translate. basically, my name is ken wong. i haam here to translate for mis lee. what she has done here is rearrange that she would like to have your consideration and approval for her to operate the health center. she would like to provide health and wellness to the neighborhood. in the place she would like to have is a block away from a police station. she would lie illegitimate business under the guidelines.

she really appreciates that. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment. public comment as clues -- is closed. commissioner borden: move to approve. >> second. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner mooreolague: aye. >> you are now on item number ten. 235 francisco street.

>> good evening, members of the commission. the proposal will convert 47 square feet of the existing third floor balcony on the west side of the building to an enclosed sun room. it will also replace an existing spiral stair. the sunroom addition will be constructed on the space that is values that will project 6 feet from an existing rear wall. this is in compliance with the planning cut. the support has reviewed this project and found that it will not adversely impact the open

space that is already compromised because of numerous buildings having full plot coverage. this project does not contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. it warrants an abbreviated analysis. this concludes my presentation. president olague: d.r. requestor. >> the owners of the property. the rear yard her face is the rear yard of 235 francisco that is located, slow down held. one of the issues we are bringing out today is that there is a very interconnected relationship between these buildings. it was initially built in 1930.

the area behind the building was open space and a parking area. they decided to build a condominium complex on the lower portion of this property. this came before the planning commission in a very specific decision. under the decision, several things were considered including the reduction of the rear yard open space and the parking issue. because of the detriment, losing their open space, losing the rear yard, also, at the area where the living space would be. it was required that a data set

back be replaced. it specifically states in the 1980 decision that although the rear yard halfback is proposed, the building is quite small. it has the effect of providing needed separation between that building and occupying floors. we have a situation where the planning commission allows the building of the project, but added to certain benefits in the report that allow for parking and that very small area of open space between the building. it would not feel completely closed in and blocked off. the property line and that was

placed directly behind the building, there is essentially no rear yard because of the decision to place the property line at that location. you have a property line with there is only 15 feet on one side and a very small space in between the buildings. we feel these issues were completely overlooked when the planning commission was approving the sun room. the current owners took a look at this property for about 26 years. it is a very dense residential area. the recently built out their rear yard. the way it is set of is just

further than the other property line. also have the building at francisco street. they're wanting to encroach further into the space. i actually have a declaration here for mr. wilson. he developed this project, he was required at the time, it states but will conform with the findings. he was required to add this to open deck space. on the bottom floor, there was living here and at that time. it was cut off by the planning decision. that brings me to another issue

here. including this rendering of the properties. it does not show the footprint. i have sent a letter to the commission is a personal matter that extends out to the property. this portion is expanding very far out to the property line. president olague: are tehre sp -- there speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> i represent the project sponsor. while they won't be making a presentation, i will be available for questions. the purchase of the house in 2010 and it will be a full-time residence for his family, including their children. the purpose is to provide a safe place for these young children. they have asserted that it will have some negative impact.

this is a plan that was included. what this shows is the overall arrangement of the properties. this is the small area. it is only at the very lowest level. we were focusing on the distances between the buildings. it occupies a very small level, a very small portion of the deck. it will be almost completely glass, minimizing any potential impact. it was also at that level that had been there for a number of

years. we believe this will have an impact on the request your -- requestor. it claims in a letter that the staff did not raise that. i assume it is no longer an issue, but we'll be happy to address that. they somehow claim that this violates the variance. they claimed her specifically that it required at this and that. there are conditions stated, none of them mentioned the that whatsoever. -- deck whatsoever. they say it provides a needed to separation. i like to point out this is not

a requirement, it is merely a finding. because of the slow, the new building will have minimal impact. this is something that we prepared this morning in an effort to try to illustrate the relationship of the buildings. this is the small sunroom. i believe this is the unit showing the small that. you can see that at the very most, this is level, and how it can have any impact is beyond me. especially if it is north of the unit.

while there was a finding referencing this, there is no requirement for the debt. and the statement made about the separation continues to be true because going back to the first diagram, the tiny portion is the area between the buildings. it will provide separation between the buildings. they have presented no information that the substantial effect violates the variants. and determined that this was consistent with the variants. we request that the commission cannot hold this over for a full

hearing and approve the project. [chime] president olague: d.r. requestor , you have two minutes. sorry, speakers in support of the project sponsor? ok, you have two minutes. >> we have an issue about how the rear yard averaging was applied. we have a francisco street property. the rear yard averaging, they used a larger property on the lot. we felt this was an inappropriate application as they skipped over the adjacent property in use a more and built property. that is definitely an issue.

you can clearly see this as a fopho -- is a photo. any building out further than this deck encloses the open space of 124. what we have here is a continuing building in a very dense area. this might seem like a small issue, but it is big to a person who has lived there and seen firsthand the continued building trends in this neighborhood, to the point where they are feeling locked in and closed in in their own residence. that being said, we would like the commission to stay true to its prior decision. these findings should not be set aside.

there is a reason this open space existed in the proper -- in the prior variance decision. i also have copies of the declaration from edwin wilson and other owners and residents. should i provide a copy of that? president olague: thank you. project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners. regarding the rear yard averaging, these are different condominiums on the same property. they have one of the front door. they have a common roof and a foundation. you do not do rear yard average and based on half of the

building on the lot. you go to the next physical lot. that is what was properly done in this case. i offer this diagram. this is the dr requestor's diagram. this is the sun room that is good to have a major impact on closing them in. frankly, i do not see it. i do not see a case for exceptional circumstances here. the room is very small. the setback remains one of the larger rear yards on the block. the applicant has also reduced the sun room by 40% of the proposal in an effort to compromise and satisfy the dr requestor. staff has properly applied the rear yard averaging rule. the variance does not contain a requirement as to some specific dimensions of the deck.

furthermore, the statement in the variantce that the deck provide substantial separation between these units remains true. the sun room occupies only a tiny portion of the overall deck and a tiny portion of the overall separation between these buildings. no case has been made for discretionary review. there are no broader issues in terms of the priority policies or the issues in the planning code. we respectfully request that you deny -- that you take action to approve the project and to not schedule a further hearing. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. the public hearing has closed. commissioner moore: i would like to take issue with some of the presentations i heard and ask the commission to examine the project further. i had put the request forward that the packet submitted to us

did not show the section which mr. atkinson just showed. i think it is important to understand what the real issues are. i find the package that was submitted difficult to understand, somewhat misleading. i should be able to see it with a glance. that is not the case. but it seems important to go back to what this project is. this project is a submission to build on a substandard lot in a dense urban environment. in 1982, a very good architect designed a building which had a twin building mirror around its axis to create something which i consider to be ingenious. at that time, we did not use that word much. but it is a really integrated project. the mere fact to take it out of

symmetry is arrogant and someone missing the point. building on a substandard lot, the provision for separation applies then and applies today. it is a fact. in addition, a think other things are being snapped in which i find personally unacceptable. the spiral stair on the rear deck is being replaced. perhaps the owner needs a slightly wider sphere -- stair. some of the common features of the building, which includes closing two skylights, are being suggested. we are not discussing that. it is properly and architectural discussion. but i do not believe that adding 47 square feet in what i consider to be a violation or misinterpretation of the early variance is something i want to

consider. i cannot support this. i am asking that we take dr and deny this project. commissioner antonini: i have a question for ms. kirk, please. -- ms. kerr, please. we spoke earlier today and you had some concerns about parcel months. i assume those are the averaging you were talking about earlier. are there other concerns? >> i think providing the parcel mapping shows there are two parcels next to each other and that one was skipped over for the purposes of rear yard average and. that was an issue we have brought up. i do not know if that has been resolved. commissioner antonini: i will ask stuff a question. my other question is that i am looking at this wording by the za in 82.

he says the rear deck has that effect of providing a separation. there are no conditions, but it is a finding. >> correct, but in the sense that there is a requirement that the building be built according to the plans that were presented at that time. when wilson, as he mentions in his declaration, building to those plans, did require that to be provided. it was a finding that the deck space needed to be provided for the open space. commissioner antonini: the proposed some room is taking up all or part of the deck? >> it appears it is taking up a portion of the deck. commissioner antonini: it is not the entire deck? thank you. >> i have one other item to bring up regarding the interpretation of the rear yard average and. here is an interpretation dated

3/87, which states that excess rebuilding is cannot be considered as one lot. only if they are merged and placed on the property records. there has been no margin of these separate lots for purposes of rear yard averaging. commissioner antonini: i would ask staff to look into that, whether or not these parcel maps are correctly being reinterpret -- are correctly interpreted. if we cannot get that decision today, we may have to continue. >> why don't i jump up and put this on the overhead so you guys can see the actual image? commissioner antonini: sure. >> this, 6465, is the subject

lot. this is the subject lot. basically, what occurred is that they are condominiums. the parcel -- the land has not been divided. it is two condominiums on one lot. the rear yard average and -- we are using 42 and 40 and these parcels. does that make sense? that is one parcel and two condominiums on one parcel. commissioner antonini: is that your interpretation? i am not familiar with the averaging period if that is corrected in average, i will have to base it on what they did. >> mr. cochran and myself both worked extensively with scott chancellor's -- scott sanchez on

these calculations. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner moore: i am good to get on a slippery slope, but i want to talk about condominium law. i have not seen the second owner as part of this discussion. in condominium law, your ownership goes from single line of property to single one of your property. however, all external spaces are part of the common area. having said that, the change in one part of the building needs support by the association, in this case formed by two parties. aside from being members of the association, and they are the association, or they have a management company. there is another element missing from this discussion aside from the comment i made relative to altering the building itself. i feel there is something

missing. i do not see the other party here to support are not support this change. commissioner sugaya: aren't condominiums subdivided usually? >> it is unfair right. it is not a ground subdivision. commissioner sugaya: i would like to make an observation that this may be 47 square feet, but it is fully 1/3 or more of the usable? face. if there was an opinion -- of the usable deck space. if there was an opinion in 1982, which i am reading under the variance decision, he had concern about the amount of rear yard and open space that existed with regard to this particular development. even though he may not made it a condition, it is clear that he was concerned about it and made

a comment about it on his findings -- finding four. that is why i seconded the motion commissioner moore just made. commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff. i guess you mentioned that the commissions would not have been brought to us under a pending dr reform legislation. i assume the position you are taking to not support the dr is based on the fact that the addition takes up only 1/3 of the usable deck. it is being used as an offset. am i correct? >> every time there is a dr filed, we look at the residential design team.

this sunroom did not adversely affect the mid blocked open space. it did not rise to the level of an exceptional or extraordinary use. commissioner antonini: this is one i am kind of torn on. i certainly see the arguments being made. if this were to pass, i would encourage the product sponsor to try to minimize the impact as much as possible. the only reason i might be supportive is that it is not taking up the whole deck. if it were, i would certainly not be in support of it. commissioner sugaya: i think from my perspective, it is not the rear yard that is the issue. mr. passmore's examination when it came before him for a variance had to do with the relationship to the other buildings. i have not seen the area, but i did look at the stuff online. it is probably pretty jumble up

as it is. i do not think that is the issue. the issue is the relationship to the other buildings, and the building across the way, and the fact that this deck is being reduced substantially in size. i would like to stay with the original variance request approved. i think the issues mr. passmore dealt with them are still the issues before us today. commissioner moore: i believe this sets a precedent for the second unit, not the vertical air right, but the horizontal air right. i think that further compounds us to create variances on top of variances, when variances should be the last-ditch