they have a balcony about 10 feet above our backyard. if somebody is standing here in this corner, there would be looking down into our backyard. it would destroy the privacy of that space. it is a relatively small backyard because a lot of short. the 3 lots that are adjacent to each other, moving up toward the corner, are all short lots. the placing of the balcony right there does have an impact. thank you. >> i wanted to add a couple more things. my name is liz clarke. within our neighborhood, there are no roof decks, no top floor roof decks available in my neighborhood.

i think mr. jones was referring to properties outside of the dolores heights special use district. regarding the improvement club, the neighbors were never questioned regarding these plans until they had a major presentation with us for the very first time. at that point, the dhic, the design review committee, had already written that there were supporting this project. unfortunately, we found out after the fact. we also found out, per mr. cobb's website, that he utilizes zephyr realty as his real-estate company. the head of the design review

committee also works from zephyr and would not recused himself from this proceeding. we got very distressed by the fact that this was one-sided. you can see here where mr. cobb suggests the supper realty is his business. i just wanted to clarify that. >> this is the greenery that jeremy paul was referring to right there. we have allowed that to grow. it is the biggest it has been since we moved in. you can imagine what we have done that. if the standing on their deck, it is almost like they are in our backyard. this is ridiculous. they do not need to go up 11 feet. they can go out five. they can have their structure underneath. we are fine with that.

if everyone's told their greenery can be replaced by structures, we would not have green space. my greenery is not equal to a building. >> the project sponsors and jeremy paul have not shown the massing of their property of the ground level. they have shown in the upper level and the mid level. the ground level does show you how boxed in that yard is. we are here today because a variance was granted. but we do not understand how it ever was granted. i might ask you in your discussion to ask the project sponsors what hardship was secured or cured by going 11 feet out, when neighbors have supported going up 5.5 feet already under the existing back, in a process which took seven years ago doing the same thing. it is your property, but the

issue of this hardship and the extension going beyond the guidelines are quite in question. we ask you to take that into consideration. president olague: thank you. i believe there is one more dr requestor who has not spoken. but mr. paul indicated light was not going to be blocked from the south. the problem is that light in the morning comes from the east. that is where we get all the shuttling in our properties from. this big extension is sticking out. i am kind of nervous about that. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. that is in the rules. that is how it works. you have been here how many times? you know that. >> ok. i will do my best. president olague: and we give

you the full amount, which is optional on our part. >> the drawings were not intended to be the representation of the surrounding buildings. there were many drawings and photographs that did present the surrounding buildings, did show it was an overhang, did show the fence. massing drawings were presented for a different purpose. let us go on here. you can see this -- the way this extension is moderated. this really does show the impact on the surrounding buildings. we have stayed within the context of the surrounding block. i invite you to take a look at the renderings that have been produced and presented. we have not made any attempt to suggest or to hide the fact that we have put our mass on the

ground floor. we have come out very modestly above in order to step up the hillside, comply with the residential design guidelines. but we have got a 21 foot extension on the adjacent property that really is the thing that shadows like from the east. we are not shuttling very much like from the east, except for where you see that stair coming up. the mass is down below, below the adjacent living areas, where it belongs. to refer you to this photograph that you have seen in your materials, we are set swayback come up with a very large extension. this is what the variants was responding to. -- this is what the variance was responding to. it was a much more practical response to build here to allow sufficient living space, to

come up to the maximum extent of this building here, and to come across rather than to build in here and create a much greater, co-compliant impact. president olague: thank you. the public hearing is closed. commissinoner antonini: i have a few questions. they will probably be for staff, i would think. i guess the first question is, is the property before us with in the delores' heights special use district? >> yes it is. i am from planning department's staff. commissinoner antonini: i think my second question has already been answered. it does not go out nearly as far as the property to the east. we have seen various renderings of what that difference is. perhaps you could give us what your interpretation of the difference in the extension of

the two is. >> i believe the proposed building would be 11 feet shorter than the adjacent building to the east down hill. commissinoner antonini: i guess my third question is there have been points made about the depth of the lot. they are talking about this lot being 85.5 feet. many of the lots are 114 feet. that is in the area. there is a difference in the death of these various lots. is that correct? >> that is correct. this is a key lot. it is 85.5 feet in depth. generally, the lots in this district are 114 feet. commissinoner antonini: i think that is important. 45% of a smaller number is a lot less than 45% of a big number. i think that is something to bear in mind. i guess my fourth question is --

it has been presented, the fact that the present structure just about goes to that 45% line. now there will extrude out beyond the 45% sun line with this addition. -- the 45% line with this addition. i do not know the occupancy of the lot with the planned addition. >> the existing building has a deck at the rear which encroaches 5.5 feet into the required rear yard. it is boy underneath. the actual building structure goes up to the 45% line required per yard. the project, as proposed, would leave a 32% rear yard on the project. commissinoner antonini: there would still be significantly more than what is customary everywhere else, which is 25 feet. >> 25%. commissinoner antonini: 25%.

we have been through this with some other places that have special use districts. what is the rule about conformity? must they conform, per the code, to the special regard allowance -- special rear yard allowance of the special use district? >> the dolores' height special use district is one of the few that imposes -- the dolores heights special use district is one of the few that imposes that. as a planner who works in this neighborhood, i have had to build three rear-yard variances in the last 18 months. commissinoner antonini: it has

been represented at the variants was granted earlier in this case and is still in effect. >> a variance was granted, yes. commissinoner antonini: i guess my final question is do we still do rear yard averaging? the project sponsor has said, "we are appropriate because we are averaging," which we have done in the past with mid-block open space. is it a question of how far out we are allowed to go? >> by code, it is not permitted in the special use district. but a planning perspective, averaging regards makes sense. -- averaging rear taryards makes sense. commissinoner antonini: i notice there is a deck in the back and

a deck on the top. it is a little unusual to have 2 you a separate? . you have any idea what the -- it is a little unusual to have two seperate decks. the you have any idea what the project sponsor intense? >> there is one at the master bedroom level and one on the very top. my sense is that through the topographer be there are pretty good use up there. they are probably going -- my sense is that through the typography, -- topography, there are pretty good views up there. commissinoner antonini: are they putting a stairway in the building itself? >> initially, they had a spiral staircase projecting outside the building envelope. they internalized, to a certain degree, the stairs. you do have to go up to the

master bedroom level to access the roof deck. commissinoner antonini: i think that is most of my questions. thank you very much. vice president miguel: what you are there, just to settle one thing, the building as proposed is within the variants that was granted? >> it is within the variantce. vice president miguel: that is all right. i will say this again, because i have said this to a number of the people i met with from the delores heights improvement group. we are not here to hear a variance. that was heard. it was appealed. it was settled. it is not before us. it is there. as far as the roof deck is concerned, i did not see

anything in the special use district that forbids roof? -- roof decks. the special use district and the improvement association does not exist in my mind as a wild, gated community. it exists in a general neighborhood. the argument they are making -- and i do not know, because i did not look in detail at the boundaries -- that there may not be any roof? within the special use district, where it is not permitted -- there may not be any roof decks within the special use district, where it is not permitted, but there are within the general neighborhood -- it is not unusual for that neighborhood, as far as i am concerned. since the extension is done in the right way, within a granted variance, and roof decks are not

forbidden by any regulations, i see nothing exceptional or extraordinary. commissioner moore: let me just say -- even if the variance is granted, if we find the design of the building not to our overall liking, it is very difficult to be confronted with something that i do not think i have ever witnessed, where there is a variance and the issue is take-it-or-leave-it. what is very disturbing to me is the acrimony existing between all parties. it is very disturbing to me because if there are that large in number who cannot talk to each other and have a reasonable dialogue, i find that somewhat

unbecoming of this body to have to even become the mediator by making the decision about a project like that. generally speaking, i find the architectural design of the building rather weak. again, some people want to have a list modest building -- less modest building. i find the building a little too fat, touching on the property line. i would have liked to see an arch there, particularly on the east side. i also find a single family residence which has a garden, a deck on the first floor, and a deck on the second floor, with sufficient open space -- i find the upper roof deck a little bit excessive, perhaps. i do not see, personally, a lot of give and take. but i find it very unfortunate and nasty tone.

i am very disturbed by what is implied with the "he said, she said." this does not have anything to do with what we do here. we just do not. this is between you. you can leave that out. it was a happy life. that is about when to influence some of our decision one way or the other. i am confronted as to whether or not we should either ask these people to wiggle -- to work a little more with each other. i would like to see more modification of the eastern properly line. i am inclined not to grant the roof deck. on the other hand, i feel very professionally hand in. if the rear yard variance was granted, i feel i cannot be in dialogue with the person who made it. normally, this commission is very interested to support neighborhood guidelines,

specific neighborhood guidelines. we even take the closer look at the specifics of a part of the city. i am interested in that and sensitive to but -- to it. but i do not know what discussions went into this variance, and i am not comfortable going up against this. >> the variance was granted about a year ago. it only says that there could be a smaller rear yard. commissioner moore: if we do not believe that is correct, we do not have to follow that. >> your decision is not about the size of the rear yard. it is about the book and size of the building. they are very different issues. you cannot grant aid -- a variance. this can only be granted by the zoning administrator. but that has nothing to do with the height of the building. commissioner moore: that is a

good interpretation, and i appreciate that. i think we have two conditions. on the west side of the building, i am not as concerned as the east side, where you deal with a smaller scale of buildings and a notching, which i find very comfortable. i am talking about this building. this building their aggressively pushes out -- very aggressively pushes out and sits on the property line. it does not give the building on the ground floor a lot of room. that would be an area where i could see a little bit more variation on the building. i am not sure. i would consider pulling this building back a little bit. i find this transition "relentless.

-- [retty -- pretty relentless. that is what i would consider. but i am not here to design the buildings. i am just throwing that out. that is perhaps my largest discomfort, is about the building. there is the forced open space, the third roof deck, and a little more notching. i will make a motion to take dr and ask for a small modification of the building. president olague: do you have specifics? commissioner moore: i would like to see the roof deck disappear, the upper roof deck, and i would like to see notching on the ground floor of the east side of the building, to what extent to be determined. but i would like not to see the first floor to stick out as

relentlessly, with the extra height of the railing. >> do you mean the east or west side? i think the longest side of the building is on the west side, adjacent to the shorter residence. commissioner moore: yes, thank you. president olague: is there a second? commissinoner antonini: i am not so sure. i am looking at some pictures again here, before and after photographs. maybe you can answer the question. it looks to me like the area that adjoins the building on the west has been nudged out, as you mentioned, during the formulation of these plans, to allow that setback. it looks like the extension of the part that is closest to the building is the same depth as it was before. that is how it looks in this picture i am looking at.

>> at which level? commissinoner antonini: of the first and second floor. >> at the ground floor, the addition is coming out by 0.5 feet deeper than it was to begin with. -- 5.5 the deeper than it was to begin with. commissinoner antonini: it is coming out into some of that deck area. is that what you are saying? >> can i use the overhead? commissinoner antonini: if you can, because i am seeing a different view. >> there already is a one story deck at this location. it is 5.5 feet shorter, about to this wall here. there is already something there that is one story in height in this location. this is coming out 5.5 feet deeper. commissinoner antonini: so, on

the west side they are coming out 5.5 feet on all three levels? >> only on the lower two levels. commissinoner antonini: it is a little deceptive to see. i want to clarify that the motion on the floor would remove a portion of the building. in this case, it is a deck that is already there. commissioner moore: the ground floor would come back a little bit off of the property line. it would still be enough room to come out of the second floor room, facing the long part of the deck. that would more harmonize with the notching of the building adjoining it. >> you are suggesting notching the corner. it wouldn't be the whole thing.

commissioner moore: that is correct. >> mr. smith, i think what commissioner moore is talking about is setting the first level back three or 4 feet away from the property line. >> i think it is to the east. >> i think i understand that. what i am pointing out is that there is a deck already there. you are inducing less than what they already have. commissinoner antonini: i still have a question. i am not sure. i guess i had a question. i was looking at some of these renderings. i do not quite see where the change is here on that west side. the one i am looking at here, i do not know if we could put this one up or not. it looks a little bit different. >> if i could answer

commissioner suyaya's question, i was pointing out this is a one story deck in this location. if i understand correctly, the motion on the floor would provide a set back here. what i am pointing out is that that is reducing from what they have right now. commissinoner antonini: that is the way i am seeing it in this picture. i am seeing the deck extending, taking up that first floor. what they're doing now is putting back the same thing, it essentially -- the same thing, essentially. >> providing the sights set back -- commissinoner antonini: it is less than they have now. if anything, you would bring the deck back further from the backyard. president olague: who can explain this? i think there is a

misunderstanding of the motion. commissinoner antonini: may be the architect? why don't you show us what is happening. >> this is the photograph of the existing condition. we have a deck -- >> we are talking to the staff here. commissioner moore: i think they have clarified it. president olague: mr. smith, is this what you were describing? >> that is exactly what i was describing. commissinoner antonini: to

continue, it sounds like that would give them less than they now have. i do not see what we are gaining with that. as far as the roof deck is concerned, i am not sure -- architecturally, i am not sure if it's what i see in the other pictures. but it is a right. it is something they can do. i am not sure if i necessarily want to remove that deck. commissioner sugaya: i am ok. vice president miguel: i would not want to remove the roof deck. i think it is perfectly compatible with the neighborhood and i see no problems with it at all. as far as an additional notch in the building, you are notching a deck. commissioner moore: we are nudging the building.

vice president miguel: a minor notching, i would not object to. i do object to removing the roof deck. commissioner moore: normally, when a roof deck has a railing wood stays within the family of the railing's we see here, i would like to see the stair -- i would like the stair to have, basically, a ticket rather than a solid -- a picket rather than a solid wall. a roof with a deck pulled back looks like a parapet in an office building. it might be out of scale. i would like to see a low,

minimum parapet, and only within the area that is allowed as a deck a walkable deck surface and picket finceence, so the signate of the building is the different plans of pickets. that makes the building of more -- look more notched and airy. this looks much too solid. president olague: this sounds like a modification of your original movement. commissioner moore: yes. >> on the stairwell railing, they may need to have that solid parapet