i've been trying to bowl i enjoy bowling a very good support and good experience most of you have of of all love the people's and have a lot of have a lot of few minutes in mr. mayor the san francisco play lawn bowling is in golden gate park we're sharing meadow for more information about the club including free lessons log >> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, november 18, 2015, meeting the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer xhaundz and she's joined by our vice president is

commissioner honda and commissioner wilson and commissioner swig and at the controls is gary the board legal assistant i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we'll be joined shortly by the deputy city attorney robert ryan and we'll be joined by representatives wurjz and senior inspecting joe duffy and joined by the department of public works bureaucracy of street use and mapping i anticipate that chris buck is an urban forestry from the department electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway.

permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv.

thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking so prelim you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you, very much he item one general public comment an opportunity to speak on the board's jurisdiction anyone who would like to speak under item number one seeing none, item 2

commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners? okay item 3 the boards consideration of its minutes for the november 24, 2015, clirgz additions, deletions, or changes if not may i have a motion to approve. >> so moved. >> okay. thank you we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes any public comment? on the minutes seeing none, we'll call the roll commissioner fung commissioner hyland's commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that that motion carries 4 to zero item 4 the jurisdiction request at 26 avenue that's been withdrawn and not be heard tonight we'll move on to item 5 the appeal william cop and barbara smith sign beggar the

property on protesting the issuance on april 30th to chang of an alteration permit for temporary storing this was held in 2015 and anyone for fallout consideration the matter was continued to allow times for party to allow time for the settlement i see we have council for the appellant we have anyone representing the permit holder i had a conversation with mr. sanchez if we again center that we'll show up here he expect him that was the last directive from his i'm going to proceed without him if he comes in can tell you what part. >> is that what the board would like to do it make sense to delay that.

>> we'll wait. >> call the next item okay thank you. we'll be back to say shortly. >> thank you. >> so i'm going to call item number 6 appeal tony verse the public works bureau of street use and mapping on 4 hundred owe 30 california and street and mission street on the issuance of a mobile food facility permit for the crab roles and clam chowder and others this is the permit and . >> director i have to reuse myself. >> thank you commissioner swig excuse myself moment will i. >> i want to make sure that both parties in the room can i

see from the permit holder is here great i know the department is here so, please proceed with 7 minutes. >> i'll make this brief thank you for hearing this. >> platinum par 101 ac l a i will be less than 7 minutes on this the main appeal for this is with regards to public safety where the proposed permit is approved is in between two fire hydrants the proposed space is well within the perimeters wants 7 feet of first fire hydrant what traditionally happens on mission typically a busy street in the financial stick out we see the food trucks interpreting

this or massing the perimeter parking a space two or after often two spaces before and after if this proposed permit goes through this truck will likely park in the spates that space that is due est the proposed space that will block the fire hydrant and winchester well within the 7 foot perimeter. >> most likely wouldn't be available so i don't expect the permit holder to not do business in the spot was not available is that i live potential park in the closest i think violates the art c-3. >> and that is all i have on

that. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the permit holder. >> i'm the permit holders justin with the lobster truck i'm the owner eave heard tonys. >> can you speak closer to the mike. >> for the fire hydrant we're supposed to be more than 7 feet away the spot we confirmed with dpw and went over a couple of spots meeting the requirements the one that did is 7 feet away as tony mentioned park is an

issue there and it does involve circling like the circle waiting to get a spot wait for the vehicle that this spot to move the permit is not for going everyday so i believe it the way that as spoken with others trucks in the way i've seen it done usually involves another vehicle to secure another spot you don't end up parking down the block i think we should be able for the most part park in the spot and comply with the 7 feet requirement. >> will you be using the same truck that was - >> yeah. we have a truck permitted with the city of san francisco so the size of the truck stays -

>> yeah. it stays the same 23 feet long and i don't know that take the first right of refusal spot and goes into the second spot a little bit per vehicle code up to take up 2 spots. >> i have a question how many trucks. >> for the last truck two in the supply but not in the sfefbs do you run the truck personally. >> no, i have staff it does. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the department. >> campground commissioner president lazarus and commission go with public works before i get san francisco the specific concerned give you a little bit of background on the application so the applicant accomplice for a multiple facility permit for 3

recognizes and today, there is one location at miss that is appealed after review and sending out the proper notices for the hearing public works decide to approve the permit it was submitted onion 8 slash 27, 2015 the depended moved with the approval on mission street substantially the permit was appealed and just to so we cover all the basis that were outlined in wants appellants brief i'll go over the points and arguments the first thing two major food facilities for the lobster truck so per section 482 of dpw order the public works over may

consider whether 3 or more permits for lapsing times is a valid request and it was addressed at the hearing and the recommendation for that was approval in addition the public works codes states that more than 2 anybody else foods facilities maybe approved at the same time, however, regardless of that those locations are separate i believe the 3 permits that were of concern were faith swash and i think is good so you have a better understanding the request do a faith sandwich the food permit for a pushcart is on the sidewalk a few parking spaces down and i think the food is good is several parishes away

overlapping should not be an issue the argument that the permit holder want two parking spaces is it imagining valid public works and mta both enforce the section of expelling order which states the company shall not occupy more than 2 parking spaces and the proposed space will, greater than 7 feet away from the fire hydrant so if parking is not available they're not allowed to violate the parking code and no parish they're allowed to take two parishes the permit holder will be out of luck and the section 3

c just outlines all the requirements for pushcarts and trucks based on the review and diagrams you can look at the site plan that shows all the clearance and to reiterate if parking space is not available and if only parking space will violate the parking code the permit holder will not be allowed to park there this is issue with mta and public works i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> go ahead. >> mr. chow we've had two appeals within this general area i think one was the pushcart and one was the truck was that the other one you showed several spaces away. >> i believe what was appealed previously i belive this is this one i think is good that one was transferred and that was an approved permit from 2012 i

believe from the p k industries that's the one intuitively of the not what with the department but the one that was appealed but ultimately permitted at it location. >> by other trucks in this general area. >> currently i know one other applications for another truck this is on mission street. >> so on the one side. >> correct adjacent to what is i think is good is located. >> a question regarding the enforcement so is there - so if the permit holder is charged what violating and getting a ticket is there a point where he gets so many tickets losses his license. >> under the permit code from the permit as violations or contribute it is up to the

director discretion whether he or she wants to take action it is constituted it is a continuous violation we'll raise to the directors level. >> nothing in stone of a particular number. >> no. >> i have a question excuse me. >> didn't you put up in parking signs on the meters that indicate i know monday, wednesday, friday no parking there. >> no, we do not those mobile trucks are not allowed to reverse parking spaces but if a prirmentsd go location is not available their out of luck. >> i'm working towards broadway and i was walking down there those meters are -

>> that's the operation so public works will not issue any temporary occupancy or tow away signs how those signs are considered a special events because of amount of trucks and amount of revenue florida therefore mta identifies those are special units. >> so you don't get to park there. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal if you care to use it. >> this goes ton is previous out ever lodge comment i don't find that out of luck comment to be used i guess when they say he can't park in they're proposed spot for example, on his map

here the faith is good truck generally parks probably more like here every day excuse me. tuesday and thursdays. >> so with regards to that i know that the majority of times i understand this is a generaltion those trucks do take the spot as close as they can get and again, this is a conscious issue if under internal revenue a there are is a public safety issue and think there will be when this truck parks in its not proposed spot i had several xhufkz with bret cohen of dpw enforcement of those trucks dpw will not come and toe one of the trucks occupied with the person and

very railway cites them because of the lack of their knowledge in the perimeters for that the food trucks or the mobile food facilities so again, i do think it is public safety concern and he do not believe the permit should be approved any questions? >> thank you. >> mr. me. >> no rebuttal okay. mr. shaw anything further? >> shaw with public works to emphasize our role is in progressing the permit we have to strikingly look at what is permitted and at this time we don't know where the applicant will park that becomes an enforcement issue we look at the plans submitted and going go

with the code if there are safety issues it is recommended the public contact 311 so the proper function can take action. >> maybe i have a - >> as the applicant showed on the map is packing parking not in they'll assigned space what's the citation. >> i believe he was referencing the truck in this case, the dpw can give them a violation and that violation is documented so if they try to renew their permit in the future

or try to apply for other permits it is noted with tare account and if that continues we'll raise to the directors level. >> who will the public contract 311 are matt. >> so they should contact 311 they'll route to both parties dpw enforces the actual items but if a parking issue in a red zeroing zone that is an mta issue. >> thank you for explaining that. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> go ahead i'm jump in and well, i mean the appellant is saying it's a safety issue the

department verified the measurement i don't see a basis at this point. >> no i don't think you can challenge it on an eventual outlet if it keeps the permit it deals with violations down the road if they occur. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> thank you commissioner fung on that monoxide commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner wilson commissioner swig is recused that that motion carries four to zero. >> and looks like mr. santos is joined us we'll return to item 5 it's been called

you can wait for our commissions to return and step forward. >> this is item number 5. >> thank you. >> commissioner president lazarus since this item was heard we'll give the parties 3 minutes each i don't know if so is - okay. go ahead and kent for the appellant and nobody is more glad than i to see mr. santos show up the last time on september 3rd we were asking the board to revoke the permit on a

steep hillside in san francisco we have the original where we live not submitted anything the settlement that was reached within i myself and is responsibility that night included a schedule which called for submitting plans for winterization and stabilization by september 16th we received those plans that have substance to them on october 23rd the appellant comments our consulate were to be back to mr. santos we got back within 24 to 48 hours and the permit a was supposed to have been apply for by september 30th and finally issued on november 16th so things are in the air things had a habit of we would

continue the matters on the condition work would start on a date so tonight we're asking to revoke the permit mr. santos will tell you the permit is issued and a construction that will go and prepayment provisions make us happier we don't want to see a project start and not finish the hillside has rapidly deteriorated this is a picture that was taken yesterday afternoon the stabilization maps are failing apart a tree in the middle and hillside is we've been lucky with the rain not

here and we don't want to count an luck we have a proposal i'll let mr. santos i will if i am the blank the folks are stage the area on monday and pray for rain and thanksgiving and their commence construction actually have shovels and dirt on in front of 28 taking 14 days to complete the plan, which i calendar as december 11th there are others conditions that mr. santos and i needs to work out this is a private agreement outside the scope of this hearing but i'll gladly turn this over to mr. santos and mr. patrick the golden gift will be on site. >> you're.

>> we've met in the hallway this work is to be finished by december 16th it would behove any clients to get the hillside stald if that's the case then i'll ask this board it be the hearing until the earliest possible dates the work so to be finished mr. santos. >> commissioners mr. santos a

structural engineer we have a permit the permit was issued on friday took a little bit of time more time we anticipated i'll tell you why dbi failed to its original permits had to be reviewed through the structural advisor commission perhaps this permit they felt would have to throw that it taken 3 months i was successful in per skidding. >> dbi to review this permit in order to structural experience water management and drainage exercise not talking about a structural calibers but filed for the structural stability we're talking about water mettle

we we have a contract and approved approved permit goes to commence the project tomorrow with 9 equipment on monday and we're making a pledge in writing we'll completing complete this effort by december 13th commissioners i have to tell you my client has nothing but the utmost respect with the neighbors and make sure that work is implemented as quickly as possible and we'll be using the services of surveyor to make sure the money and proper controls and have the good lost on site for four different locations so commissioners, thank you for

your patience we are commencing this week >> what's the status of permit that was appealed is that been voided that's part of continuous. >> you took out a new permit. >> right this is a new permit the winterization was a different permit. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening commission joe duffy dbi just on the permit that is suspended it is for temporary shoring and we then had another permit that we issued kind of an emergency permit that installed the shoring i know you saw it on the

earlier photographs now the erosion control needs to get through as quickly as possible i imagine the permit undsuspensio new increment i believe the winterization permit because i want to read out the language on that permit they're going to start working on payroll tomorrow i believe the rerecognize plan no winterization construction of a one foot to 2 foot retaining wall within the lot and future shoring under separate priority priority that future shoring plan in the submitted later is for the permit in suspension i believe that's the simple way of mr. sharp that and the shoring plan under suspension about not

work in its present form i think the best thing to do get the erosion control and bring it back could be a cancelled permit it is definitely i think there, there - the one thing i went to the site i agree with the appellant and neighbor this needs to get done as soon as possible the photos should the work is failing that work needs to happen tomorrow. >> i think we agreed two months ago. >> yeah. i know anyway, i was not aware the hold up at dbi i would have been to step in we didn't wouldn't do the review to

get it done one of the hillside that needs stabilization as soon as possible procedurally the appellant is asking forgive a continuance to appoint immediately after they finish the work on the weathertion i'm not sure that make sense procedurally because the appeal is on the temporary shore that needs to be replaced since the work that was done at the site didn't conform to the original shore plan yep that's right. >> but procedurally it make sense just so continue this through the chair then. >> i think it's right. >> with the idea a new shoring permit is needed. >> i believe they're working

on the design for the shoring permit it is mr. santos might speak to that but it has to be totally redesigned. >> from the new 0 shoring plain is 80 plan is architectural we'll handle it as a condition revolving this appeal. >> exactly we did that a number of things we could do that shoring permit is under appeal that is superintendant could be cancelled with a better permit as well and that's another option there are a couple itch or of things or conditions on the shoring permit. >> could you explain that again commission. >> the appeal is on a temporary shoring plan, which the design of which is basically voided by the construction activities that occurred on the site it was different than the

shoring plan some dpains doesn't account for the work on the site and the shoring is designed a little bit differently that's not going to come in for a while. >> why wouldn't we uphold the appeal and wipe the slate clean since they have a permit to do the work necessary right now and then the flex permit will come in as it would come in why are we even kicking the can down the road if we. >> i agree with commissioner swig that's my thinking. >> but we lose control of the appeal i am not that's the reason why i was asking how

sorry the reason i was asking. >> i think the appellant would like the boards involvements until he gets the hillside stabilized. >> i agree that with as well i was wondering with what the forward process upholding an appeal. >> leverage. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment on that item. >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it could be either way but i think it make sense to be able to make things move faster. >> i agree. >> so i would support probable continue this to the call of the chair. >> care to make a motion.

>> move to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> okay. is that go until allowing time for a new shoring to be prepared is that the reason all right. commissioners commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> we're on to item 7 which is appeal i want to make sure that the department is in the room is there someone if urban forestry. >> anton you need to wait mr. levine. >> i think you need to push this back any way to check. >> i think can you - you want

me to do this. >> the department is not present in the room we'll previous to a water until the department is here as a respondent so sort of as the first item we'll push back a little bit. >> he's not in the hallway? >> i was texting him, too. >> so commissioner president lazarus do you wanted me to monarch more often that is item 8 verse the zoning administrator and the property on pacific avenue protesting the issuance on september 23, 2015, of a

surveillance and rear yard modification to provide a 10 wide vehicular entry on pacific avenue and an 8 foot widest pacific avenue to provide minimum rear yard sixth district with the increased sent on the 2, 3, 4 and a floors we'll start with the appellant. >> part that have i need to disclose i've hired reuben, junius & rose on a separate matter reuben, junius & rose before the board will not have an effect on any decision today. >> good evening for the appellant this appeal seeks to modification to two variances that shouldn't have been issued but this will be injuriesus to the properties if their exists

the loopholes lynch additional will be more crowded you'll hear this from long term residents because of proposed development a block light further crowds the lights and we're asking you to overturn the zoning administrator's error the modifications those administrations don't need for a various 33 variance they don't need the criteria for a surveillance and will harm the surround properties first, the the zoning administrator. said it will not please be advised the surrounding property century sun study determines 94 percent of lynch additional is in shadow

to reduce the sunset to thirty percent putting all of the additional into a shadow and zoning administrator claims no area of shadows this should strengthen an argument more open space is obviously need in fact, lynch is among the narrow it israel to the country and section 134 requires a setback over 25 of the area depending on our interpretation of we take the lessor setback both building is setback 15 feet as opposed to the discretionary review process an exception on top of an exception to exclaim inform

pattern of open block middle school mid space the zoning legislation that was passed and signed by mayor newsom requires a 20 percent setback how does make sense it inspired legislation and predata justification for going against this legislation after the fact nothing could be further from the truth the two proposed building will tower over the area two stories again, the zoning administrator also claims the building fronting the street will be two stories and the 2 stories expression is among the street the building is one and two story structures not 4

masquerading as a 4 structure now the opponents have cleverly worked other than or around the legislation and explicitly has the assertion saying it provides the same benefits and denying the neighborhood a rare opportunity to create any speak up in the neighborhood the project will front to back injury and take the usual open space those plans eliminate the riders rear yard setback socializing needed in the neighborhoods lynch additional is dark and crowded two more over built properties can't make the situation better by puncture for holes in the walls it doesn't make sense the city a

dark and crowded and threatened by further encroachment it is a gross misrepresentation for the requirement for community furthermore they don't meet the variance the zoning administrator decision was clearly an abuse of discretion the zoning administrator is emancipation proclamation trusted to protect the planning code it requires a rear yard setback and areas that is assessable to residents those are against the construction of a full lot makes no sense it is also, regardless of square footage numbers presented by the opposition the raeshgd is a distinct community plan that

ignores and the zoning administrator based his judgment that predates the legislation it should, used as a standard it fails to meet the justification of the modifications and because it will block light crowd the block introduce out of character structures to the neighborhood the zoning administrators error should be corrected to require the minimum 15 foot setback as specified by the neighborhood legislation thank you. >> excuse me. >> i got a question a point of clarification you used in our beginning remarks you said thirty percent of the remaining sunlight. >> yes. and eliminates by this project you'll that's correct. >> so thirty percent of the remaining 6 percent. >> thank you. any other

questions. >> how do you come upon the calculation. >> that was done by our consulting contractor. >> it should about or be included in the brief if not we'll include. >> excuse me. >> the shadow study was not there. >> if you desire we'll send it to you absolutely imagine okay. thank you very much. >> we'll hear from the permit holder attorney. >> hi good evening mbes melinda reuben, junius & rose i'm here on behalf of the harold's on pacific avenue mr. chalking and his family owning and operating small businesses over thirty years sponsors for 2

single-family homes on the retails site once complete they will occupy the pacific avenue building and continue on the ground floor the board should deny it because alcohol, tobacco & firearms variance were properly issued in the planning codes in addition the city chapter considers an appeal the board must appeal to the zoning administrator for the or use his discretion the they've met their standards the zoning administrator issued two approvals for the project the first was a variance from garage entry loud a 10 foot entry that was a practical necessity for the sites and the patents appellants didn't oppose it the rear yard modification is this is not a variance and subject to different findings the planning code combrfrz the zoning

administrator to modify or have the rear yard requirement in 3 criteria the zoning administrator determination clearly explains the experience with each of the material that includes the residential use with a compatible amount of open space on the lots in an area that is more assessable to residents this standard is clearly met and the projects will construct two new single-family homes in terms of the amount of the rear yard area the zoning administrator notes there is a discrepancy in the codes wherewith 25 and 40 percent setback regardless of the plan that provide a open space on the site and the western elevation of the project 1364 on the monitor it shows in red areas. >> can you holds on one second

our screen is flickering sorry. >> all right. so it shows in reds the areas of open space into the buildings through decks on the third level and fourth level moderately sized deck one and 20 to plus this is sheet 8, 7 a code compliant rear yard will contain 4 hundred plus depending on the standard you apply the building looks at will provide 3 housing unit and 66 secret likewise, the code compliant in a compatible area of square feet meeting that reminded finally the open spaces that will be provided are more assessable and usable to residents than a rear yard

setback they provide access to a below grade garage with a setback in the area whether not useable for the residents at the dr hearing the place of business commission discussed the rear yard setback is on-street parking and trash in the area that is less desirable than the decks the second riders finding the prop d will not impede the life enrichment committee to properties this standard a clear mets by the building design it is important to note the projects must comply with the setback a non-variable planning code to prefer light and air following the construction adjacent to the area siding on the overheads the setback is significant no part of building

expend beyond this industry this is shown by the purple line the stent of this setback is unmatched by buildings in the area the effect the tier design the garage are setback 3 feet and a second floor setback 6 feet approximately and each level is 9 and a half feet by the time you reach the fourth floor 40 feet you're setback more than 28 feet from lynch street not only will the setbacks it will insure that the decks are vertically operated from adjacent structures this does not adversely effecting the properties the fact all the buildings in the south side of lynch spreadsheet are built

ousted with no rear yard additional no space to protect the rear yards instead the separation b is by the south sidewalk so sidewalk 17 and a half feet wide and placing a renders on the monitor- - rendering on the monitor as you can see the context of the built development the red arrow showing the rear the property from lynch street the image shows the buildings with rear yard setback what you're seeing is built outs very often for the full height of the buildings themselves so three or four stories this electricities to intimate scale of development along the additional as you can see the rear yard modification was properly issued and fully support by all the riders

finding the appellant may agree but not shown in the zoning administrator reason are erroneous thank you for your time we're available for any questions. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members mr. sanchez the subject property is located westbound the pacific avenue converse district the proposal that is before you are appeals of determinations i made regarding first a variance for the garage door and second for the rear yard it is clearly articulated two separation in one letter have separate findings so the variance for the garage door has the regular

finding as you can see on appeal the latter part a rear yard modification there are 3 vastly different finding the application was submitted new 2013 went through the neighborhoods and a hearing in april of 2014 at that hearing he didn't make a final decision but expressed concerns so there was neighborhood option protesting encroachment as well as the overall height up to the height limit there were proposing other structures substantially a discretionary review was filed additional there ever continuances for a variety of reasons ultimately the planning commission and i had a jointly hearing at that hearing much

discussion about the rear yard encroachment additional you know but the planning commission and myself found that was justification for the proposal as it was ross are very substandard lots 17 and a half feet wide and 20 by 60 needed deep the proposal to build a single-family dwelling above ground floor commercial and very much respect to each other we felt after much design review adds to the neighborhood character the commission adopted a within what the 3 foot setback the first level facing lynch street and planting the strips adjacent to the driveway we reduced the size of the commercial windows facing lynch street and the notice that is

standard condition but also prepolluted u excluded the commercial floor to residential uses that is a concern that was raised i feel that the required finding have been met we've outlined them, no opposition to the variance aspects the 5 findings outlined what the variance relate to the grayish garage door no issues but issues to the criteria and i'll read them again, the criteria in order to justify granting this rear yard modification we have to find that there are residential uses in the project there are and that there is is a compatible amount of open space provided on e development more assessable to the development and in this case they're providing terraces assessable from the living level rather than having the rear yard that would be you'll have to you know go to a stairway to the rear

yard and these open spaces are more directly to the residential using unions it is come applied with the second criteria sorry jumbled ahead the structure will not impede the light and air from adjacent properties some of the concerns is relayed to the project that is not within the required rear yard it is 15 feet is that is only the basement level at the first four stories beyond that up to 40 feet in height even if the building is brought back the 15 rear yard it has an impact on the shadow as well as the exist buildings that are legally notary republic compliant with the property line in both of those cases not a

greater impact here than already exists and you know part of commission concern bring that bye bye 3 feet to engage the pedestrians on the streets a bit more to soften the building at the rear none of the believes buildings on the street have that condition a way to improve that. >> that was a condition and that's been added and final criteria it will the adversely effect the just a few minutes properties this is why it is relevant the nature the adjacent buildings this finding specifically asked to seek the building to replacement the mid block no move forward these are the just a few minutes buildings go to the rear property line and having any rear yard is a unique circumstances i understand the

desire the communities have more open space and mid block but also think this is a bit unfair to can one pertaining to bear the burn for or burden for the open space for the desire community that is a property that is code compliant and i find this is to a justable application than significance amount of progress with multiple his and her and the planning commission and we'll deal with the scope of the project this is just for the garage door entry and the rear yard improvement encroachment and the overhead project will have the building permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> how the accident calculate the height. >> so the allowable