineup

wall over there. >> my name is loretta lynch. i live within eight houses of this house. we use the open space. the owners of 1321 de haro street have never offered to meet with us. you should not uphold this variance because it does not uphold exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. is that from apple because it will degrade the ability to use the adjacent open space. it that open space is the only open space on the south side of potrero hill. all others are to the north and east. degrading this open space makes it harder for much older and challenge neighbors to have that open space to enjoy, thus the open space is not in harmony with the intent of the planning code to provide open space in

our very dense neighborhood which is about to become denser. thank you. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello. i am a homeowner of the park view heights association. we have backyards. our backyards are substandard, very tiny. i have a jack russell terrier who loves to run around. i take him to the open space every day. we just enjoy that area. it is very close by. it is our neighborhood. i'm very emotional about this. i think of our park view heights as the 2010 giants. we are a team. i think the owners of 1321 are the. bonds era of the giants, all