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 opinion to set a couple of feet further back. they are not in front of our house where we have this 4 foot tall wall. like i said, our building is -- it is a very unique building. to have the structure in front of our building would really look terrible for our property. they do not really need this extra space to have an amply sized building. in the beginning when we sell --

when we sold the lot to them, she is correct that i did not speak to her personally. mr. allen did. we told them what we had been through. we wanted to make sure they knew that because we did not want anybody to buy a lot they might not be able to build on. we know how frustrating that is. there were other people interested in the lot that we could have sold to. we were not trying to pawn off the program -- pawn off the property. we had many people who were interested. we hope the board can see, as someone had discussed earlier, these buildings on this block are 25 foot lots like a row houses. they sit toward the front of the setback. but they are all small and all next to each other. when you have our house and the house next to the lot setting back further, having their building sticking out further than both of our lots really will stand out.

it will release standout compared to our property line setbacks. as you can see in this drawing, it is going to be set out very far. the only thing we are concerned about is the front setbacks. we're willing to live with the rear set back and let them keep that. the front setback is really what we're worried about. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: i might have missed it earlier. would you be willing to let them push the entire building backs of the front said but is acceptable to you? >> yes. they have already been granted a variance in the rare large. -- rear yard.

other neighbors might not like it, but we are really only concerned about the front and how it will stick out. that is what we are concerned about. president peterson: who drew that picture you put on the overhead? >> this is from their architect. president peterson: the dark line. >> i did that. that is the house. i did it so you could see that better. >> thank you. >> ms. roman murray and mr. murray, you also have three minutes of rebuttals. >> i would like to answer some of the things that have come up. ms. fulks has pointed that a few times that they tried to build on the lot and were unsuccessful.

as mr. sanchez pointed out, they were not designed -- they were not denied the permit because of the design. they did not follow through on the process. that is the telling argument. it is not fair for them to say the permit was denied so we have to build something very small. they did not do their due diligence and did not follow the process to the end. that is why the permit was denied. also, one of the property owners on 48 avenue stated that there are no tall buildings on the block. there are. there are some new buildings and they are all taller. they are very good and they do fit in the character. i was born and raised on 47th avenue around the corner. when i was a young person, there

were no taller buildings back there. but then on the highway at 48th avenue there was a massive building built, at least five stories tall. it has in many units in it. that is an example of a bad building. for the more modern renovations, they are taller but they look very good. great highway is becoming a very desirable area because of the new modern buildings. their allegation that it would be a sore thumb and be a bad building is not true. we have a very beautiful design and it will add enhance the neighborhood. i am asking you please to first of all the deny their appeal.

as carmen stated earlier, they never gave a reason for why they wanted the appeal to be accepted by the board. they give nothing at all. the only real substance came after we filed our rebuttal to them. i do not believe that their evidence really should be accepted in light of their appeal. we made the counter claim to expand back to what we requested. that is all that they should be allowed to address, since they did not give us the chance to address any substantive reasons they brought forth when they filed the appeal. thank you. >> thank you.

>> scott sanchez. i would like to follow up on a few items. it appears that it could comply. i want to double check to make sure they have an open connection between the levels. there would be allowed to have a bath on the ground floor if there is an open railing the floor above. it is not clear or detailed on the plans. we could take that up with the building permits we have and follow through with it. the density, to address it again -- you are allowed as -- your base in the minimum is two dwellings. you can increase that if you have a large lot. if you have a 6000 square foot lot, as saying that it is an r h 2 -- you can have up to four.

that is what the density issue. it complies with the density requirements of the planning code. an issue came up about the height of the building. it does comply with the height limits. it is set back substantially from the building wall, 15 feet. that complies with the height requirements of the planning code. there is a rear yard requirement with a variable provision. it is not in article 2.5, which has the height control. it is a variable provision. you can have a building taller than 30 feet. the 30 foot provision at the front is a height limit that is not terrible. they do comply with that. the character of the neighborhood -- there are many three story buildings. the department position has been if you are a four story

building, it could be appropriate in a district that has largely three story buildings if the top floor is set back substantially, which this is. the building behind does drop down significantly. there are a lot of two-story homes on that block. with regards to a five story building, i believe the height limit is 40 feet. i would imagine that the tallest building would be four stories, perhaps with the penthouse. we are available for any questions.

what the appellant had colored in was the architect's plan.

i will put it on the overhead. in the north elevation, one of the requirements is that there were notifications you have to show. that would be their building. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: when i reviewed the criteria for the variant