application was submitted in may 2008. it went out for a neighborhood notification. it was heard before the planning commission on october 15, 2009. the planning commission did approve it with a six-one vote. commissioner olague was opposed. there was a condition that parking not be at the rear of the building. that was the planning commission action. after that hearing -- at that hearing, the zoning administrator granted the variance that is before you today. after that hearing, they did submit revisions that included a garage at the front of the property. this was the subject of a variance hearing in june. during this time, after the notification went out and before the hearing was held, we took a

second and third look at the plants and realized it had not complied -- it was determined that a variance was not required. at this hearing in june, the project sponsor and one or two members of the public attended. we announced that after reviewing the plans that no variance from the front setback requirements were required for that parking. there have been issues raised about whether they have perking now or not. what would be a co-complying project under this would be that they have the parking provided within the front setback as a permitted obstruction. that was provided to the

department in june. there has been discussion about a complete parking variance that would not provide any parking at all. at the hearing, that was discussed by the planning commission and the zoning administrator. they said they would entertain a parking -- a variants that would remove entirely the parking requirement. i believe a new application was submitted in august. however, it is an incomplete application. it was going to be calendar before a hearing later this month. as it is not a complete application, it is not scheduled for hearing. we requested the provide evidence to us they have exhausted all their means to locate the grosz up front. -- the garage up front. it is a burden. they do have to expand de haro

street to get access. that brings us to today. in terms of the easement, if we had been advised by the city attorney's office that we could -- it is something the commission had excluded in their decisions. in regards to the 1989 variance, there was a case from 1999 that finally decided 1993. that is precedent. that they got denied once and can never come back again is simply incorrect. it is clear that when you get denied from a permit you can reapply after one year. it is not president-setting.

it does not mean you can never get this thing. -- it is not precedent-setting. it does not mean you can never get this thing. this is a very different project. the thing we submitted was a complete copy of the decision letter. what was submitted in the first brief was to select one or two pages that did not provide context and did not really explain that it was not a complete denial. it was partially granted because there was an illegal structure at the rear of the lot and it granted that. they did get to legalize the structure at the rear. they have also proposed to add a second floor, which is in the required rear yard almost entirely. that was denied. what is being proposed here is providing a rear yard. it is not the full co-required rear yard. that is why they need the

variance application. it could be seen as an improvement from the previous project. in regards to the project itself, this is an rh-3 zoning district. it is relatively uncommon to have such a large front set back requirement. they have a large front setback requirement. that is one impact on the property. although they say they have worked with the neighbors to try to mitigate their concerns, they have addressed that by building back further. we feel it is appropriate that the findings for the variance have been met. we would be available for any other questions. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez,

when the planning commission reviewed the design for the dr hearing, there was a set of drawings, i presume, provided to them. >> no. the variance hearing in june -- commissioner fung: the first one. what has been appealed is the first variance, not the most recent one. >> there is only one variance that has been issued. it has plans that are slightly modified to the original that were considered because of the commission's decision to approve the discretionary review. they took discretionary review and had the condition that they could not have parking at the rear.

that necessitated the change in the relocation of parking to the front of the building. that is the change in the plans from what the zoning administrator heard in october of last year. the planning commission was clear in saying that parking should be at the front, or if they needed to do a parking variance they could pursue that. they were adamant in not having parking at the rear. the rear yard variance has not changed. the encroachment is identical to what was reviewed in october. commissioner fung: now you have me confused. let me approach this differently. the variance letter does not

reference the particular design in terms of documentation. >> yes. we go through exhibits a, and those would be the plans. commissioner fung: i did not see that in the letter itself. but anyway, those plans were the ones submitted for the discretionary review, were they not? >> the plans that were submitted -- the plans that were submitted at the joint hearing june of 2009 had the parking at the rear of the building. the plants are revised plans that have not parking at the rear but have converted what was the garage to that space and have relocated the garage to the

front of the property. commissioner fung: we do not have that. the plans that we have have no parking. vice president goh: could i jump in? commissioner fung: i am not finished yet. let me try to track this through. >> the project sponsor can address that issue. they submitted plans directly to this board. >> albert costa, architect and agent for the owners. at the commission hearing, it was six-one approved, but they did ask us in terms of taking the garage away -- they did ask us that we would work with staff and sculpt and kind of gives it a little more -- commissioner fung: i just want

to know what documents i am looking at first. i do not want to know the reasons why get. the documents that we have -- was their drawings submitted for the following to reflect the design review? >> the plan>> the plans are notu now. there was no parking on the plans that the project sponsor had submitted. they do not have the co-required parking. -- code-required parking. >> those became the basis. >> that is correct. >> we do not have that.

>> we also did the have the discretionary comments and analysis. >> i apologize that those materials and should have been submitted. >> your variance is based upon that review and what ever was decided. >> we can have the discretionary view documented and brought to this board. >> this represented what? >> what the project sponsor had submitted represent what they would like to have fifth and they pursued a parking variance. -- if they pursued a parking variance. >> this is what they would like that this point in time? >> i believe so. >> these documents say they are

a side permit. >> beside permit was from april, 2008. that is what the planning commission had acted on nastier. -- last year. >> we did not submit to permits for a building a vacation this time. -- building application this time. >> i thought you had a question. if the parking variance is still alive, the fact that they might ask for a parking variance come up with that be taken into consideration? >> it is my understanding from the city attorney's office that that is the kind of thing that we cannot take into account.

that is something that is a private matter. it is my understanding than the project's sponsors said that these men may contain a clause that extinguishes the easement. >> that might become a requirement of them. i assume the public would not grant an easement. unless they had some knowledge about where the cars would be parked. >> they would not need to provide any parking. what ever parking they would be providing a is a parking on the easement. >> we get cases where a parking

variance has been asked for. the reasons why it is granted or not granted has to do with the availability of parking on the street. there are no plans for parking. you let them work it out as to what is allowed and what is not allowed on the easement. the only question i have is under finding 5. saying that they will not affect existing public parks or space. the plan have us understand that the shadowing is going to be no greater than the current shadowing? >> this is not a public open space. this is private open space. >> the where public modifies the

parks. >> the is generally how we apply it. we want to have as little impact as possible on the private open space. >> that would have to do with the private reconciliation of the open space. even consider that a factor that it might cast a shadow. >> this project is different. it is said about further from the rear guard -- rear yard. >> that has to deal with some shadows. >> the shadows have open space. >> i've believe so. -- i beliveve so.

>> i thought the decision issued in 1993, one of the reasons for the nile has to deal with the fact the -- denial that it would cast a shadow on the open space. we are about to reconciling that statement. it is the public open space. let's i did not say that entirely. we would want to have a project that has a minimal impact on the open space. the status of the significant impact on the private open space. this is the decision that was made last year. >> excuse my confusion.

>> mr. sanchez, i do have a question. i am not clear how we could take this project when there is a complete parking variance application that your department is looking at here. we need to think about them altogether. >> 5 believe what would be proper is for the sport to have before them the plans that would be exhibit a to this letter and what provide the required parking. if they do want to pursue an alternative in the future, then that is what we have informed the project sponsor of. this is a new scheme that has been proposed by the project sponsor. by the time we have the hearing

in june, they were going to provide the parking. i would ask you to explain why they may be seeking in the future modification of the project. this would have parking at the front. we have not heard any variance on a parking variance. fifth any such hearings were to occur, -- if any such hearing were to occur, they would have to show why they could not granted in the front. >> and wonder the if data means we should just go home. but the and would never disagree with the commissioner. -- >> i would never disagree with the commissioner.

>> i am with the department of building inspection. a little bit of the information for you to consider. sometimes, three or four years ago, the department of building inspection was contacted by the owners of the property to change this to carolina. we got a request to change the address legally. the preliminary request was denied by the manager. the owner disagreed with that. i was asked to get involved.

i spend quite a lot of time out that this site. i've reviewed all of the survey documents. i concluded that an raphaella letter and that there is the way that this could be a carolina street address. i understand that the owner wished to appeal to the director of the department of building inspection. my understanding is that the address never got changed. they are going to provide the whole orientation -- orientation of the address. >> did you say the -- what year that was? >> it might have been in 2007. >> it did not show up in the

briefings. >> i thought it was interesting. >> what is the implication of that? >> i went through this to some degree with the owner of the property. that all had to do with what kind of actions would be allowed and recognized from the upper portion of the property. we felt that we were bound by what the court's determination was. it did not allow those kinds of abuses. we discussed that access was from here. even if the road was terminated,

it could be extended. that could be pedestrian access and further develop access. that is one of the reasons we started changing the address. clearly was that have access. >> i spend a lot of time at that site. i grew up there. >> thank you. >> we are going to move into public, and now. you'll have time for rebuttal. would anybody that is interested in speaking in public comment raise your hands? please line up on the far side of the room fifth you are able to stand. -- if you are able to stand. >> each person will be given one minute to speak. if you have not completed a

speaker car, please fill one out and give it to him after you to the finish speaking. >> hello, i am a resident. a i am part owner of the home that is currently in question here. i gladly them with the project's sponsor. >> are you pointing at a picture? >> the project site is at the top of the hill. they want to set it back in the rear yard. there is no harm in building a smaller footprint home. i just want to build a larger square footage home. >> could we see that picture? and i do not know what happened. you were making reference to it.

we did not see it. >> there are no windows. we actually mentioned that we did have windows. we are much further down than the site they are proposing to build on. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am that starr king and i have been a volunteer for over 20 years. why go up there every day. i also lived there. i have been a resident of the hill for many years. and your board of appeals commissioners, we are supporting

the protest files against the variance for 1321. the elementary school is adjacent handled directly across carolina st. the open space is a valued resource for our school community. that provides an opportunity for students to explore nature and they value the environment. there are variances granted that this more than 12 feet closer to the open space. >> if helps you, we have this letter. >> you can finish reading the letter. >> here is the problem. if we allow one person to go for one minute, we have to allow everybody. we are in violation of sunshine. we have to figure out how much time we have given for a letter that we have in front of us.

>> i could ask somebody else to finish reading the letter. >> something else the is really important is that last year, carolina street became a of 1- way street because of all of the traffic. we are an emergent school. people come from all over -- an immersion school. people come from all over. >> if you would step forward. >> my name is christopher. i live on 23rd street. buy them a previous board member of the open space. i think that this is a win-win situation for the city of san francisco. it is a public open space that

is maintained for the benefit of neighbors as well as the city of san francisco at no cost to the city. it has then in existence for over 25 years. the previous owner had torn off the front staircase to his house. he tore off the front. there has then they push to try to access the back and make carolina st. be addressed. the proposed change is a game- changer. >> thank you. >> i have a question about whether or not i could speak to the board. >> i have not been involved in the variance according to the board.

i have a conflict of interest. i am the owner of a 1325. >> she is not commenting as a representative of the board? you have the up and taken out of this? >> i have told the board that i would not be involved in the workings of this. >> why do we not hear this for one minute? >> i am meko owner of the 1323 de haro. we are glad that they took into account the request to slide the the building up the hill. all of the uncertainties regarding parking. the size of the proposed project is too big. footprint-wise, it would be

twice as does my home. fifth they were to scale down -- if they were to scale down, they would be interfering with the neighbors to the bottom of us and over us. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a direct neighbor across the street. i have lived there for over 30 years. i am really concerned about this project and the density of it. the space that it is taking up is replacing a small cottage in the three units. that is a much bigger project than what has already been there. we talked about not