put and i have pictures of the areas that i'm describing, so this picture showed the garage that's there and the paved drive and that whole area's number 1 and 742 square feet it occupies and then there's area behind the garages that's inaccessible and i have pictures up here or rather pictures here that show the area behind the garage that's unusable. and then there is an area fenced off proximal to the garage which is back here, it's number 3, this shows the fence and all the shrubbery behind it

so that's not usable and this shows the same fence and area after it was washed out by the significant december storm that we had, so that's inaccessible area, and then number 4 is behind the east side gate which is like a security or privacy gate on the east side of the house and this picture shows right where the gate is and so the little bit of area behind that gate is inaccessible so the total area that's inaccessible is 983 square foot and that's based on the scale and the drawing project plans and of the area, 300 wawona

current non-obstructive yard is 974 square feet and planning code section 134a1 requires a minimum rear yard depth of 25% and code section as i mentioned earlier, 130b requires that the minimum required rear yard shall extend the full width to have yard and so i showed you that drawing showing the width of the yard which runs from right angle from the side lot line to where it intersects, and these are pieces that show the lot area, 7200 square feet on the plans and then also -- i don't know where i have

planning department, also 7200 square foot lot area, but planning with an -- this -- the width measures 80 feet and if you take midpoint here along the angular line, this line measures 96 feet, midpoint 48 on either side gives you a depth midline of 90 feet, so that gives you your 720 foot square yard which is what the project plans say as well. the planning department however has indication of a 91 foot depth and a 76 foot width which

their plans -- on the plans where with the 80 foot and 90, this rear yard averaging code section 130e, this whole area right here actually flips over from here -- from here, 25, it flips over remarkably to fit exactly into this section right here giving the perpendicular lines or rather parallel lines with this lot line and also it's perpendicular to the parallel front and back face and this then would be averaging, it would be the back lot line that would give from the midline, it would give 27

feet up to the structure and that method was upheld in 2006 when project sponsors wanted to put up a fence and couldn't -- >> excuse me your time is up and you can go further during your rebuttal. >> okay. >> what would you want this board to do? >> well, i think that given the nakt this rear yard is currently not satisfying code requirements, that if the board allows the horizontal rear addition that will be putting an additional amount of mass

into the rear yard and will intensify the non-conformance. >> so, it's the horizontal. what about -- not the vertical. >> it's not the vertical and then also the footprint of the building is such that they could have their -- >> i understand, thank you. >> on the side yard -- >> thank you. >> i'll see if i can get all of this. okay. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holders. anyone here representing the permit holders, please step forward. >> hi, i'm jacob michelle my wife and i live at 300 wawona, i w*ef been trying to remodel

our house for about two years we followed the process, we followed the code. we've -- we went to discretionary review and it was upheld and i don't think there are any problems with the plan as such. we bought a modest one storey building in an area with two storey buildings ten years ago and we have two small kids who are growing up quickly and we need an extra bedroom and this is what we were able to come up with. i don't have any other further comments. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, the subject bruited is located within rh1d district it's a single family detached district there was a discretionary review of this,

the planning commission upheld this, there was an appeal of the environmental determination, that with withdrawn prior to hear, now we are on the appeal of the building permit application. i did not receive an appeal brief but i received some planning code arguments, i can say the existing legal is legal non-complaint and portions of it do extend into the rear yard, directly close to the appellant's side and the garage structure, under the planning civil code, this is an irregular lairl shaped lot, it is unorthodox on how the code would apply to the requirement here, we take it from the full width of the lot which we have, when you have an irregular shape lot like this, we take the average lot depth and the planning code requires that

rear property line be right angled to the rear property line, that's what we have done and that's what's shown on the permit holders plans the 25% rear yard for the full width of the property parallel to rear property line, this is code compliant, i have not heard any argue lts from the appellant tonight that would lead me to think otherwise, it looked the appellant had a portion of this property's required rear yard being imposed on her property and so that's not how the code would call for it. the project sponsor has preferably done that. the residential design team has reviewed this, it has found it to be compliant and the planning commission felt the same. >> mr. sanchez, either rear property line could be the rear. >> well, this really is only one rear property line because

if we have the frontage on wawona, the side project line is 117 and a quarter feet and the rear property line which is -- the rear property line for the subject property is the side property line of the appellant's and the other side property line for purposes of a requirement -- >> you can say the front of 14th. [inaudible]. >> [inaudible]. >> a larger o portion of the building would be nonconforming. >> you're correct. >> right, okay. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy dbi, i don't have too much to say haoe, we have approved the site permit, the agenda is going through review, i don't have any comments to make. thank you *. >> thank you, is there any

public comment? okay, seeing none, then ms. amini you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> mr. michelle did refer to the fact that it's taken them a long time, they did have pre-op meeting on february 20, 2013, they submitted their permit in june of 2013 as well, then it was seen by planning in december of 13 and passed through the case plan per in like a couple of days, then it went to historic and environmental review, i had no block notification in that view

even though i had consecutive coverage for many years and i didn't delay any of that, that was taken up by all the planning activity. i heard nothing from project holders until i found a note -- well, i found out in may of 14 because i thought i just wanted to know what was happening with the permit, i hadn't heard a thing so then i tried to get a hold of the planner, the planner didn't respond to me. i got a note in my box on may 15th of 2014 saying let's talk, there have been many change, i responded the same day put a note in the box and i got a call back about five days later saying, oh you know, it's -- sorry this is late notice but they've already approved it, so i did -- and the permit said mail 311 in hold on the 22nd,

so i did submit a dr application by the time that may 22nd period of 30 days was up i did file dr because i hadn't talked to the case planner about the fact that this in fact is given the information there it's deficient in terms of required rear yard area. mr. sanchez is talking about something being done to the legally nonconforming structure that's not the issue. there's a certain amount of area that's legally required and based on an 80 width by 90 depth that's 7200, and 25% of that is 1800 square feet. they're deficient in the amount of usable space by about 900 square feet, and if they put a

projection into that rear yard, then they're going to up the amount of square feet that -- they're going to intensify the non-code compliance and somewhere in these papers, i've got interpretations, planning code section 172 says nothing can be done to increase non-compliance and this is what's happening here by permitting a horizontal rear addition they're increasing the non-code compliance and with the way that chris hall had in her [inaudible] -- >> excuse me but your time is up. >> alright, thank you. i hope that you don't go for [inaudible].

>> mr. michelle you have three minutes. >> hi i'm jacob michelle. regarding the permitting process, it took quite a long time, i thought, it took about two years and we did try to engage ms. amini at every step along the way. there were some changes to the plans that were made because requirements after the planning department reviewed it, they made suggestions and we adopted those. i think the key point is that no part of it extends past the rear setback, and we did everything we can to be cognizant of that and minimize the impact in that part of the yard. that's all i have to say. >> okay, thank you.

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, on the rh1d district it's not a lot coverage rimer, there is setback requirements, so it's not -- you can have a building that may need code requirements that exceeds maybe 100% lot ko*rj, we've had projects like this in the past, that's because over time t zoning control can change and you have non-complying buildings which is this is a non-complying building and a non-complying structure can be expand but it cannot create a new discrepancy it cannot encroach further into the rear yard and what they're proposing here is an expansion to a legally non-complying building that does not create an additional discrepancy therefore it's code compliant, i'm available for any questions thank you. >> mr. sanchez, do you see any

neighborhood harm being created by this expansion? do you see any prevention of any neighbors, light, air, view, do you see anything that makes it an albatross in general that is inconsistent with the sbekt of the neighborhood? >> no. >> thank you. >> anything mr. duffy? okay, so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> actually the horizontal addition of ms. amini is objecting to is the farthest it can be away from her house. the reason i asked the question on what would be considered a rear yard because if the permit holder had taken the opposite

property line at the rear yard where mobster of his building would have been non-conform he would have been able to add significantly more to his building at grade in a horizontal fashion but it would have been much closer to ms. amini's house and i believe that her -- she went through very detailed analysis but some of her assumptions are incorrect in terms of where that coverage is. at this point i see no reason not to allow the permit to proceed. >> i concur. once i drive by the site every day. >> any other comments? >> no. >> a motion?

>> it's 10:00, what do you want? >> move to deny the appeal and to allow the permit to be issued in that it is code compliant. >> thank you, commissioner. >> there is a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to uphold this permit on the basis it is code compliant. on that motion to uphold, president lazarus? >> aye. >> vice-president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. . er thank you, the vote is 5-0, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. moving on to the next and last item, item 11, appeal number 15-054, augustine fallay versus zoning administrator, 3378 sacramento street, protesting the issuance on march 17, 2015

of a request for revocation asking that the department of building inspection revoke bpa number 2015/01/02/4850 because it was proved over the count ir in error by the planning department. mr. fallay? >> good evening, madam chairman good evening, members of the board, my name is gus fallay. this is dr. yen kalika, he's an orthodontist and wants to move his office to sacramento street. first you need to know who this guy is he's an american trained o*rt don'tfisting and has worked very hard, he's been revered by others in his field and obviously he has a lot of praise but it is not so much

what his qualifications is that is the matter is what he does with it. i sent him my brief stories about him through his [inaudible] life. i sent in my brief through his sfiel more life foundation, through that foundation, he has kids whose parents cannot afford to work on their teeth he has also adults who cannot afford the fee, he has been praised, not only by his -- not just by his local community, as you can see, apart from the letter you have in my brief this is captain cheryl farino

who said she's pleased to work with someone like him and she's talking about how many children he's treated free of charge and they're bring k more children to him, it's not just being praised by this report by the cal foreign yoo assembly legislative assembly and basically he was given a certificate of recognition by [inaudible] but beyond that what this case is about really, it's quite straight forward. dr. kalika wanted to move his office from gary street to sacramento street and he was looking for a building that can allow him to have his service. he called his realtor who will be here to talk about that. basically they eventually found a building this is only part of 2014. once they got this build they contacted the building department to make sure they can have a medical service on it. on several occasions, i asked

the realtor, they contacted not just one not just two, they have letters to that effect, so they believed at the time they bought the building that they could use it for medical service, that is what they believed at that time, so when they bought it, they came back to the planning department and asked for a permit in order to reconfigure the interior of the building so that he can bring his medical service there iet esalready been gutted, the contractor is here and they're going to testify to that fact. he's wasted a lot of money he didn't sign the lease on gary, he has already abandoned it. this is the only building he has now for his practice and he has put in a lot of money over 60 thousand dollars to buy materials for this particular building. now, basically, the planning department is saying that -- and this is where the code comes in that the reason why they revoked the permit was because it was an art gallery

and some of the neighbors went around telling everybody that it was an art gallery, but it wasn't. where there was an art gallery existing in this place there was never a legally permitted art gallery in this building and there has never been, and i'm sure the zoning administrator will agree with me on that, the last permitted use was an office and he was told he can use this place once it's an office on the ground floor to put his medical service, he just took it and went in. dr. kalika from his record is not a kind of person to do things through the back dao, he has a name and reputation he wants to protect, he was shocked for the last five months, he's been using this building as a management building for his other offices from sacramento to san

francisco. now, when he heard he was shocked because he didn't sign his lease, he has bought materials for this new area and they are inside the area, it is gutted. we are here because of rumor that is are not true, those false rumors have given birth to this meeting today because everybody was told that the place was an art gallery, it wasn't, and therefore it could -- they were told that dr. kalika could not put his medical service there and that was not true either. what is true in area is that the code is very clear that you cannot have a medical service as an original use in any building except if you are replacing an office, a professional office and service and on the ground floor. now, no medical office is

accepted or allowed in this building or any other building in this neighborhood on the second, third or fourth floors. it is not allowed at all, it is illegal. you are allowed on the ground floor and below, dr. kalika bought a ground floor he bought it and below that and tried to put his office and he was stopped. the grief we have here from the neighborhood, we have strict zoning laws that you try to keep, if you have strict zoning laws you want to keep, dr. gar n*et who's leading this particular effort has two offices on the second and third floor on the buildings she lives in, why [inaudible] they have singled him out for whatever reason, i don't know, but he will be with your help the only second orthodontist in this neighborhood and what we have to say and what i would like you to think please, look

at him, what this would do to the neighborhood, plus the profit, what harm would it do to have mr. kalika in this office? absolutely nothing, he is to bring good, so uphold this for him to continue to do his renovation and bring his service to this neighborhood. thank you very much. >> sorry your time ran out. >> you can speak on rebuttal your time is up. >> okay. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, the subject property is located within the sacramento neighborhood, since the inception of the commercial district controls in the late 1980's, medical offices have not been allowed within this

zoning district. beginning in 2013, there was an amendment by supervisor farrell to allow for limited new medical office uses and that will be only allowed when the existing use was a legal business and professional service use but that is the only relatively recent change. the subject property was last occupied by an art gallery and it was occupied by that art gallery for some time, probably 10 15 years or so. the appellant has argued that was not a legal use, that's the last legal use of office, however no evidence has been provided to support there was ever at any point in time a legal office use, even if there was a legal office use, any such office use would have been abandoned by the fact it's been occupied by the art gallery, it is a retail use that is permitted within the zoning district medical use as stated is not allowed, the business and professional service use which the appellant seems to have created five months ago to

justify the conversion to the medical office use requires a conditional use, and so we revoke the subject permit after it was brought to our attention that maybe the facts weren't quite as clear as they should have been on the permit when the permit holder put as the present legal use health care management office and proposed use dental office so i think staff at the counter probably subverted it going from business professional service to medical office and seeing that that was allowed and limited instance ins the sacramento and cd aproved it but when it was brought to our attention that it wasn't that, the last use on record was an art gallery and i think even the appellant will not dispute the fact that any office use had there even been one has been abandoned. it seems to be their best argument is that a business and professional service has been established by the appellant five mothers ago but there's no

permit to do that, there's not a building permit, it would require a conditional use authorization in order to ob pain a professional and business use at this location so with those facts i thought it was pretty clear cut to have revocation of this permit, i think what was stated on the permit was somewhat inaccurate and that led to the revocation. i'm surprised there's four minutes left, i guess it was more straight forward than i was thinking. i'm available for questions. >> how did this come to your attention? >> this came from the district supervisor's office when they proposed this legislation a couple of years ago, they wanted to make sure they had limited applications because of the concern about proliferation of medical services and the proximity that cpmc, they wanted to maintain a balance, it's