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. unlike 1269 use entitlements have allegedly expired, this came to fruition which was sold and final vote by the

department of building inspection. those of the same for both properties. this will undo that variants without a public notice, without a hearing. i do not believe that that is legal. the reason that the building was set back and that the agreement was reached was that we were trying to save the garden. this garden changes the character of this neighborhood and this bill is one of gardens and the front and buildings of the top. there was a streak need -- there in 1860. it was only later that a frontal this 50 killed. -- it was only later that the front of buildings were built.

this is a story lower than what they're doing. we had a small house and our agreement, that was all. mr. sanchez said it was only about the access, it was about the porch. this was part of the relationship. the three properties were all owned by the same family. the whole reason for pushing that development and to the back of the lot, even at the sacrifice of the southwestern light was to retain their relationship between the three buildings.

the >> can you walk us through which is which? >> this is 1271. they walked up to the building and then there was an opening in the wall that they continued to climb. >> what year was this picture taken? >> this was taken in 1997 when the applications were first made. one would walk up here through this wall and then on up and as someone walked up the stair, you had to go around the porch. >> that is the same porch. >> i'm looking at the east side of the historic building and i'm

standing on a lot of 1216. >> what is the white building? >> this was an addition to the back of the original building. >> that looks very old to me. >> all of the work was done -- this was actually moved here in 1915. this was probably added in the 20's. this was a connection between the front and rear. >> ok. >> i would like to go to the exhibit.

to the right a little bit. >> they are extending that vertically a whole story. >> that is higher than the one

next to it. >> they are not level. >> whicone is lower. >> how much lower? >> i am not the architect, i cannot tell you. >> i believe the architect is here.

>> and don't do it again. >> can i ask a question? >> i happen to another square

footage because i developed it. there are always two stories on the back. most of them are 50% or less. as far as coverage goes, they are covering about 75% of the plot. >> you are restricted in your

development. do you want to elaborate? >> your building is a historic building. this is in their rear lot said. what i want to do is expand the building. the choice of is given by the zoning administrator was that we can count on the building -- tear up the building. the other requirement.

>> we have had four to five hours of hearings on this. we have had four hours to discuss this. the planning commission has the strong as prosecutors and they asked the toughest questions. after four or five hours of total testimony where the commissioners had larry

investigate the problems that we are seeing, the h p c had its staff investigate. the neighborhood association sent a committee out to investigate what of the appellants are saying and to figure out how much true there is. the result was a 5-0 vote on the planning commission. a 7-0 vote in the historic preservation commission. that was to say that this demolition permit is defined and the new proposal is within a potential historic district. >> i am the project architect. i would like to answer three of your questions. the first is exhibit d here. this is about three above the roof of the existing building.

we created a chart to study the pattern of development in the area. we used similar methods to get our numbers including examining aerial photographs, measuring the footprints of the building. , like to address the sunlight. as you can see from this picture, there are a jumble of buildings and a very complex to biography. what we try to depress our rigid as much as possible in order to not a clue to their rear yard. we did a