corneas with the zoning administrator guidelines that is exhibit number 6 as applicant plans with no alternative approach or unwillingness there's a hardship a direct result in decision of the plant further the variant police station form states quote the fact it is easier or less expensive to do a prospering project instead of a planning code didn't be a hardship that is seeking to follow the consequence easy and cost savings rather than comply with the zoning administrators guideline in conclusion if they don't get what we want that denial is a hardship that justifies the variance i urge the board to deny the variance

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm tom brooks a 25 year residents of the block jim kessler's next door neighbor my wife and i sent a letter to the board an march 19 standard for review is abuse discretion or error on the law the decision contains two errors in the finding numbers one and two by law exceptional circumstances and preto the property involved but the do not generally apply to other properties and finding 2 requires some circumstances must you result in the practical difficulty or hardship the zoning administrator focused on 3 things lot size, a common

drive, and certainly historical significance first 2825 lake has a lot that is the sect largest lot on the block with a buildable footprint of the 4 thousand plus square feet the most common size is 25 by one hundred and 25 or 3 thousand one hundred and 25 feet one could build a house that is almost one and a half times the size of our entire lot and that without a variance 2825 has a huge go size advantage not a disadvantage that's not an exceptional inspector or circumstance and second 2825 shares a common drive all lots have a land and

easement and as a result are smaller backyard they use the garages and a safe place for the kids to play that was ceqas plan for use settled one hundred years ago there was nothing exceptional and most importantly that applies to neighboring properties it can't be a basis for a finding of circumstance third 2825 is no at historical resource can only be registered and the district has discussed is more eligible is not a category recognized by law but even sea crystal-clear were a registration historic district it will apply and not only to 2825 finding two requires the only

two exceptional circumstances enforcement of the zoning cone e code relatives in a hardship nothing if one causes the hardship named in two historic sensitivity is not require standing in back they can go out the back finding two is a error no exceptional circumstances at all and the one main circumstance didn't cause unnecessary hardship. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioner president lazarus and members of the commission good evening. i'm tim, i live on 29th avenue with my wife and 3 kids adjacent to this project.

>> overhead. >> the zoning administrator does in the establish it the requirement of planning code section 305 are met explicit states the granting of such variants are not injures to people in the area it ignores residential design guidelines section 4 building scale the building examinations to the rear are not appropriate if their deep and at all and out of scale rear yard addition leaves surrounding resident feeling cut off from the mid block open space this out of scale expansion is uncharacterizing deep and at all and will leave my family permanently feeling boxed if and severely cut off from the open space that exists now they record in overlooking

the one property that is will impacted by this variance extravagant demand not hardships drive a desire for a of thousand square feet home that teller injure properties if the vicinity those lurks or lecturers are a grand for and large dining room and 5 to 6 large berms and 5 fill bathrooms and kitchens with two sinks and two ovens and master suit with dressing room and walk in listen on closet 9 feet square feet of deck and built in barbecue and mudroom error was not establishing the requirement in c-4 were met and overlooking residential

guidelines it exist to prevent projects like this from teller injuring neighborhood property if the post dr guidelines their square footage would be reduced by five to six percent and the neighborhood will follow that i trusted you'll deny this on the factual basis that the finding have not been met thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> please someone step forward. >> good evening. i'm chris to that live only thugd avenue with

my husband and 3 young children i have a new born and feel strongly about this project wanted to come down 5 and speak with you all and reiterate our support for the dovrz project i moved to sea cliff about 6 years ago and completed our remodel in 2009 our home was in need of upgrading we completely understand the need for the folks to complete their renovation there's been additions so it is apparently many homes are appropriately being upgraded it is resistance to change the opposition to the dover's project did not seem reasonable one year ago prior to the hearing and not reasonable given the size of their addition

we feel it is excessive the neighbors ask for a rule footprint beyond their control the restrictions to the nature they'd been discussed as well as the fact their house swathd in the rear part of the lot already the variants of the third-story is necessary for the dovrz to have a bathroom assessable and the resistance to the garage is also baffling when they load their kids into the car we like to add the dovrz is unusual not only detached but considerable says that the surrounding homes are thirty feet away rendering no phone call effect on the homes there are many homes in

sea cliff that have no homes that are small this shows that is not the case again, the current project is significantly smaller than presented to the neighbors i port the vascular decision to grant the variance to the defender's office he did not offer step his authority in granting this for dovrz. >> hi, i'm aaron i live around the corner from the dovrz on 29th avenue my husband and i moved to this community it looks at for each other and we said our preschoolers to play together this is the second time i've come down to speak on behalf of dovrz i've tried to understand the option at the commission and before this board

their objecting to the rear yard variance it says it leafs their hose two big and out of characterized go, in fact, there are plenty of bigger homes than the dovrz would be the opposition has not stated a real reason why the variance shouldn't granted regardless artist square footage the homes in that and were where most of the homes were built in the 20s most people spend time at home michael has an law practice there are realization involves the computer and needs to be supervised more and more funds are terry of their angling parents for long hours working from home their space is adequate for their current needs their hired an architect to make

it beautiful the dovrz have tried to come to a compromise changing their plans multiple times the option didn't want them to have a third-story of any kind i kind still they cut back their expansion now the opposition wants the variance to be denied compelled by the opposition from the historic building and in their lot there is no reason why they shouldn't connect their home to their home so they can bring their energetic preschoolers from the car into the home the current home is in the rear yard the historical says the dovrz needed the set back 15 feet back in the to pretrud in order to

have the bathroom on the floor they've done everything they can do and the city has come to an inclusion port commission not an appropriate home michael and his wife needs to have more space this is a reasonable project that wouldn't hurt anyone thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm diane i live across the street from the defender's office on the corner on lake street i moved in on 1998 and i have three children their teenagers and adults and i've enjoyed raiding my family in sea cliff years ago we did a renovation that afforded us more space to raise our

children i'm familiar with the dover's project i agree with the zoning commissions you know approval of the variance and with i've noticed is the blocks on which their block is only has 3 homes and the block is the same length we have 4 as we know each house has a larger than normal area in which they can expand there was limthsdz and historic considerations and things like that but considering that theirs room for them to increase they're living space without overcrowding u crowding areas in the back or front i think the variance they're asking for for example, the distance between the garage and their home that is ridiculous not to allow them to have it it didn't impact the neighborhood

and to define them a bathroom on the third-story is unreasonable given the fact it is children living in the home and has to do with convenience and safety when one comments to buying a property one considers the size of the lot and the size of the home and considered the prenlts possibility of improving in the future and the dover's should be allowed to enjoy and approve prosecute improve it we should support them as neighbors and not oppose them. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, then we'll take rebuttal if the appellants. >> just wanted to clarify a few matters the last couple the speakers spoke about the third-story and the connection to the garage the third-story

was decided by the planning commission we're not contesting the fact of the third-story even though at the planning commission hamburger they specifically said not a connection we're willing to accept the rear yard i know the first story dmanths not what we're here challenging and as to our opportunity to you know comment on the plans as submitted the exhibits 15 is the only time we were able to respond to any of the plans and there was one time and nothing thereafter and which we said was in violations of the zoning administrator and exhibit 8 when he says that the reduced - the

zoning administrator said that the plans were not acceptable those are were the reduced plans that are now i mean that were later approved so the same plans not acceptable before are now approved and acceptable i want to clarify those are two particular issues and if you have any questions. >> i'm sorry. >> you have more time. >> and was going to say it's not just the parking area but where some of the kids play any children played in the back basketball and back and forth kids investment 234089 sort of an easement it is used and enjoyed by all the people there okay. go ahead. >> it's not one hundred percent clear exactly what our objection is to this can you tell me what

i don't like about this project. >> the second-story and third-story - >> the expectation and extensions right they sort of it goes too far into the backyard again what the zoning administrator proposed earlier first that is acceptable we think that is appropriate it is too much too far boggled in our nightclubs and added a huge mass we don't feel it's justified but the exception. >> all right. thank you. >> anything else. >> mr. rubbing benefit. >> i have 3 minutes is that right. >> just a couple of things that were said i want to he'd i'll talk about the configuration and

the programming one jeremy paul recommended them until now hose noted here i met with jeremy paul he knows his way around in constant contact with the planning department and talked about potential districts i have trouble with that as well you know we working with the san francisco day school a potential district for 10 years at what point do you releases accident constraint on what was a potential district especially, when necessary have no rules the board raised that in response to scott sanchezs presentations so you know, i tend to g ago but the truth it ceqa a a potential district i've done 5 to 10 homes

it's been subject to the same constraint and they'll say go get an environmental eir if you want to get aren't issue that's not practical so that's what was imposed on this project let me show you a little bit more first of all, that was as far as i i confirmed with alice that the concession on the third-story throughout the discussions been no third-story period? the first time we've had any concession on what is the garage connection you know what that garage connection is? that is what they say had to say in their papers with is the expansion of the garage the portion of the newly conditioned space that is within the rear yard most of it isn't it's a

matter of a foot but more importantly here's what you know what we're left with i drew as and was standing there the outline of the building which you can see i'm tell you urging this layers i tried they'd all set back mandated you see and this is what we're allowed to build it is all announced by the planning department that's volume we lost attempting ta to have fundamental programmed space i see my time is up in 15 sessions >> when you were up earlier, you put up a diaphragm or drawings what you called what could be built. >> you want to see that again. >> yes. please. i mean this goes to the hardship and the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. >> if you could leave it up

there i want to ask mr. sanchez about that. >> that's fine but what is shown there is the code would have allowed as buildable area. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> okay. we can hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll be brief just to address two points before going to the questions there maybe just the reiterate the development pattern of the block it is distinct the properties up front on lake street are in the detached district the properties to the south in the rh1 that has minimal lot requirements that's why you see a distinct property between those and the subject

property the reiterate the immediate adjacent structures both of the property to the east and to the west have at single-family home nestled in the property so i'm available to answer questions. >> would you speak to that design if, in fact that is buildable i guess i'm confused what that means is there building code that allows them to do something they're not doing. >> on the overhead the full potential your moinz our 15 set back and your minimum set back and the blue shaded area is simply under the building code. >> not taking a look at the

historic residential. >> or the residential guidelines this is simply what it is the code represents and any preservation concerns so we at the project we're at today reduced from the original project size and that is in part due to the residential guidelines and through preservation concerns. >> i have one other question as far as you're concerned is there the or air impacts on the neighbors. >> as i see that no i mean because immediately adjacent green again, you have those garage structures at the north end of the driveway easement so in terms of what shadows maybe cast the structure it's the third-story addition is set back from the north and side so, yeah i believe they would have

imagine if any impacts with light and air privacy. >> i have a question mr. sanchez from the original plans that you made comments and recommendations to the planning to the plans we see before us can you explain the reduction in size and square footage. >> i don't have the square footage numbers but can put let's see - i don't think he have the previous proposal but i'll start with page. >> as i said earlier a notification and reduction from planning to what you have now. >> do you have those slides for the dr (inaudible) just a

second. >> sorry. >> the third-story okay. we read it okay. was this in the brief okay and so from the variance holders brief and this is the third-story so it is

showing they have a thought evolution of the project from the original site permit the 311 notification dr hearing and the variance that was ultimately approved and here the red outline was showing you what went out to the 311 notice and this is the variance the blue is the variance. >> the different colors indicates different floors. >> not different colors or the it rationed of the project because it did encroachment into the process review that dedicated the set back to maybe to highlight this. >> i mean do you have an approximation of square footage that was down. >> yeah. probably on the order

of 40 square feet or so at that level it did you know wasn't i can't say it's not hundreds of square feet basically, i outlined the second level was a 4 foot reduction and two to four foot repudiation. >> from the original there's a minimal reduction from the plans today. >> from what the planning commission heard the plans were before the planning commission to the plans here today, the reduction was 4 feet at the second level and two to four photo at the third-story level. >> okay. thank you. >> party time. >> it mr. sanchez commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i just want to say commissioners before you started just wanted to make clear

there's been a lot of using discretion you have here a strength but still a notable proceedings you don't have to find a error and you may modify the variance but have to make a finding that thought 5 requirements are met and specify the difference thank you. >> thank you for that clarification. >> with that. >> presented to comment. >> i'm presented. >> please go. >> start off i'll say the following that is a lot of discussion about the result of the variance and therefore what has been proposed for the design

even though the there's a direct connection between the two i'd like is the following to some of the arguments made related to size of the building the third-story, the impact on the rear explicit resonate with me in particular instance but going back to the variance itself there are questions in my mind about the finding and the few look at the findings the first 3 finding especially from more traditional or perhaps more historical analysis of variances and the issues that