i have to make the other thing clear that all of these range in size from 3400 sq. ft. to 5400 square feet. this is the smallest lot on the block. the two properties next to this project, each one has a two- family dwellings and a cottage in the rear. the cottage adjacent to this property is 850 square feet. they are proposing to take a 975 sq. ft. noncompliant building that is in the rear and replace that with an 1800 sq. ft. building that is next to a 850 sq. ft. building. the cottage next to theirs is a 1100 square feet. both of those properties are 1.5 stories tall. the rear yard building is three stories tall.

188-a of the code talks about this. it says if a noncompliant building is destroyed or damaged through an act of god, you can replace it, but only within the existing envelope of the building. it says you are prohibited from expanding. 188-b says if it is not an act of god, you can replace it with a noncompliant building. this building in the rear yard is noncompliant. so, a, it does not fit the code and is not compatible with the

neighborhood. c, there is a residual effect on the neighbors up from it, and has an effect on the adjacent lots. on the horvers' building, they are looking at a light well that allows light into only the lower unit. there are two units on the main floor. there are two, and one would be entirely blocked. if this is not material, i do not know what is. this is not in harmony with the coach. it is not in harmony with the history of zoning in this neighborhood. other things that i talked about earlier, my property was built in 1876. when they finally brought in

zoning in the city, 75% coverage of a lot was allowed. this was changed in 1972, and the zoning was changed to rh-2, which it is now. however, rh-2 has been constrained even more, and requires a conditional use permit, and you need to have one unit for 1500 square feet. this simply does not meet any of those requirements. and may i make one closing statement? i have given you the facts of the code. there is something even more

important. this certainly seems to go beyond fairness. commissioner fung: which is yours? >> mine is the third lot. i have the garage. they say mine dates back to 1876. i would have to say that mr. gladstone made some references. he mentioned something from 1972 which had nothing to do with it. commissioner fung: thank you.

president peterson: thank you. mr. butler, the time is up. >> i understand time is up. the permit holders were not in the room during the swearing-in. secretary pacheco: if you intend to testify during this hearing, please stand and raise your hand. do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? president peterson: mr. gladstone? >> ok, my name is tom. it was a company my father founded 32 years ago. it is a small private lender.

this property had to be taken back due to foreclosure. he stopped making monthly payments. we feel that the tick advantage by not following certain rules by leaving the site in an unpleasant state. the developer also took the advantage of us. he lost all of this money that was invested with us, as well. there is no money or profit to be made on this foreclosed property. the picture in the middle is it. there is the historical report

from the best known living historian who had been retained by mr. butler himself. there is the owner of the building to the east. we were disappointed that we could not satisfied mr.horvers. we are pleased to have created a large light will open on one side that will allow.

this was for their benefit. >> mr. gladstone. of course, we feel sorry for mr. horvers and his mother, but another has spoken for him before, and we knew from mr. butler that the appellate would be here. here is what this looks like. you try to make everybody happy, but there are people on both sides, and we did what the planning commission required us

to do. this is one that does the very least amount of harm to the livability of the unit, and is one that was proposed, which we will show you with mr. butler, and he got what he wanted, the light will the we are doing right now. a huge amount of time during the relocation. the planning commission in its judgment thought it would be better to put the big light well opposite that today, and we have. there is no negative impact, and the condition that we have created here will give them more or less at the same light impact as to property line windows that face another building.

it is an extremely typical condition. it has been done for generations and is still done today. by the way, the light well the we are doing is open ended in the rear, unlike most light well as in san francisco, which are enclosed. it has the same set back as the one proposed a by mr. horvers, and it has the same depth, as well. this is in 1998 and is shown now. and the one that they are proposing today, the one approved by the commission, is shown here, and you can see the same light well as before. 7 feet off of the line, 18 feet in length. -- 17 feet off of the line. >> do we pause for a moment?

commissioner hwang: the one on the right is, i think, exhibit f, right? >> the one on the right is exhibit f. and the one on the left -- let's see where it is. well, if you look at exhibit b, and you look at the top of it, you will see it at the top. commissioner hwang: ok, thank you. >> so continuing on, i wanted to point out that their rear window, the very real one, will not have any structure close to it at all because it extends beyond the length of our building.

if you look at this building, the front of it gets all the light. the bottom gets no light because the existing structure is on our side. this would give tremendous light to this portion of the facade. this and would indeed be blocked but this is an illegal french door for an illegal crossing. they realize they don't have an easement for that window to reach our property. we have prepared a chart that shows that just about every number that was used is incorrect. his building alone is three stories.

this is more like 4000 square feet rather than the 2000 that he states. the gross square footage of the rear building today is 1830. they are completely wrong in saying that our existing building is 975 sq ft. thank you. >> mr. sanchez.

quarks i would like to address some of the issues that were raised regarding the planning code and clarify some of the planning code requirements. we have had this same question come up before the board. you are permitted two dwelling units, that is the base can city, no matter what your lot size is. if you have a 6000 square foot lot, and you can petition for a conditional use to go up to four dwelling units. they are in compliance with the density requirements of the planning code. this is a good location given

that this is close to call st., major transportation corridors. we think you'll be possible to have two dwelling units. it is true that you cannot demolish and rebuild a noncompliant structure unless you have a variance. that is what they are seeking. that is what they are building in the required rearguard. there has been the typical community process in this section 311 notification. there was a mandatory discretionary review hearing because of the demolition of the existing building.

additionally, there was a zairian steering -- a variance hearing. to go through some of the process and to give an idea of how this is developed, the planning commission is in april of this year. at that time they actually tonight at the demolition permit and that was on a 5 to 1 vote. they did not think there was enough information there to justify granting the permit. they included this to may 27th and it was continued further. at that time, the planning commission included the construction permit. and the brief has indicated that the commissioners voted for this. the commissioner was absent.

first at the end of september, the planning commission heard the demolition permit. they had a new information that allowed them to hear that case and they unanimously approved it. there is a background on the project. the windows that are being blocked, these are property line windows. these are not required to be retained. they can retain them but they have no rights to those windows. i would echo the question about why there is opposition to this 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