here would be -- the better image to put up here would be the proposed -- vice president garcia: you are talking about the proposed lots. but the existing law, the smaller has what percent -- lot, the smaller has what% coverage? -- what percent coverage? >> as you can see with the proposed new lot lines, the smaller house would occupy 450 square feet on a 1000 square foot lot. it has 45% coverage, which is significantly less than you are allowed under the code. it would also be one story in height. i think you could get three, given the height limits here. the larger structure at 260 mullen avenue would have about 60% lot coverage, more or less

what you are allowed under the code. you could go back, i believe, another 10 feet. you could also go up another two stories. president goh: could you put the other picture back up and i will repeat my question? what is the lot coverage of the smaller of the two lots? >> the current coverage on this lot which is closest to the street -- we have not calculated it. it is close to 100%, with the exception of an area in between the two houses where the parking space was about 20 years ago. president goh: the way it is configured now, it appears the smaller, 264 mullen avenue, could not be developed at all because it would be considered non-conforming. go ahead and finish your

rebuttal. >> this lot, you could still develop up. on this lot, it is a one-story building. develop further to the rear, you could certainly add stories to it. as far as the question about nonconformity, adding those additional stories would not be increasing the degree of nonconformity. you are allowed to go up within the height limit. >> thank you. >> thank you. review of the subject project

against the requirements for h-1 and the special use project. the requirements require that once you calculate the maximum permitted building, you have to deduct up to 650 square feet of usable floor area to produce the overall mass that is allowed. that can take place vertically as well. given they haven't done that, they do comply with that because they aren't built out to the maximum envelope that they could vertically. they do comply. i would like to talk about the condition of approval and the process -- it was difficult for me to require the subject condition of approval. i did -- the project was suitable and acceptable without the need of a restricted condition. one of the things that -- the project sponsor was willing to

do so and that was a good faith effort on the part of the project sponsor that they want to -- they don't have any intention of building out any time soon and they thought that would be a suitable condition to address the neighbors' concerns and allow the project to move forward. and with that, i added that condition of approval, which addressed the neighbors' concerns, the most vocal opponent who had counsel representing them and had discussions about what would be suitable and that condition was placed. reluctantly on my part but the best solution to the problem. to say that is not restrictive enough, that condition was well known prior to the hearing. that had been discussed with the project sponsor and the neighboring parties, i feel that condition was out there and discussed and to only raise it after the fact that no, that is

not enough, a variance, another extensive process with the public hearing, requirement to find hardship and define hardships for the variance that that is not enough, that we have to limit it to no development at all, that goes beyond what is reasonable here. i think the project -- very honest attempt here to try and improve something. we have a very bad situation where we have buildings that are across property lines. that's not something that is suitable or promote in the city. and what they are trying to do is adjust those lot lines to accommodate each of the buildingings on their own lot and move on from there. for that, i respectfully request that the board uphold the variance with the current conditions of approval and i yield for any questions. >> i have a follow-up question. you said for a -- the none conforming part of the building

could not be developed further. so in that smaller of the two lots that has 264, which of those buildings or parts of buildings is considered conforming? >> if we look at it, they have to meet a minimum of 15 feet. they have very little square footage without seeking a variance. they could seek a variance and develop in that area. >> there could be an argument about what is the rear yard. >> we have to have a frontage and we would have to argue that the frontage -- sorry, could we have the overhead, please. thank you. so for the small lot, i think we

would argue that this is the front edge and they would have to maintain a rear yard. it is a very awkward situation and not something that we want to promote in the city. their proposal to reconfigure and actually comply, we would have to have a rear yard for this building, which is the better solution here. >> thank you. >> so what could be done without a variance? they could buildup vertically without seeking a variance? >> if i could have the overhead here. this parcel, they could develop, perhaps comply with the requirements but they would have development potential. this property, i think they

would have much less development potential, but could seek a variance. they could seek a variance to those requirements. >> could they go up vertically without a variance on either one of those buildings? >> definitely on this buildings. so that's something we would need to see plan and calculation of volume in order to determine -- it's not as straightforward where i could say that is a buildable area and we are going to say you can build and add a floor there. it is more tricky here. but i would argue, there is development potential on this lot. >> without a variance? >> that's correct. >> it would be a sliver, probably not usable, but there is potential to go vertical. >> thank you.

>> i would hope that the project sponsors would take a building permit to adjust this lot line. whenever these lot line adjustments have been done without a building permit, we aren't able to review without any potential things that would result in terms of fire protection. and also, it would be another way to document planning's requirements in the future on this. any questions? >> you are recommending that they take out a building permit? >> for each lot. it would just be a plot plan to show where the buildingsr the adjusted newly lot lines fall

and we can determine from there if there are any issues that come up as a result of the newly established lot lines. >> and those permits would be appealed? >> yes, they would. >> commissioners? >> could i ask a question, madam president. is there any way if this board were to uphold the zoning administrator, that we could make what you just requested part of our findings or is there a way for us to deal with it here? >> you could make it a condition of their finding? >> i'm trying to avoid an issue to avoid -- >> i mean if you condition a permit in your decision, then

the new permit is not appealable. in this case, since it's a variance -- >> if i may elaborate further. preliminary review, it would be advisable that building permits would be received. and any required permits would be obtained at a later time if they're required and i think that can be dealt with separately from the variance decision. >> in other words, you are saying they would still need those permits and those permits would still be appealable. >> we would want to investigate the matter further. part of the subdivision, lot line adjustment process is reviewed by the department of building inspection as well. so they will be reviewing it and it is grite advice we look at that and if it is required that a building permit is sought. >> thank you.

>> there is a certain logic to how this new property line works . it makes sense, you know, for each to have a designated rear yard and for the depletion of the property rights to each of the parties. the question is whether we feel the condition that was made part

of the variance is an appropriate -- is it enough of an overlay of the property to provide some assurances that a problematic lot and a problematic existing structure doesn't become another problem area for either the neighborhood or for various appeals and we have seen plenty of those for substandard lots and other things. in this particular instance, i think that the requirement that was made that any further expansion on other properties requires a variance is a sufficient enough overlay so that the problematic lot, which both are to a certain extent, one more than the other will

have some level of control over what kind of problems may potentially occur. so in this instance, i would support the zoning administrator. and uphold the variance. >> commissioner, i didn't quite understand. the more problematic lot would -- if the lot line were to stay where it is, would likely not be able to be developed because of the amount of coverage. >> that's correct. >> and so the lot -- the changing of the lot line may permit that to be developed further, is that what you were saying? >> yes, but with the measure of

overlay on top of that, that i think would provide a certain amount of control. >> the requiring of a variance. >> let me be a little more specific. >> i'm sorry. >> the new smaller lot, then, it's unlikely they will get a variance to put a 40-foot structure across 60% of that lot or in the heights area -- it's 32 feet i believe. >> and 35% rear yard coverage. ok. other comments, commissioners? >> i guess what i was trying to do in asking the questions i asked is whether or not we need to do an n.s.r., was to try to reduce the needs of the permit holder. but i feel like that's been

dealt sufficiently by the zoning administrator and leave well enough alone and i don't see error on the part of the zoning administrator so i intend to uphold the variance. >> i want -- i once clerked for the judge, the law of all things must be groupeded in common sense and when you have buildings crossing property lines and all the adjustments these owners have had to make over the years, the variance makes sense and i would uphold it. >> i don't necessarily disagree with that, but the commonsense aspect, but i think the appellant is correct, the reason for the shift in the lot line has to do with allowing the buildings to be developed

further and if the lot lines stayed where it was, it wouldn't at least -- 264 wouldn't be allowed to be developed further. i appreciate the zoning administrator's acceptance of her suggestion of the restriction in requiring of a variance for either of the buildings to be developed with a change in lot line. and i think my vote won't matter. i think i would support that if that is something we would need to vote for but since he has already done it. i don't think i need to. i definitely support the reuse of former 1906 outbuildings to be habitable space. and in -- i'm a resident of the

heights but not in this particular area, but sat on the redesign board on the northern side. neither of those two factors will make me bias. so all things considered, i would vote to support the -- so is there a motion? commissioners? >> i'll move to support the granting of the variance. no abuse or error shown. >> finding no error, granting of the variance. >> ok. >> on that motion from

commissioner peterson to deny the appeal. on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. aye. the vote is 4-0. the variance is upheld. thank you. >> our last item, item number 11,

[reading application] >> before we hear from the appellant. i know mr.murphy and enjoyed lunch with him. and have had not any conversation about the case before us and no way am i prejudice and unable to be fair in this case. >> i hope he'll invite you for lunch again. >> not any time soon. >> the project sounds just beautiful and i'm all for him building up. but i have the issues mainly for me is the light, going to be a lot of light missing from my home when it goes up and just the -- i got a lot of my windows and he is going to come out

three feet which he has proposed to do and i can just see it being quite clause trove bilk since i have a couple small decks off a couple floors there. and it took me so long to realize it because it just didn't hit home until the time was quite close. and i got a fairly old home as well and i just think -- i would not have purchased this home if it had been, you know so close to another home because of the beautiful windows that it has on one side. and i think the depreciation would probably be -- you know, wouldn't be in my favor. and those are the main issues, you know, as far as my concerns

about this and i don't really need to get too lengthy about what i feel you know, as far as him building. i think it's a wonderful thing to do and everybody should add on to their homes and do as they wish, but it just would -- it would cover me in. so that's what i'm feeling and unfortunately, we haven't been able to talk about it and i'm curious to see what could possibly happen here. and i hope you will consider my thoughts on this. >> do you have any photos?

>> mr.murphy. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioners, i should state that from the outset, i'm not related to the other murphy that was here tonight and i'm from a much poorer tribe of murphys. and i'm very fond of the people tonight. we have lived together for 12 years. we talk and say hello, and seen our kids grow up and we see each other every day. but having said that, i urge you tonight to uphold our permit. we went to great lengths to design this project with a

minimal impact on her property. we played by every single rule that is set up in the city and county of san francisco and unfortunately, she hasn't. we could have built -- if you look at exhibit one, we could have built out, we could have designed this project, 25 feet out from her lot just like she does. her lot enjoys full lot coverage and we could have come in and designed our project to do that. but no, i instructed the architect to pull it back. three-foot corridor down the entire length and for the last 10 feet, it pulls out and it stands out into a 13-foot space between our houses. she does not have windows on her

appropriate line. the windows that she's talking about are six feet off the property line in her building at the back. they will be at the closest point, nine feet away from my building. if you look at exhibits one, two and three, what i'm doing for the most part, i'm enclosing an ugly staircase in the back of the building and that's the impact. when she stands back nine feet away, she looks across and sees an ugly staircase that goes down a set of flats and that's where we are filling in. my wife, and i and son want the same benefit to put a decent kitchen and bedroom above us. we live in an 11-foot wide,

40-foot high house and for height reasons and seismic reasons, we want to expand out. again, i met with her beforehand to discuss it with her and said she was fine with her. i met with her during the 311 process and i opened up the plans in her living room on a table and we wept through it. and i pointed out to her how we pulled the project back three feet and she said she was fine with it. go forward two years, my wife and i are excited after 15 years, we can afford to fix it up and straighten it out. and i'm shocked to get this appeal. i don't think she meets any burden or meets any criteria on

the prime primary grounds of appeal. my light extends beyond her house. any on the western side is not going to take light away. we aren't extending beyond the light of my building. so whatever light is blocked has already been blocked. i think the other issue she has relates to construction. and i can agree with her tonight, she and i have lived with any other house in my block going under construction. every other house has done their thing and i live with her doing her construction and with messes and stuff like that and construction is messy. and it's my turn. and i think if it would help in this process, i'm willing to accept the condition on the permits that exterior construction work on my home

would take place on monday through friday and put a condition on the permit that it will be slept every work night monday through friday when work is taking place. again, i'm not building the property line. we went to great pains to pull it back with a three-foot corridor and we can take care of the issues we have about construction and noise.

is that where the woippeds are located? >> yes, the cutback at the end of her property and the windows are in her kitchen and the bedroom on top of that. but those winds are six feet off our property line. >> i understand that. i heard you say that. what height are those windows? what floor do they occur on? >> second and third. >> and the appellant's building is a three-story building or four-story building? >> i think it's four in the back, i believe. >>