zoning administrator error through was therefore an abuse of discretion the entire discretion was built upon his decision from the lot precludes other decisions it didn't and the primer argument by the zoning administrator in this decision the shape of the lot requires variances other than the 3rd and 10 floor that was not his opinion during the review process as evidenced by his combines to the applicants the evidence in exhibit 8 of our appeal until the final decision the primary guidelines issued by the zoning administrator that was county to the patents on the first story and the rear yard variants is okay second-story no variance sought and the

third-story he provided guidance that the other solutions were possible but not expand the building envelope beyond who a what was stated below those are not final and i understand they're going to consider the spirit in the expand envelope beyond the restrictions to the other portions the envelope and or consider changes that were with any dialog between the neighborhoods no such dialog was had even though the neighbors wanted it and the zoning variance was granted in full we'll speak buyout hardship issue the zoning administrator said at the planning commission hearing no hardship there's no hardship that is not a result of the condition that

is not a result of the conditions by the applicantsism the hardship they don't want to change their plans they must have is jack and jill bedroom on the one story the offer sized room that is required on the second-story are because of dire that's not a hardship on a reluctance to scale back their floors the zoning administrator states the property is considered a history landmark and as a contributor to seek this for the district additional, however, the same historic resources evaluation response states no formal survey has to be conducted for the historical district that didn't

exclude as an alternative bylaw plus the alternative was not combloertd and no one can say the historical preclouds such an amendment and the planning department said if they're done in a sensible way if not in the history part it's the depth of the homes matches the homes to the west it doesn't the home on the west is l shape and on the east was l-shaped expanded forward and this was expanded but still residences a sizeable fractured and it will benefit the neighborhood with the homes other speakers will address some of the errors in the sdcers

issue we mentioned the communication been the zoning administrator and us we feel contrary to the request of the planning commission and our self-reliant appeals we've been shut out of the process we urge this - so here we are let me go back it was clear in september of last year that was exhibit 18 to us that the zoning administrator was city of chicago by his oriental guidance and all of a sudden a draft decision known to the plant but not the neighborhoods to grant the permit finalized in january it was contrary to the spirit of planning commission and the original the president of the zoning administrator here we

very with the humane burden i know there's no legal issue of due process but certainly not fair to the neighborhood we're going to urge you to overturn this we'll accept the original guidance from the zoning administrator we appreciate the improvements of neighborhood we've expand our homes this does not feel like the conversion with smaller lots. >> are you finished with our presentation. >> do you have questions. >> somewhere in the brief it was brought up you didn't provide any testimony at the discretionary review hearing. >> i was not able to attend. >> you weren't there.

>> but we the prepare an unofficial transcript of that that was done by a court not official but it is available online i've seen and read what happened at the planning commission hearing. >> but people that the rest of the neighbors. >> a i understand. >> any other questions. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the variants holder now. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board i'm jim reuben, junius & rose and i am a quiet a recent addition to the project team i say recent i'll be struggling with the same thing the extent

of the record created and how much water is under this bridge already in the of fact i was called about four years ago to become involved and i declined because of the proximity of my home to this site when i was called back against by alice barkley they needed avoidance to move things along from the planning department i looked at the record and thought that was time to end this those are my neighbors as well variance decision is based on pretty simple set of facts it is like the sightings of the home and which is toward the rear of the lot in fact a portion of the home is in the rear yard before we started what you have in front of you i'm going to try

this gadget i brought ambassador if it works mr. rubbing benefit it will help us more mr. pacheco. >> okay. so what we have here shaded what is code compliant building portion of the lot that this homes adds to it is the front and west that was part of defining features of what is a preservation asset yes, it is a contributor to a potential historic district but i'm going to tell you i've done 10 homes and every single has to deal with the issue and if the planning department wants to change it's approach a lot of people would be delighted it's not that but the fact it starts at the rear of the lot and the

fact it is a historic resource leaves i little opportunity for adding to the home we've created another graphic not in our packet i know it's hard to believe this one will help perhaps to understand you can see the existing home here and . >> see this red line does it show okay. this is the line of the rear yard is that yellow i'm color-blind that exists in the rear yard already and this is the variance the green piece on the ground floor this is the second-story you can see the second-story floor a piece in the rear yard and the garage didn't go to the second-story no encroachment and on the

third-story essentially stacking what's on the srtd we're carlton this behind the line and creating a bathroom so you can get two rooms staircase and a bathroom and that's about all you can get open the third-story that's the variance that is in front of you versus what already there lastly i'm going to show you a parcel map and really this is useful to see that as you can see it is blue blind is the easement and as you can see many encroachments from other homes their garages in the easement and this is in the rear yard easement already and slight piefls this home in the rear

yard already you know what drove me to this is the neighbors have repeating said i think this is the papers there's no three stories in sea crystal-clear i live on lake street 5 doors away the house has 3 fwloorz over a garage it's not the case there's three stories every with or where people have means and live in a area like specific heights for areas to do that if you have questions on the detail of how we got where we are alice has handled this and the arithmetic and project sponsor will answer any detailed questions. >> just gone is that the steve

mcqueen block. >> the what. >> is that the 31st. >> i don't think so i haven't heard that before. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning department so the subject property on 2825 located within a rh1 a detached zoning district the subject lot is 67 to 75 feet with a shaped lot and 80 feet wide approximately it was constructed in 1921 open the san born map it is a different pattern of development those lots are located within an rh1 district so the district didn't have the detached the neighborhood notice was

performed about a year ago last february and mark 3 discretionary review two from the vanity from the east and west on lake street and 1 from 30th avenue we had a joint discretionary review and variance hearing on the item with the planning commission only june 19th at that time the dr requesters one of the main concerns related to the third-story the removal of the they'll and looking at alternative to build they front of the property the reasons our preservation staff has received this with the vertical addition of the front building wall and found it not compatible with the historic district it is trauma this is not the main district by done the complete survey ceqa asked us to look at the known and potential district f this is

a potential district been identified before this project and in resource evaluations since then we've documented this numerous times at this hearing the planning department took discretionary review and removed the proposed vertical addition of the garbage at the rear the property a detached garage with regards to the main building they left that a that 80 up to the variance hearing and subsequent to that hamburger we've sat down with staff and discussed some possible alternatives that's where the quote/unquote guidelines came back about that he put those hocking out to the project sponsor and it was clear that didn't represent a decision had

that represent a decision we would have september out a letter with those points out we did with with mr. jeremy represented the neighbors i've received comments he'll be representing all the dr requesters and moving forward we communicated back to him the response from the project sponsor he gave a response i had project sponsors response and accident neighbors responses unfortunately at this time we were triths in staff and staff that was working on this case went on to work on another system and unfortunately due to staffing we didn't have a timely development with the decision letter but ultimately that was developed at the end of last year and you know, i reviewed the materials submitted by everything and determined the

proposal the revised proposal is not the same proposal the commissioners heard in receive it has reductions no to the full stent but our initial e-mail not a final decision on opening dialog i made revision i felt the reduced expansions was for the commissioners to prevent rear yard development we had a supportable variance at this point and in particular a historic resource because it is part of the potential district contributing member that initiated set back from preservation staff they typical require a greater set back but

in this case they felt the minimum set back would be appropriate knowing the nature of the property that is the building on the lot it runs really research particularly to the property line but particularly to the existing staircase really the core of the building that limits the ability to develop the third-story for those reasons i felt that the variants as they've proposed in the revised plans with a had foot reduction and two to four reduction in parts of the third-story was supportable and with that, look forward to the comments that this board has if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> mr. sanchez you said it was a 4 foot reduction and two to

four footed reduction somewhere else what was the suggestions or guidelines you provided in terms of the facts as you this was the original feedback it was at the first score the rear yard variance was acceptable and we said american people interior connection to the garage maybe provided the second-story no sprarndz for that level and the proposed third-story should fall with the fingertip of the existing second-story the mirror variants to align with the existing floor and the response from the project sponsor and seriously looking at the planned and seeing one of the issues the staircase and how do you build around that staircase and add a bathroom at the thirst level a

bedroom at that level it is an appropriate alternative. >> i have a question which is more my lack of understanding do you view a rear yard encroachment devil if it is sort of gardener and mid block open space as opposed to an easement. >> the intent to preserve a mid block open space certainly the variance is it causing a problem with the mid block the parking the the driveway i think the overall stent of the encroachment is riffling minimal except for those issues i'll be support by certainly the major character at the rear is

important and whether or not there's a way to break up the mid block open space. >> mr. sanchez there's ohio it's interesting how it went from a potential contributing and potential historical district to angle in actually outlet how the department viewed it as a 2ri7b9 reservoirs and as a historical resource i understand what ceqa requires in terms of the analyzing it; however, at some point in that process it went from a potential to an actual can you talk about that a little bit in terms of how your department viewed that. >> certainly with the preservation staff and usually

the arguments related to preservation and sentencing are authors that building are resources we shouldn't develop it as i recall if neighbors are opposed to a project it's not a resource that took me time to wraed in fact it is inner vertical effecting the character staff identified this is a potential district and under ceqa whether a importantly or existing known district we have a evaluate it in the same manner for the purposes here the building was previously category b directing your attention the staff said it was a contributor to the potential district that should have been not fully

mapped but a potential for the district and found this building is a contributor to that district as such this building for the purposes of ceqa and review bagging became a historic resource. >> and that was not piloted. >> there was no appeal of any environmental determination relate to that project no. >> last point is that how would they did preservation view a large front set back as historical? >> do you mean i guess what do you mean by the large front. >> they brought up that the larger sets back on the front of the building on the street side is historical. >> the building exists where it does one of the argument from

the staff the setting of the building on the lot you consider as part of ceqa whether or not the building is a resource but are you speaking to whether or not the building itself could be livid up and moved forward. >> not partially but the set back is just what occurred that's all. >> as part of the character it exceeds. >> part of the context. >> yeah. >> follow-up on one is there a definition of a potential historic district i mean does that set some place in the commission or the city's files that ceqa is it it potential historic district a potential to file it with the secretary of internal. >> if we have the resources to do all the you know the surveys

that we would like to do citywide you'll see the districts becoming mapped and probably surveyed but we don't have the resources to survey every neighborhood in this case and part of the resource historic under ceqa section the property qualified as a historic resource if it is quote/unquote listed or determined to be eligible for listing quote/unquote the fact it is not listed or determined to be eligible if the register of historic resources or not included shall not preclude whether or not the resources qualifies under ceqa based on the information that staff has which is the historic supplemental evaluation other applications that we've reviewed they find that the building

awhile not individually eligible for inclusion in the register is is deemed ineligible ceqa district and as such, they made the finding that thought a resource. >> sorry that wasn't really my question what's the exemplification of a historic district. >> is there one i mean it seems to me you could call san francisco a historic district. >> they'd like to map the whole city. >> that inhabits the characters of something that be mapped or could be mapped it is trying to be clear - there's enough buildings there that would qualify when viewed together to be known as a district. >> and designated by whom i

guess i'm only familiar with something the port went through a barbary coast actually designated by the federal government as a historic district is that what you're talking about. >> this is listed on the california register so enough of the existing materials did we do a survey that it would quality for liz on the national register the california register. >> you take a conservationist view as on in case matter. >> right we don't have the resource to make sure - so the worse case scenario that's what we do if we have the ability to go out and survey all the districts to say much easier for property owners to do work on their property if everything was

researched they wouldn't go through the research evaluation. >> how many historic registered district do we have in the city. >> don't have the number but outlined in art 10 and 11 in the article code. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. we can take public comment can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under public comment great if you have not filled out a speaking please do so, so with reflected your name properly in the minutes and willing to stand along the wall that will help to move the process forward so if you're able that is helpful to the board whoever want to speak

first come forward. >> good evening thank you my name is jimmy reside on 29 avenue focus on one point the zoning administrator claerld record in a vanes is justified due to unnecessary hardship that is not a direct action of the applicant the caesarean decision of january 15, 2015 there exists unnecessary hardship that is not created or attributable to the applicant that is a total reserve from the written statements that's exhibit 6 and 8 applicants attorney at the time alice says their exceptional or extraordinary circumstances due to the restrictions on an expansion excluding quote/unquote cost pro hifb it's

appellants exhibits there's no severe alternative expansions including front expansion provided the allegations are added in a sensible way this is direct testimony from the discretionary review hearing of june 19th and the adjacent resident front expansion please refer to combblts 28 and 29 no alternative approach has been presented including a front expansion the applicant attorney exclaims the bathroom third-story is behind the stairs and reference applicants a-2.4 in appellants expectant 11 without a variance no bathroom resulting in a hardship warrant a variance this is appellants

exhibit 11 the mrnlt refuses to alter or modify to allow for the bathroom to be placed within the 5 hundred they'll allowable without the variance and in 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