partner, who have lived at 109 for 24 years. air project -- where property is directly south of the site. the project is in the vernal height special use district. the special use the district is 20 years old, and is made of of older buildings on smaller lots. the purpose of the special use district is to encourage development with the established neighborhood character. govett is not being met with this -- that is not being met with this project. anyway you want to look at it, this proposed rear yard i

addition does not fit. it throws out the entire rule book and proposes a project that is out of scale and out of character with the surroundings. i submitted this many months ago. the province started -- the project started to close the existing space. two weeks later, they got another over-the-counter permit to construct new bathrooms and bedrooms on the ground floor and to remodel the kitchen on the ground floor. to save the work -- to say the work exceeded the scope is to put it mildly. the building was completely demolished. half the building was completely

demolished, and they demolished the kitchen and bathroom who down to the removal of the foundation's. a notice of violation and was issued. thought work order was issued. work did not stop. the subject lot is very small and uniform, which realize the granting of variances richard -- which belies the granting of variances. they wrote who -- they rezone these to 35% minimum rearguard. goothis project not only proposs

to violate the 35% minimum. it proposes to violate the 25% real yard. gooit is 15 feet from the back fence. but as a 39% reduction of the minimum who youyardrear yard. they have only applied for one very dense, but they have been given five or six. when you build pass both ed adjacent neighbors, you are supposed to cut the addition in half. they are not cutting it down during your -- they are not cutting it down. it was not legal.

but as another exception. in order to rebuild, you have to show in the special use district the original condition was dealt with service from 1987, and that is what the section says. this was demolished, and it was never built with permits. now what they wish to replace was constructed without permits. the project also requires a variance from section 9188, which says when someone voluntarily demolishes and illegal or non-conforming structure, that cannot be built by, except in conformity with the code, so we have a variety

of variances being sought, so what has to be shown for each and every variouance? the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are they have an undeveloped exterior space beneath the sun porch, and raising the roof will present a more open field without affecting the structure, and a new deck will allow easy access to the rear yard. but as the exceptional circumstances they are offering to justify the different variantces. look at the design of this project. it is not right. what the neighbors want is for

the planning commission to hold a special use district -- to of hold -- uphold a special use district. some simple design considerations are in order if you are going to build something that cannot be built without a very uncertain -- without a variance. you should at least build with consideration of the neighbors. goothis non-conforming structure should be built housing both of the adjacent buildings. out of a minimum, it should be pulled back to match the adjacent buildings, which matches perfectly. at a minimum, should be done.

second, it will still require multiple variances, but about is a design consideration that should have been a no-brainer. height. you have been told the description of the project is they are going to raise the rear roof by three feet. it is not true curi. the rear roof is being raised 10 feet, maybe 12 feet. it used to be a down slope duriing shed. the department is taking the measurements here. they are measuring it from the front curve. that ignores the special use

district. the special use the district says you measure of how the rear of the building from grade. i do not know what the new proposed height is going to be, but it looks close to 30 feet to me, and it is on a steep hill to the towering over the buildings, so as a design consideration, you have to apologize to match the neighbors, and you have to reduce the size of this new structure. it is in congruent and prohibited by the code to allow the not only to build by non- confirming, violating structure, but to build it at such a tremendous height and that debt. there are no extraordinary

pictures on the side of the equation that would allow for that type of structure. i do not know what my time is, so i am going to keep on going. i am sure i did not go over by five minutes. we have these old photographs of what it used to look like before it was abolished -- demolish. it was in good shape. it was nearly painted. the windows looked new, and the building did not extend past the neighbors to the south. you can see the bottom picture.

they should follow the special use district. if you're not going to do that, reduce the height. reduce the deficit. >> speakers in favor of the dr. >> i am robin, and i will be reading two letters on behalf of people who could not be here. your commissioners, as concerns of neighbors, we urge you to conduct a discretionary review of the permit applications so there can finally be a solution who this situation. we urge you to uphold the planning codes, particularly

with regards to the rear space. it is important it is preserved in a way that provides life and her privacy. the next letter is from patricia, an architect who reviewed the project. i reviewed the drawings submitted. i find them confusing and misleading. it is not possible to evaluate the impact on neighboring properties from the drawings or from looking at the house. the owner has applied for a variance to expand the house in the rear end to avoid setbacks. we urge you to deny the request

because of the negative impact construction will have on properties and because submited drawings are not adequate. floor elevations seem to be who misrepresented. the floor levels are shown significantly higher than they are and then the stores the elevation drawing. the floor level is shown at the existing height, when in reality the floor is about 4 feet higher. in addition, the grade in the rear yard is not correctly shown. in reality, it is 4 feet above the gravde. a retaining wall mediates the difference. this means the height is shown

much lower than it will be actually a. my concern is this will create a negative impact this delay -- impact visually with neighboring units. good why support of this private not be approved without significant alterations -- i support this not be approved without significant alterations. >> in the other speakers in support of the dr? >> my name is allium. -- elliot. first, i am surprised these plants have come so far, because there are sizeable errors. the most egregious are, the rear edge of the deck of the subjects

property should appear 1 foot 10 inches closer to the real property line than the rear deck out andover. the measurements and do not add up. no. 2, the difference in length is actually 4 foot 6 inches, but the plans show the difference of only 2 foot 5 inches during good -- and 2 foot 5 inches. if you add up those numbers, you will see a discrepancy. it does not show the actual amount of steps needed to go down the stairs. these functionally reduce the impression needed for the actual scope and scale, and in my

opinion this should not be heard until the owners can provide a plan that accurately reflect what they are proposing. on march 30 eyes of the letter outlining the impossibilities -- i sent a letter outlining the impossibility of the plan as represented. here is a copy of the letter i sent. i will provide it as soon as i am done, and it elaborates on several details i have noticed. the drawing shows the subject properties proposed real wall incorrectly. why height of the deck is not shown clearly at all. while the owners present their plan does not substantially different from what their neighbors have, the fight is it

is tremendously out of scope for the neighborhood. if the planning department plans to preserve the rights of all property owners, they should allow more modest, code- conforming houses, and i also have a letter from my immediate neighbor of the hill, who is directly opposite the project. his yard is only 7 ft. 9, and he is concerned the size of the structure would put a lot of shade on his property, so i am also going to give you the you. >> thank you very much. in the speakers in support of the dr? >> i live with my husband and

11-year-old son. our houses a typical home. it is under 900 square feet with a one bathroom, and our houses only 17 feet from our back friends and our neighbors -- 5 centback fence and our neighbors. last year my husband and i met with the owners of their invitation when we expressed concerns about their plans. they showed us the point that there would stretch out to, and i was able to climb up the dirt pile to the point where it would be, and i was dismayed to see a person standing on their new deck would have a direct you into our dining room and living

room from close range. it was clear our privacy would be severely disrupted from the debt and any lights attached to that would be a shining straight into our living space. we expressed concerns also over the raised roof and the like that would shine into our house -- light that would shine into our house. he immediately said who were not important to him. did this clearly shows even they do not feel extraordinary circumstances applied. he told us if the plants bothered us, he would be more than willing to change them. not long after, it became evident they had no intention of changing their plans. they have not contacted many neighbors who have spoken out against their plans to exempt any kind of mediation or

compromise, and i feel they are insistent on pushing these plans through, and it is a waste of your time as well as ours. they also sent a letter to the neighbors were they claim they only want to build a small 1,500 ft starter home, but this is quite large for bernal heights, more than 50% larger than our house. if they feel the size of their houses exceptional, they have clearly been bought in the wrong neighborhood. there are a lot of houses that are old, and we support people renovating their houses. they are ugly. they are old. there are safety issues, and it is not that we reject any kind of renovation, but this is only going to affect our property to

our detriment. >> thank you. i am the person who filed the dr request. i spoke to my partner of the adjacent hill since we purchased a house in 1993. i want you to know i filed this dr after multiple attempts to resolve this matter. we repeatedly expressed our concerns about the property to the property owners and zoning administrator over many months. we met with the facilitator in

october of 2011, only to be told they did not want to make any change in their plans. the open space in the rear is essential. i strongly oppose this project on three major grounds. first, there are gross inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and errors. the plants do not adhere to the code of the special use district, including variances to the require exceptional circumstances, and the project will have a detrimental affect on us. goothe sponsored tore down a lae portion of the house, including the kitchen, bathroom, and sun

porch, in 2010. they did issue a notice of violation. the sponsor can no longer claim sections of the code the applied to pre-existing structures, including under second story index or encroaching beyond 35% allow uance into the rear yard. they did not have extraordinary circumstances to justify variances. on the south side of our house, it is 9 feet and the full height of the building. the proposal includes a significant increase in height. we are going to be blocked on

both sides. that is our main problem with this. we already have a nine-foot wall on this side. the plans do not accurately represent the slope of the hill. it is 16.05%. it is not accurate in the plans. thank you very much. >> hi, my name is lisa, and i live on endeavour with my partner. colonel-is an area with small -- vernal heights is an area with small lots. there are very narrow streets and tiny backyards. we have lived in falls home richard in the home almost five

years -- we have lived in the home almost five years. we have never found it necessary to oppose of projects. give we have never found someone so a egregious with a history as well as regulations that are designed to protect these lots. we all know that of the budget sponsor is the one that must show extraordinary and exceptional circumstances applicable to the swap, which is depriving them of the property rights enjoyed by another in the district, but they have is this -- they have shown no such hardship. several people who submitted

letters opposing this project have and are raising families, and none have claimed hardships imposed by identical lots. we all know and love of the special use district guidelines we are bound by. the sponsor also stated reason is that their personal and therefore not who remain. we have seen exceptions. now the process has been frustrating. we have had numerous communications about not only our concerns but also the name and who inaccuracies and misrepresentations in permit applications, which has caused numerous delays. we all wanted to be done. nobody who wanted to keep going.

give we met with sponsors to discuss various options to resolve the issue. he told us he could not go beyond and that he could not voluntarily demolish nonconforming structures. we have found numerous ways to address our concerns, and they gave us assurances they were open to modifications. they have not spoken to us since. they said they hoped the city would not see in where project was extraordinary. it is on them to prove that in order to get their variances and your good -- there variances. thank you very much. >> are there additional speakers, if not, the project sponsor.

>> good evening, commissioners. my wife and i are the owners. the property was purchased when in june of 2010. goowe were not get married, ande wanted to start a family. we have, and we saw this as a our families. at the time we purchased the property, we recognize it was a special use district, but we were not real-estate experts, so we did not understand everything in terms of the profit. we were advised we needed to stay in the original foot prints of the original structure. the original structure was 785 square feet, which included that sun room, and there was no

livable space underneath, and our intent was to make the space underneath. in the process, we realized we needed to go down several feet. it turned out there were not proper foundation walls on either side, so we have to pursue the process of retrofiting the entire foundation of the building, including the back. it turns out the up slope is actually pushing on our structure, so we were advised to further reinforce the foundation, because that was pushing on our structure. our intent was to utilize the existing foot print to fill in underneath and have a livable space to add a master bedroom

and a master bathroom. there was a single bathroom upstairs, and we were going to raise rulethe roof. we were revised to add a rear exit landing -- advised to ad a rear exit landing. our plan was not to create a deck. it appears the primary issue was the removal