feet, by 40 feet is granted by scott sanchez, zoning administrator. a 40 by 25 by 40 foot building is more than viable. we hope that the board may rescind their granted front set back. i was trying to make sure i got it within the seven minutes. basically, if you look at -- i actually have the 2001 planning department that we received and we tried to build our building, with mr. scott sanchez on the form. it just does not make sense to us that we were trying to build a 37 by 20 -- the 38 by 28 by 38

foot tall building and we were denied. now someone is trying to build a 47 by 25 by 40 foot tall building and they are being granted. it does not make any sense to us. we know they could build a smaller building. >> i think you will have time in their rebuttal. let us hear from the other side. commissioner hwang: i want you to put on the overhead the 2001 decision by scott sanchez. >> here is the front of the thing. commissioner hwang: does it say his name on it? ok. >> that is the front of the region commissioner hwang: ok.

can you pull it down a little bit? i do not see it. oh, i see. >> here is scott sanchez's name. here is the front. commissioner fung: who set the

sales prospects -- sales price? >> the sale price for the lot or the house? commissioner fung: the only thing sold was the lot. >> you mean when we sold the lot to them? it was a broker that we had. commissioner fung: but who set that sales price? did you set the sills price? >> the price we asked for to sell the lot? we thought we could get more. but at the time because of the recession, we know it was a small lot and we knew what we went through to get something built. we decided to lower it. we needed the income to do some other investments. we lowered the lot down to 390. commissioner fung: thank you. >> we can hear from the variants holders now -- variance holders now. >> good evening, members of the board.

my name is carmen roman murray. i am here with my husband, john. i cannot go over all the numbers that were mentioned, so i am just going to address valuation. one of the main issues is that at the time that the brief was to be submitted, it was never submitted. so we could not argue about what was not presented. so at that point i was told by mr. pachecko that i could request the original variants -- variance i asked originally.

that is what we did. what we did was to request that the appeal should be denied it because they never presented any arguments to what they were appealing. secondly, that we would be granted now the original variance because they mentioned that the structure that we're going to bill this very large. -- to build it is very large. if i can show the picture here. here we have this massive structure sitting in the two lots. this is the house that mr. allen owns.

next to it is the lot we bought from them. you see how narrow that lot is. what we were asking with the building -- let us build here. it is a unit structure. they have different set back very large because they are sitting in two lots. this is a single unit home. we said let us look at the rest of the homes. we should look at the rest of the homes and build that way. i am going to match myself to the one that is close to the unit. that is what we said. but as go up to that building. that is what we got the variance for. on the south side, there is a church. there is another building that

is set back because they are buildings. three lots. i cannot compare this merrill lot to these older buildings. -- this narrow lot to these older bear -- older buildings. we were grateful that we were given the variance in the middle. they said let us not give you everything, but let us give you something. now that we have the opportunity to express our feelings and ideas, i think it would be better if we look at the rest of the block and see it is more according to look at them than to look at the south side. when they say it is going to be a huge building, how could it be a huge building in these small, narrow lots backspin it is a tiny building.

there are four floors. it is according to the code. that argument, i do not think, has any validity. when they improved their lot, they were selling a two-unit lot. let me show you another picture of the lot. you cannot see it very well. but here is the front of the lot. it is very narrow. we have a space in between the house and the lot. you cannot build anything that is very large. the pictures may show that the building is large because it is flattened out, but it could not

be. it is just a little taller. in addition, the house of mr. allen -- this is the house. in two lots, 50 feet. this is humongous in comparison to the other structures. had they been asking for a variance, it would not be given. when i say my proposal is a little taller, of course it has to be taller. it is a two unit building. it is not a single family building. it has to be taller. this is in 2010, not ever when it was billed as a single home. all of the single holmes are -- homes are tall.

it is two units and a fourth floor building. this is the backside of the home i am going to show you. do you see how wide the structure is? they have a little shelf here in the back. it seems like he wants me to build something like this. when he says 40 feet, that is what i imagine. if people did not want any building in their lot, they should not have sold a lot. when i was shown a lot, they showed me this. the blue building is here. it goes all the way to the

front. they were selling the a larger lot. commissioner garcia: your time is up. i have a question for you. when you were sold the lot, you heard from the appellants about what they went through in terms of the house they had hoped to put up there. please say yes or no. i just want to be sure they told you about their experiences. >> thank you for asking. their experiences. one experience i never knew about. i never knew mrs.. i only dealt with mr. allen. commissioner garcia: did you know that someone had tried to put a building up in the lot you had bought and had been unsuccessful? >> yes i did. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: you put on

the over had some photographs. the large building -- i just want to make sure i understand. the large building that is on the lot -- could you put that -- i think he showed a picture with the large building and the shed structure in the back. that picture that is on their -- that is the same building, correct? >> it is the same building. president peterson: where is the proposed building going to be? is it right next? how much space is between the two? how much of a side yard will there be? >> the backyard will be -- commissioner hwang: side. 5 feet? 20 feet? between the buildings. >> between the buildings i would say 3 feet. commissioner hwang: so there is

going to be very little. >> it is a dutch home on both sides. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> i just want to see it. president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> got sanchez, planning department. i would like to begin by clarifying what the environment is under the planning code. under section 132 e, there is generally an averaging of the adjacent building walls so you would come to something in line with patterns of the block. that said, there is a maximum requirement for a setback, and that is 15 feet or 15%. in this case, the 15% gives you a different measurement. we calculated the front said back as 10.5 feet. that was the maximum they needed

to provide for the front setback. the proposal will extend to within 7 feet of the front property line. it is an encroachment of 3.5 feet into the set back. the permit holder had initially applied for a building that went out to the property line. the department did not feel this was inappropriate design and initiated discretionary review, taking a matter of of the planning commission. this was considered with the variance. given the proximity to the coastal zone, it needed a coastal some permit. those were authorizations by the planning commission december of 2009. at this hearing, the only people who spoke for those related to the permit holder. there were according to the record of two letters of people who were not -- who were in opposition to the project expressing concerns of encroachment into the rear yard. the main concern appears to have to do with the encroachment into

the front, which as i stated is approximately 3.5 feet. i think the circumstances in this case justify granting the variance of the minor encroachment. it allows for a more usable floor plan for the building. additionally, the lot is substandard. it is less than the minimum lot size requirement in the planning code. i did not find any encumbrances on the property that would prevent the number of dwelling units or how it would be developed other than the planning code requirements for high. -- height. it is a pretty shallow lot, 69 feet. a typical lot in san francisco is 25 feet by 100 feet. given the nature of the adjacent properties, there is a significant pattern on the block of the buildings being much closer to the front property line.

the setback may be 3 feet. the adjacent properties are out letters in that they extend further. the property on the south is about 16.5 feet from the front line. the property to the north is a little over 10 feet. we thought that some setback would be appropriate. not as much as what the code would allow, but that is how we granted the variance back in december 2009. that was heard by designing a master at that time. i would like to speak briefly about the previous project that was mentioned. i did a little bit of research and found that there was indeed an application made in 2001. the variance appears to have been withdrawn or administratively closed. the record said there was no response from the sponsor. i did not find a decision letter that denied any of the requests. i did not find a record of appeal of any of these actions. the building permit was

ultimately denied. i am assuming at this point that it was denied because of a failure to respond to us. a failure to respond to the department. we had sent a notice of planning department requirements. it looked like there were some basic things that needed to be addressed in the site plan. it seems like the project was never taken fully through the process. this project did go through all the required processes, including discretionary review. no one else filed a discretionary review, none of the neighbors. the receipt notice. none of them asked the planning commission to make any changes. i think that covers most of the items i wanted to address. i am available for any questions. vice president goh: you

mentioned the number of dwelling units. i am looking at page a1. it looks like there may be a rooms down issue. >> ok. let me double check that. vice president goh: i have some other questions. the 25 by 69 foot lot was divided -- was separated from the other lot. is that right? >> i would assume so. it was not a recent lot split. it goes back to the 70's. i did not see any indication about a subdivision or variance. that would have been required because the lot is less than the

required size. it occurs further back. vice president goh: we have had this issue come up before someone is trying to cram a full-size two units into substandard lot. what is the zoning administrator's position on doing that? >> i think if it can be done in a way that accommodates residential design guidelines it would accommodate the past practice where we are doing a variance but may place restriction on the number of lots that can be developed. but i did not find any such restriction on this property. vice president goh: thank you. commissioner garcia: ms. meyers and ms. lee raised the issue of section 121 and the number of

square feet you can have -- the number of units you can have given a certain number of square feet. >> the planning code allows the property in this district two dwelling units. there is a further provision that if you have a much larger lot, you may be able to develop further. commissioner garcia: it allows you to do things that are larger rather than preventing you from doing things on this lot. the last question would be -- there seems to be a counter claim in this case by the permit holder where she is asking for more than was granted. would you address that? >> the apartment believes that the variants -- variance as granted is appropriate and anymore would not comply with residential design guidelines. we did not feel more than that would accommodate residential

the guidelines. we support the variance as currently proposed. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: in this dr hearing there was a comment about the planning commission taking some kind of action. is that different? >> the number of the required setback is different. this has been noted, stating that the required front setback was 13 feet, which was the average roughly of the -- that was the previous planner who have handled this. the reason there was such a delay between hearing number end this decision a few months ago was that the planner who had handled it left the department and the decision letter had not been drafted. a new plan reviewed it and found

there was this deviation. they should have applied section 132e, which would have a maximum requirement of 10.5 feet set back because of the 15% of the lot thadepth. 13 feet was larger than the planning code would require. commissioner fung: the commission recommended what? >> we took it to the department. the staff recommended -- this is because the project sponsor would not make the changes requested. we asked the planning commission to take discretionary review and approve the set back and let the press to move forward. commissioner fung: the property to the south -- is that a non- residential use?

>> can i have the overhead, please? this is the subject property. the appellant property is this home. this feature is a kitchen with a front setback. here is another view of it. we also have sanborn maps. commissioner fung: any discussion on height or skill? >> the commission decided it

was a deal, from what i have seen in the record. vice president goh: to follow that, the situation is like the one where this is about the variance of the set back only and the size of the building could be addressed later when they apply for a building permit. >> that is correct. they do have a building permit on file now. if the board would uphold this variance, we can allow that to continue processing. vice president goh: you're going to take a look at the other issue? >> yes. i will report back. it is something we can address with the permits we have on file now. vice president goh: wouldn't it be a handy to know now? >> we can find out now, but we will handle it through the building permit.

>> any public comment on this item? >> i am the owner of the house on 48th street which is behind the vacant lot. i object to the variance on the grounds of deviousness and wrong interpretation of the code. one justification was that it would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. i have a picture showing that there is no for story building on any of the areas of this block. this is the lot. this is three stories on either side of it as well as if you look at the rest of the lots. there is no 3 story building except at the very end. most are two stories. it does not go against the

character of the neighborhood. president peterson: sorry to interrupt you. the one on the end is four stories? >> 3. there are no four story buildings on the block at all. second is that the justification that the hardship created by the ethnicity of the owner -- by the information of the owner is not true. she bought the property knowing she could not build a building that size on it, as well as due dilligence. when you buy property, you know what you're getting into. this is magnified. she is right about rh2 lots being allowed for multiple dwellings, but this is a small lot.

it is hard to imagine even a one dwelling structure on this lot. the second point is the concept of -- she cannot pick and choose, when they look at the front said back on the adjacent building, which means to the left and right. she cannot go down the block. may i continue? commissioner garcia: no. >> point of order please. point of order. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none. commissioner garcia: i thought other people were going to testify. not to do this to the board, but do we have many more segments to make or just one more? >> just one statement.

commissioner garcia: give the highlights, please. >> i would like them to follow the code. a 10 foot setback in the front and a 15 foot setback in the back, with the last 10 feet a 30 foot structure rather than a 40 foot structure. there is a 30 foot height restriction as well for the front setback. commissioner garcia: thank you, sir. >> will move into a bottle. you have three minutes -- we will move into rebuttal. ms. fulks, you have three minutes. >> i am going to set a picture here of the house. also, i would like to say that i understand that day -- we have never said they should not be

able to build a four story building. we know they do need that to have ample space to build this building, which we have never disagreed with. what we have disagreed with is how the building sets out in front of our building. our building here and the building -- our building -- you can see our building in the darker markings. they are building behind it, how large this building looks and is or will be. they also have these windows in the front that come out, which makes it extend further. like i said, the fourth floor we understand. the have to have that. by our own architecture we had done with our project, having a building this large is ample space for two units. we're not asking too much in our pi