project and i was confused because this will demolish the building that is in the middle of the lot this is the pattern of development at least with those houses. that alternative seems to afford the appellant more light and air given that this is a north- facing exposure there so this would not be as much as a south- facing exposure. this would actually improve the situation. the appellant as noted that the light well which is similar to what was president -- was present in 1998, this is not the exact same. this will still provide improvements but it will be

slightly different. i think that covers most of the issues that i wanted to address. this is a deeply sloping lot just from front to back. the adjacent properties to the east are significantly higher than the subject property. those of not be adversely impacted by this building which would be lower than all of these buildings because of the process. there are some issues that were raised about conditions of approval. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. thank you. >> can you talk about those conditions? if one were to approve a permit with certain conditions and then work for to be started on that permit, you would think that those conditions would be needed to be upheld.

>> as i understand it, there was two variances. one for the subject property, which was a rear yard variance. the building permits, they had expired and with that, expired the syrians and any conditions. that is dealing with the subject property. it was noted in a discretionary review decision, the condition in question is access. this is access between the two properties. the adjacent property, they can demonstrate that. maybe you can put that on the overhead. this is the 1997-98 view of the

properties. this is the subject property. they had previously provided access from this stairway and then from a side door on to this property. that is something that commission had noticed in the discretionary review. the planning commission in reviewing this project has said that that condition no longer needs to apply. we don't feel that they need to have access. this provides access from the street and makes a move to any of those conditions. this was the decision of the planning commission and this was undone by the planning

commission. first we look at how the conditions will apply. that type of access. >> i'm looking at exhibit f.

>> this shows the agreement. >> the stairs that are accessed to the property. >> you walked up these stairs and then there would be an opening. you walk up to these properties and then further up the stairs, during the excavation, these astaires were demolished. there had been in easement at this point. when the property was under the ownership, it was expressed by the property owners. now the project has been at the front of the rear. access of this property is provided on this property. you might have to provide for access from another property. >> if you can put up exhibit b

which to show is the proposed -- then you can show how one access of the rear unit. >> >> there is more conditions than just that one. >> there were numerous other conditions that restricted the development. this was basically just the commission the. they are usually presented a project which is different from what they want. in their decisions, they provide guidance.

the commission has looked at this again and under the building permits, they approved a new project which really wipes away any previous conditions that they opposed on the project which has been abandoned. >> once someone started on the permit, those conditions needed to be met. >> those were imposed by the commission and the planning commission has the ability to change the conditions. >> i think that that is what they have done. >> you mentioned that the planning commission initially denied the demolition permit because they wanted more information and then they heard it september 30th and they granted the permit, what was the

additional information? >> there was questions about the potential district that was there and also questions that came up about the history of the permitting. everything was provided to their satisfaction. >> than they have a question. the planning commission preservation planner, what was her name? >> -- >> she said to consider the slope of the historic context which should be reviewed. did that happen? that was within the submission.

>> this is the memo to the planning commission. >> there was other mention of this in the briefing as well. >> i am not aware of whether or not but additional were few has taken place. >> what does the third paragraph of this memo mean? >> the planning commission reviewed the matter and as part of the demolition issue, state referred this to the historic preservation commission for their review and permit. this is the result of the hearing on it. this was the memo that we sent to the planning commission informing them of the review. they suggested that the single

property ownership should be identified as part of the significance of the potential historic district. i would want to talk to the presentation planner about that. the planning commission did have this information when they reviewed the instruction. >> just a permit go before -- >> no. >> or is this before it existed on their own. >> i don't believe the permit went before the hpc. they wanted additional information on what they thought of the project. they did not have this item as an action item for them.

>> what goes before hpc? >> a variety of other issues. this is not something that was required, this is something that the planning commission sought advice on. they had found that the property does not retain historic integrity. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to follow up on the argument from the appellant. >> the ranges in 1500-2500 and this project is 2817 hundred. can you speak to that? >> unfortunately, i don't have very good information on that. i have reviewed the materials and we had to verify them with the records that we have at our

disposal. we get our information from the -- office and those records are not necessarily the most accurate and up-to-date regarding the size of the buildings. what i found is that the numbers in our database are consistent with those that were submitted by the appellant. i don't believe that they include the habitable space. they might not include the storage spaces and grosz spaces which the calculations would include. it might be a bit of comparing apples to oranges. i don't have a thorough analysis. >> thank you. >> what '04 is is 132 and 134?

>> correct. is that what they are going to seek? is that something may have gotten in the past? >> they are in violation of section 188 in the planning code. what they're doing is they are rebuilding something and getting a variance from their rear yard requirement which is the appropriate process to follow. >> the only time that we usually reference 188 when doing this is if there is an enlargement of the existing structure. once you are demolishing this, you are starting over again so you just need the rear yard variance. >> is there public comment on this item?

>> we have heard about your property as well. >> i think the answer is no, thank you. >> please step forward. >> we did submit a letter. i am the neighbor adjacent, one cottage adjacent. at best, i think this planning process has been very confusing.

generally, the rear variants, the way it affects me, there is light that will be diminished to my unit and two different units of my address. i can say that there will be some light affected for my unit and its in mid garden. thus the building really need to

be spat tall? we are on a very steep slope. without taking some common process to look a combat, this is why i am here. >> you lived adjacent to the east.

>> can you show us? >> there was one overhead. >> this is easier for me to understand. there was 8 roofline. >> that top one is on helpful.

>> they will never come up to the night again unless they are themselves up front.

>> this is a garden area. that is the rear of my unit. this is probably their new plan. >> is there a stolie -- story in this picture?

you can see the height and if i had that other picture. >> did you take this picture? >> i did. >> this is from the back patio. >> on the ground level? >> okay. >> may be the better picture, this is really the front of the unit and we are all on the same

envelope. you can see the height at the very top. >> we cannot see the top. >> this is very confusing. >> in the winter, the way the light hits at this health site is such that this is very low on the skyline. basically, this building height without a doubt in the winter, there will be no light coming in during the north side.

>> the stairs coming down the front of your property.

>> how to you get through that. you walked through that building that is a fun of your building -- in front of your building? okay. is there any other public comment? >> good evening. i am representing the russian hill neighbors. we have been following this project for some time. everyone commented on the fact that it has been a process.

we have had a presentation of the design. almost unanimously all of our directors were very much in favor of the project and we came and spoke about that at a hearing. the main things that we were in sit -- interested in was that this seems to be a viable project. no one has mentioned the fact that this is a lot that has been an eyesore for quite some time. this is a dangerous situation and something that the neighbors would really like to see. we like the fact that this was a viable project and we felt that the scale and design was the purpose of and compatible. when we came to the first hearing and we heard the concerns, we actually went to do some work due diligence.

we went to interview some more people come not i spoke to the owner of the property to the east, members of the executive committee. we toward the property and there were several other meetings. we have been in support during the whole process and there has been nothing that has been raised that has caused us to change our mind. i am here to reiterate our support for this project moving ahead. i would hope that you would deny the appeal. >> i wondered if you know more about the size or range of houses in terms of square footage in the neighborhood. >> we have looked at the aerial photos. i cannot tell you that i know the square-foot it's, i only know what i have been told that

i know that there is some discrepancy in those figures. i probably cannot add to that. it is very clear and i think to those of us and the board, we continue to support this because there is a pattern and this project seems to be in that pattern of having a building in the front and a building in the rear with the open space in the middle and there seems to have been quite a bit of care taken by the project sponsor and the architect to be sensitive to those patterns that exist in the neighborhood and at least to the scale, but what we have seen in this line has looked very much compatible to us. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> i'm looking at the bird's-eye view on the project sponsors submission. >> the president of the russian hill association went to the side and i have not. i have spoken and then some interviews but i have not personally been there. >> i have been there but i did not walk all the way through like they did. >> >> i don't have a sense of the relative high. is this project, is this higher than the one directly adjacent

to it? >> my understanding is that this is not higher. >> is there any other public comment? >> i have been on this case for 13 years, since 1997.

in 1998, we settled with the project sponsor and is architect. initially, they thought of this and then they thought that. they had them both in control during the planning commission hearing. there was a variance, here is the record from the case report but there is no decision letter. i've requested it twice and it cannot be found. when staff was asked for the various decision letter 41269, they could not find that either. they finally produced it. in the decision, it refers to the settlement.