behalf of. if black you can see the proposed design of the floor plan where it barely creeps forward on both floors. the green shaded area is showing what we're removing unsightlyly existing stairwell and replacing it with landscape. we have a desk that takes up half the yard. and this corner is basic showing the square footage we're reducing. the only set back it the red shape quite small. >> what is the green?

>> okay. so the light green is areas we're remostly. >> and the top? the top is square footage that we're removing. does that make sense? i think it's very helpful to see the photographs the existing condition >> turn it to the way you would look at it. >> to this? so there's two shots. you can see your existing structure our existing structure down below our niebz looming structure above and you see our building quite small and there's quite large next to us. so the first diagram is

basically, the front elevation the neighboring buildings in red and the existing buildings in gray you can see how the current condition i have a missing tooth. and we're specifically to the san francisco guidelines we're stepping up the hill with the topographic and in conclusion we've gone to great lengths to be fitting within the neighborhood and we hope you will recommend it >> mr. sanchez. >> i have a question that you do you look at alternatives that were planning code compliant.

>> basically, the condition is so severe given that the existing rear yard sit back slices into a third of our home - >> i'm talking about your addition. we feel if you actually look at the plan - . the existing plan where he have a variance that try angle. if you were to technically remove that it without a doubt effect positively or negatively any neighbors.

there's no windows there to benefit from it >> that's not my question. do you look at a code compliant alternative? >> no, we didn't we focused on designing a small footprint and a understood. thank you >> okay. mr. sanchez. >> president wong would you like to accept the letters that were submitted? >> why weren't they submitted before? >> we received by the date of the brief we had only received a few letters and i knew there were more coming we said to make sure we had the full support of the neighborhood.

and a i'll state to the representatives there's 23 letters. thank you. >> the subject property at the cliff for the record terrace is for the zoning district and it the 2 hundred and 99 square feet. we had a hearing on that maturate in july of 2012. at that meeting there was some significant opposition to the project. at the hearing considered all the information submit by the neighbors and one of the most compelling things was the lot shiep. you don't actually get to the minimum length feet until you're

into 25 feet into the lot but it widens and gets to the buildable part of the lot. a portion of it is located within the rear yard. as part of the required parking from the front yard basically so when we were looking their options for development the variance was the lot shape and at the hearing the appellants coroner's were about light and air. one of the things to me this was going up against a blind wall on the neighbors property. there are two small windows &

they were perpendicular to the property because the appellants property is to the north. the two small windows even a code compliant would have an impact on the small windows there. i can maybe put on the overhead something on the map here. we have quite a bit of glare here. the subject property is here and the addition would go up against the blind wall and it's not going to have an impact. at the end of the open block space there's already a number of buildings on the block is

already encroached on the air and light. with we had a hearing on december 5th i took the matter under advisement by it did say the parties will come to some resolution but it's not been achieved unfortunately. the residential design team did see that it complies with the residential guidelines. so maybe just speaking briefing e briefly to one of the electrocardiograms that the unit is a hardship and it was created by the previous owner. surely they can remove that opt and it may not be that high

given the older unit given to rent control because the rent control was in effect in 1970s. so and it is occupied by the permit holders parents and that's another factor that was raised at the hearing. all & in all the character of the neighborhood and other properties that are already encroaching in the space i think it should be ultimately granted for the variance. and probable note that the building itself is currently on hold because of the pending appeal on the variance so the board denies the variance it would have to be remodeled.

that is just a rear yard variance for approximately 75 square feet at the time proposed 5 level >> mr. sanchez irregularity of the lot is at the two ends. the north and south faces of the building is relatively parallel. did you or your staff discuss a co- compliant? >> i discussed with staff many of the alternatives and they could push out further to the front but again, the building already encroaches into the rear yard so the addition thought you

third level - that didn't answer my question. >> i don't believe that staff asked for the alternate. >> how many people are planning to speak? okay. please step forward. first person who wants to speak >> good evening i'm anthony caylee live on terrace and have owned the property for over 40 years. my wife and i raised 2 boys there. and we happen to mention that the block of cliff terrace and

upper terrace there's not 23 homelands on it, it's unique and my house has been there since 1915 and the oldest house is 1907. there are two things that certain me. one is the details of the proposed construction which mr. sanchez and the architect have laid out to you and the other pursues by which the improvements can be made. over 40 years i've seen every house made some improvements many are internal but some have roofs and some have had garages

put a underneath and everyone has had meetings in the neighborhood and there's been compromise where there's a - difference in taste. i'm here to make sure that this can be reviewed and we can get a is in it. what hasn't been mentioned is terrace is on a steep hill. and the house in question 2325 is at the bottom and if i read the plans right once it's constructed it will be as high

as the hill. so all the people on that block have been there a long time. we all consider ourselves shepherds of the block. and that's what i wanted to say >> and the square footage of your home? >> the square footage is about it thousand feet. and by the way, everyone on the south side of the tirs has a shared open space and 2325 is part of that and all the house's below and above me enjoy did shared space so we want to make

sure we don't encroach upon that >> next speaker, please. we own a two unit building on the same block and i'm here to show my whole support we know how challenging it is the live and raise a family in san francisco. we too had to remodel our home adding two bedrooms to accommodate our rapidly growing

city. homeowners should have the right to remodel and we find the project to be reasonable, well thought out and taste imply done. whether measured in square footage will be in line with the homes on our block. additionally we feel the project will positively impact the neighborhood. we see that the neighbors are putting in a tar roof we have that on the top of our building. from our vantage point the remodel will make for a much greener city escape.

in the front yard their replaying a concrete slab with a beautiful landscape. i believe it would be more attractive to have more trees along the city sidewalks. it also added an additional parking space. the modern design is very sensible to the 1950s building and the whole building will refresh the neighborhood with no negative impact. we very much hope that you'll support the original project. >> would you state your name

for the record? >> is there any other public comment? please step forward >> hello, i'm stephanie i live in the neighborhood. i've lived in the buena visa area i'm here because i very much support the wallace family addition. i implo i explore lots of the neighbor areas. i appreciate the fact if the

house will be moderate in its size it is staying very reasonable and it's staying within the structure of the existing house and adding the vertical addition it's also adding greenery to the front area. it's going to be much nicer to look at. i also vail the level of sustainability this doesn't also happen with the projects. they've taken a lot of time to benefit the environment and it will be a benefit to the neighborhood and to the neighbors with the view of their house. i really think this is a great design for a family house their

maintaining what's there and they're asking for the variance to be maintained. i really support that project. thank you very much >> thank you any other public comments? please step forward >> good evening maybe i'm the last one we can all go home arrest i'm frank morris. my family as lived in this area for over 70 years. i've lived they're there for 3 seven years. tights real a shame we're here at this point. we all want our neighbors to get

what they need but not as an expense to the neighborhood. first one was the variance that took the two parking spaces in their driveway sometimes there's 3 cars in that driveway. they were allowed to take the garage space and make that that an apartment. the second thing is the variance allows the building to be the highest densest on the block. i have 2 thousand square foot on exactly 4 though square feet

they have 21 hundred and the most dense building in the neighborhood. the third consideration and i understand they can do whatever they want with the property but every document they send out they talk about the property not fitting their needs they're a family and we appreciate that but do we need to let them remove a rental from the neighborhood structure. there's always been a lot of people moving out. there's been 9 owners of that home over years. i don't believe that one family should be allowed to take precedence over the code.

and it sticks anti 2 feet. it sticks out and i have asked them to look at that and the architect and the wallaces themselves have not made one change to the ejecting plan they've not done one thing. all i'm asking is we all go back to the draft board and do what's right for the neighborhood >> any comments? we'll start with the rebuttal.

>> as the wallaces talked about their need one of the - but this is a zoning code thing it's not about the needs as frank said there's been 9 owners. and as time goes on they've be condone and so will we. as you asked they've not considered any other optioned that are planning structures. we go down to 1978 they took out the parking unit if they could build out into the front yard they wouldn't have parking. they should have been aware of this you know there are

variances and restrict shuns. we've heard a lot about the hill and how it steps down. in our part of the block our home steps down do you see this person in courtly. by bringing their home up to ourselves they're now going to tower over our how many. the more reasonable definition you intend to have two stories but in theirs they're going to have 3 stories. i want to show you a picture. >> refer to the overhead. >> the offer head. >> so you see how their this

can't fit on the one terrace below it now when i see our house there their almost the same size as our house they're denying the step down that exists everywhere else. this is to enhance air and light space. the front part will significantly impact our light and air and mr. sanchez referred to the front and back windows. it will be significant to the impact of the light on our property >> we can take rebuttal now from the variance holder.

>> i have to admit we're a little bit confused. from the documents from the appellant in the dining room of their document you can see they've basically triangleed this square footage in the front yard their own windows their southerly view would be blocked as would the neighbors it's quite baffleing. we're the 37 percent below in

square footage we're not building an huge home he we're truly have stayed within the footprint almost identically and added a modest third floor. regarding one of his exhibits i

believe he put in there d or e referring to the overhead? he took a overhead or google to suggest that the house's have a set back. he's only focused on that homes this is is our proposed home that is the appellants home well