involvement and therefore is significant modifications of the design. you building delete that last line and a hold him to it >> the code compliances and we have a motion from commissioner fong so deny the permit and say it's come pliant. >> (calling names) the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld on that basis. we're going to take a short

break. >> i want to come back to the april 10th meeting. we're ready to go on. the property here is at case in chief for the record terrace. of a rear yard in the non-compliance structure variance. case none 2012 dot 885 b. we'll start with the appellant. >> mime partner and i have lived in our home my partner is a native of san francisco.

we love our neighborhood. we and may have our neighbors have remodeled our homes over the years. what the yard open space we share is highly prized and it is needing to think sensitive to the sunlight. we're not opted to our neighbors remodeling their homes we only ask that it appraisal minute missed the open space that we all share. we detail our interactions withor neighbors and their architect. at ourl very first meeting the architect said no improvements would be considered and it showed a significant impact on

our light and air in our home our response was you have other windows. we have - the architect never got back to us. we first received the names of michael when we received the additional notification of the terrace area. it is continual referred to as a simple unit. the property will increase the square footage p that will have a higher taller building than any of the homes in the area. finding one the owners of 2325

cliff for the record terrace are showing that every lot in this area in this area with not rectangle in size. the variance holders states that the nature of their space is not big enough to accommodate their needs. this is a self created hardship. finding two, that due to steroid hardship. they're substantially having the

south side of the lot and reducing the north side it would be a conforming project. see tab e where this is demonstrated. the owners never explained why this is not on a option. and set back in upper stories is a good compromise. they never address why they could be exempt from the neighborhood guidelines. the current structure has direct rear access to it's rear yard. thus, this property will have 3

floors of upper space which the other homes don't have. this is the preference and enjoyment of the neighborhood they say that the set back due to odd shaped homes. this is an outbuilding in the rear yard set back. they could add property at the rear end instead of the front area. this is a self created hardship that could be easily undone which none of the neighboring properties have the option. the grand scheme variances with

bay windows would not seem injury to the naibd props. please see exhibit 2 tab b for the mid terrace open space and the next tab for the google add space. this shows an open space exists here and granting this project will only make the neighboring properties worse. it's exactly this type of harm that the accompanied should protect us against. the fact it is - lastly finding 5 the zoning project is in

keeping with the agricultural heritage. he in no way demonstrates how he is keeping with the heritage it is in direct opposition of the guidelines. it must be comparable with houses in the area. see the tab g for this project. nothing on this belong has a solid idea in keeping with the heritage of the neighborhood. we intend and respectfully appeal that the variances in this project be overturned and a i would like you to walk me through your exhibit e,

exhibit 5 >> was it e. if you see the line in red and a actually, let actually, let's >> let's start with the red line. >> it's where the backyard set back is. if they wanted to they could billed within that ear and put it on the south side >> is that the green? >> no. >> i understand the red. >> it's the upperer story. >> so you're saying push it down into the back? >> it's more easily seen on the next one the two rectangles are nearly the same. >> where's the shaded one?

>> there they have no development at all. but on the other side we have a triangle of the same proximate amount if they could shift that to be other side they have optioned >> if you could turn to exhibit f. >> uh-huh. >> where is the - i need some orientation on this. >> the green roof is one cliff for the record terrace our property is the next one up and a could you put it on the overhead and point to it, please. this is the subject property.

okay. that's way thought i wanted confirmtion. thank you >> we can hear from the permit holders now. >> hello good evening members of the board of appeals. we're the wallaces. we're the property owners that have live there. i moved to san francisco in 1996 and we're a non-trolley family so it took a long time to find

this. we love our home and the neighborhood and it was perfect for us it was a modest 9 hundred and 15 square feet where lucys parents live in the basement. we had twins a few years later. we don't feel it's unreasonable to remodel our home to fit a family of our size. we have 3 generations livingful under one roof >> in this room we plan to maintain the 3 unit building. we are committed to the city, we have enjoyed seeing our boys

grow we're members of the san francisco parks recreation department. we're committed to the san francisco schools. also i am of you were pan background i grew up in german i didn't. we want to any other time green space on the back and the roof with a living roof. >> we're going to have our architect come up and speak to many of the points but lastly we want to ask that i continue to support the city's findings on the variance. we find that the neighborhood does agree we've received 23

letters of support from our neighborhoods and we've got copies of all those letters if you want. >> good evening while their passing those out. i'm the architect representing kevin. thank you very much for hearing the case tonight. i i'll quickly go through a number of diagrams. the first >> could you flip that around the other way to match the orientation on your drawings? what this diagram shows >> all the red homes are larger in square footage in structure expectation of one that is gray

to the north. the second diagram you can see the shiep of our existing home in black and i can see the skinny form and you can see why the existing structure slides into the rear yard imprisoning the narrow proposition of the rear yard. our neighbors existing rear yards are here we are not asking for anything that our neighbors don't benefit from. the plan that i'm showing you hopefully, you can see the red line profile it the exist floor plan and the existing floor on

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