illegality of the various components of our home but is ignoring and the home is a rear yard cottage which reads when a proposed project is adjacent to a lot that has a cottage used as the dwelling unit at the rear of the lot, notifications to the buildings' design may be necessary to reduce light impacts to that cottage specifically. decisions on protecting our family's access to light and air should be based on the current structure where we are actually living, not in the imaginary structure that wouldn't pass approval if submitted today. although it offers a 4 foot setback, the rear building will significantly impact the home's access to light and air. so here is the picture where the red line indicate where new structure will be. and one bedroom is fully blocked. and our only bathroom window is

also blocked. the excessive depth of the building with the bench park by decided that the house fronts on carolina street. and unless we see the facing part on the 22nd street. and when you look from the carolina street, there are zero entrances. if you are in the yard with carolina which is to 21st street and we are confused why there is this dilemma. no way to answer or -- no way to enter or exit my home and is only enterable from the 22nd street. if the home fronts on to 22nd

street and with the calculation for determining the building wall for the additional plan. so here is the clear picture and i believe it will make things clear. the green is what is currently the current situation and obtain the red line and where the front of the building has come to and is a large, nice house. and the correct code from carolina street which is the 883, then the line is the yellow line. and the response continues to focus on the illegality of entrance to our home via 22nd street. the plan misled the planners to our house fronts carolina as mentioned before, and again, decisions on protecting our family's access to light and air

should be based on what we are living right now in, not what an imaginary structure that would pass approval if submitted today. so finally, i would like to recap for privacy and like the plans to be amended to a reduction with the height of 30 inches. and the reduction of the year yard to the accurate 60% coverage. with the lot coverage and with the three-car garage. off thank you. i have a couple of questions, sir. can you go to the illustration on page four.

so on the window reduction, how is that going to change the privacy for your property? >> since the window is height and width is increasing, they can clearly see into our yard where we hang out and through the windows where we live, sir. >> okay. >> if you would like, i can carry this and actually show this -- >> go ahead and turn it. you don't have to carry it. so where is your rear yard? >> this is where we are. this is the proposed building. these are the two windows. where is the yard that you play?

i am talking about the back windows. you said the back windows would see into the yard. all right. thank you. that is it. thank you. >> thank you. mr. cole? >> good evening, members of the board. i want to talk about the residential design guidelines and how important they are and how badly they are being ignored here in my brief, it makes it clear that the residential design guidelines are not guidelines at all.

they are mandatory requirements just as zoning is mandatory, just as building is mandatory, just as the planning code is mandatory. so even if a project meets all of the building code requirements, all the planning code requirements, all the zoning requirements, if it does not meet the residential design guidelines, if it does not comply with the residential design guidelines, then it may not be approved. and it is the planning commission's and this board's responsibility to make an affirmative finding that the residential guidelines have been complied with, and to state how they have been complied with. in this project that is before you, they are not complied with.

the 2003 decision of the planning commission was that the residential design guidelines had not been complied with. so the project sponsor waits 14, 15 years, comes back with essentially the same size project, and now the planning department says it does comply with the residential design guidelines. well, it can't be both. it can't comply and can't fail to comply in 2003 and comply in 2016 when these plans were filed or whenever they were filed. it is this board's responsibility to say how they have been complied with. in my brief, i also attached copies of the residential design guidelines, the specific pages that i thought were the most important for this particular project, and i am not going to and i don't have time to go through each one of those.

but the one that is most apparent, i think, is the mid space, mid block open space requirement. and that is on residential design guideline, page 26, and that is part of exhibit b to my brief. and it says, in the residential design guideline, even when permitted by the planning code, building expansions into the rear yard may not be appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall. depending on the context of the other buildings. so the residential design guideline is telling you right there that the planning code is not the last word on whether something should be allowed, and the fact that the planning department has issued -- has allowed plans for this mid space open block to be in many ways eradicated is directly contrary

to what is required of the board by the residential design guidelines, and based on that alone, this project should be denied and sent back to be reconfigure sod that it does comply with the residential design guidelines. on that same page, 26 of the residential design guidelines, they caution against boxing in neighbors with buildings that extend into the mid space, mid block open space. they say we should not -- or you may not allow neighbors to be cut off from mid block open space. and that is what this building, this proposed building s doing. it is moving into the mid block open space and cutting it off. on page 25 of the residential design guideline, it says that it is not sufficient in the area

of mostly two-story buildings, it is not sufficient to allow a fourth floor and set it back. you may allow a third floor and set that back, but you can't allow a fourth floor to set it back further and set it back consistently with the third floor. on page 26 of the residential design guidelines, it says you must, you must disallow that fourth floor. the last point i want to make is if the fourth floor is allowed, which the prior point is it should not be allowed, but take into account it will be the highest building on the block, the top of the hill, out of context, but if you are going to allow it, do not allow elevator shafts, roof gardens, etc., to

be put on the top of the fourth floor which will effectively raise this height from the 40 feet that is allowed to 45, 48, 50 feet. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. you have 35 minutes. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. i'm bill canihan, owner of 891 carolina street purchased by my widowed grandmother in 1963 and inherited by my uncle, aunt, and father and given to me and my late wife in 2012. i am not a developer. i have never developed any property. i am trying to rebuild a family home for me, my future wife, my young daughter, my 82-year-old father who wants to live next

door to where he was born and raised. and i would like to also build a three bedroom, modest family size rental as additional housing in the city. as a brief history of 891 carolina street, two sets of my great grandparents settled here between 1905 and 1910. my grandmother purchased 891 in 1963 and i remember as a young boy playing in the house, the backyard, and attending sunday services at the christian church a few doors down the hill. in 1965, my grandmother wanted to help a single mom ava and her teenage boys, so she agreed to rent the house for only $100 a month rent with the agreement that the tenants would do the maintenance on the house. unfortunately, they never maintained it, they took out weight bearing walls, ava passed away, and a decade later when her sons moved in 2012, they left the house in complete

disrepair filled with trash. 18 years ago my father wanted to return to his neighborhood and proposed a larger, more contemporary two-unit building. the appellant prevailed and following a few years of attempting to reach an acceptable building design and size, my father gave up and gifted the house to me in 2012. as i was facing bankruptcy due to medical and care giving costs for my wife's a.l.s. lou gehrig's disease. our family dream was to build a home with an elevator so she could get outside the home. we needed room for our young daughter and ultimately two full-time caregivers. sadly, my wife died two and a half years ago. today my young daughter and i rent an apartment. my father would love to move back to petrero hill as a family, we each need a bedroom, one guest bedroom for an eventual caregiver. thank you. i want like to introduce my

father. >> i'm william canihan the 82-year-old father of bill jr. i'm a native san franciscan, born and raised. i did most of my schooling in san francisco. i grew up to date next door to 891 carolina street. i started this project 18 years ago. my objective is to live in one of the two units on carolina street. the appellants demanded and got six redesigns which included a lower height of the project, which was passed by the city.

a change in the roof style from our style which was passed by the city. a 4 foot side setback of our property line to accommodate the appellant's los of light issue which was passed by the city, and a minimized lot coverage footprint, if you will, to accommodate the appellant's desire which is passed the city. when san francisco changed the zoning from r1 to r2 on a 25-foot by 100 foot lot, it anticipated a higher height than r1. taking a look around the neighborhood, you will see plenty of r2 buildings that have four stories. ours is not the first. ours is lower than 40 feet in height and not excessively large. we have already spent $300,000 to this point only to have our

approval plans challenged yet again. our house that sits on two units is an ugly house. we know that. we tried to through rent control accommodate the lesees but to no avail. the question is, do you want an updated building or lot? and a house that is trashed? many neighbors keep asking when can we see the updated building? and i have no answer. we went through this 18 years ago. don't be misled. at issue is the loss of view from a window that does not have a view corridor protection according to the city. note the window that will lose the view corridor is in a room that already has a window.

the appellants already have view corridors on the west full view, on the south 22nd street to the east a setback from the firehouse. so please allow us to go ahead after 18 years to build out these two units previously passed year ago. >> and you guys only have 29 minutes left. >> i was going to do my socket puppet routine, but didn't decide to bring them. sorry. good evening, board. my name is john long, architect and we are the architect chrt project and from the area and and from the we worked with from five years and to try to come to some solution here.

>> and the department and the r.d. a.t. with six major rescissions and with the scrutiny that the appellants have been giving us and we should have another full disclosed process here. i just wanted to show you the documentation of the timeline in the board package and numerous meetings and outreach we did to the community. i wanted to share quickly the numerous changes that resulted in the six major revisions that we have done to accommodate not only the appellants but also working with the rdat to get this to be an appropriate and approvable project.

the appellants say this is the curious thing. the appellants say due to their own building, force modifications to our proposed project, versus recognizing their building is the anomaly. this front absolutely -- this runs contrary to the base extenants of the planning code which is to encourage conformity. their request that we should shorten the building by 15 feet would result in the loss of minimally three bedrooms. two on the lower unit and one on the upper unit. and we don't believe that this is a reasonable ask to accommodate their nonconforming building. here is the site diagram and so interesting that they have used a different diagram about how one accommodate ascotage. this is the diagram here specifically in the residential design guidelines that show when one building a building next to a cottage, that ask for a setback on the side. our building is exactly follows

that diagram if you can see here. we are setback 4 feet from the south property line and we have not blocked any of the nonconforming windows. many of the -- that's actually a huge concession. we understand and we do believe that the biggest concern is from the front and what one is calling the study that does have a view of the downtown from that one window. the rear rooms in the back, the views are not being blocked. our building sets up from the front, the rear, to minimize impact and the top floor is discretely tucked under the gabled roof. i just wanted to point out we did have originally roof decks on both the front and back of the building. privacy was never a concern from the plants during the whole process of the d.r. but because of the planning commission's they removed both decks on the front and back that opened from the bedroom. the concerns of privacy have been minimized.

we also in discussion with ms. bishop, we did remove also the parrapet for the back part of the building in order to reduce further impact. although there are numerous code violations on the adjacent property, the most egregious to the immediate neighbor is actually that garden fence that provides them privacy but actually provides fairly hostile environment for a passerby. we know there was a building permit that was pulled for that fence, but we know that also planning did not review that fence. the reason why i bring this up is that there's been so much accusation of how code violating this project is in regards to the planning code and yet they have actually this fence that needs to be at least 75% open and cannot be higher than 6 feet

if it was going to be on the property line that face the sidewalk. i would say we are very disappointed that after numerous alterations and modifications of the last five plus years they have never changed their position of opt situation. through the numerous years of practicing as an architect in san francisco, i am used to making modifications and comprises, but unfortunately, i am disappointed we could never reach an agreement on this project. as you can see, there is still this opposition. regarding some of the specific issues that were raised by the appellants, the side setback is erroneous. it is 2'9" and therefore even in the current condition does not qualify as a legal means of egress. there is no issue with the fire exiting in the rear yard. we got an equivalency and meets the area of requirement of safe dispersal. and this is an appeal to the

site per permit, d.b.i. has approved that as an area of safe dispersal. the environment for egress to the public way is not required here. yes, we did have an error on our -- with the curb cut in the first and the middle. it was pointed out and we immediately changed it and as you know, there's been numerous -- there have been an enumerate number of meetings and we tried to make the drawings and as accurate in possible and we showed a curb cut. it was not meant to mislead anyone. i courage you not to take the appeal and approve the project as submitted. i am going to turn the podium over now to brett gladstone. thank you. >> good evening, brett gladstone. >> and appellant gardener is correct that the rear would be

eliminate and three or more bedrooms are lost and the renovated building would not reach the depth of the other buildings. which i will show you in a few minutes. not even the adjacent building oen the other side of our building is substantially deeper than our existing building today. i wanted to address the argument that the appellants have that their entrances are op 22nd street, and this is the best photo to do it. this is an a photo of exhibit d. and you will see the entrance steps -- thanks, darren, over here, are showing in the original photo of 1921. where these steps removed with permits?

no. was the fence given an approval by the planning department to be higher than the 3 foot that you see here which is code complying for a front yard? no, and i will show you that in a few minutes. approval from the building department, but not from the planning department. why don't you though that? thanks, darren. this is the back of the permit by which they obtained a fence. and as you can see, it is approved by the building department and not approved, not applicable, not even sent to the planning department as you know in those years, not everything was sent to the planning department, unfortunately. planning would haven't approved it even if that they had applied for it and showed it in their plan, which they didn't. could we see their plan? this is john lund's office hand drawn version of the hand drawn general contractor drawing attached to the permit you just saw. we can't, of course, copy proprietary plans, so it's a

microfiche. you will note a couple of things. first of all, you don't see any second door created, first or second door created on the 22nd street side. those are completely would permits. you don't see planning approving the 6 foot. and i wanted to say that the most important thing and we can go to the next drawing, the old drawing once again please. is that there is now between these two windows a door where one of these doors was -- excuse me, one of the windows was made into a door. there is no permit on file for that. and at the rear of this just outside the permit, the appellants showed you a rear door they labelled it rear door in the photo that mr. gonzalez on the lower floor says he uses. sorry? i'm sorry.

mr. rodriguez. sorry. says he uses. and there was no rear door in that, and the rear door, in fact, that he showed in the drawing or rather in this photo is much shorter than this 6'8" height required by code today. it is not the 3 feet minimum requirement of width. so it could not have been approved by planning, nor could the 6 foot fence here ever be approved by planning. planning's policy is and has been for the 35 years that i have been involved that any fence above 6 feet must have significant, i think, 75%, openings in it, 75% openings in it. and the new fence does not. we are talking about neighborhood impact. the planning department's guidelines have always been that the most unfriendly thing you can do for your neighbor in the front yard is to create a 6 foot

fence that has absolutely no openings in it. and that's exactly what has occurred. as you can see, the original building has the entrance facing carolina. the original building was a single family home. you can see from the permit shown to you by the appellants and their drawings, that they submitted a permit to legalize two units, admitting that the second unit was a unit created illegally. in addition to creating that illegal unit, they have created the side doors on 22nd street. so what we're talking about here is taking a project that's code complying and that's been so long in the works and effecting it based on building that has all kinds of violations, specifically they're putting all the doors on 22nd street.

violates the code and now claiming that you should observe 22nd street as the basis for the claim that our rear yard should not be as deep. also, the door that now lies between these two windows or in lieu of one of these two windows, not sure which, has a gate that opens across the sidewalk without an encroachment permit from the city. it has a triangular landing which is dangerous in its size. it is not 3x3. and moreover, the steps that you saw in their photo of that aren't legal in terms of risers and runs. and the concrete was poured poorly. obviously without permits. and by the way t planning commission when voting 7-0 in favor of our clients went through all these reasons for

declaring that 22nd street should not be the legal frontage of this building. so basically you're taking their word, their allegation that 22nd street is the front of their building and means that they're going to take advantage of work that is illegal and what kind of message is it that we look at illegal work and we use it as basis to turn down a building which is two family size unit which is hasn't been occupied for decades or more most of the last two decades, i should say. the block pattern. all corner lots on the entire block are oriented with their access in the same direction as our clients which is east-west. this building next door is the

anomaly. and that is very typical orientation for the blocks to the east, 4096 and to the southeast, block 4160. [please stand b

. >> it's a completely different physical situation, and so their argument that that ruling applies, and that you should take it into consideration is -- is simply meaningless. there's no basis for considering the property line that divides the two properties as being the rear property line of 897 carolina. in addition to having no set back from the north line that's shared with our client's property. 897 carolina does have a small set back from the east property line. for rear yard purposes, the greater yard is typically considered to be the rear yard by the planning code and that's been stated in interpretation of planning amendment 130 c. let's talk about future

development at 897 carolina. if it's ever torn down, and the owner did have the right to choose as to whether 22 street or carolina street should be its front line, any building with entrance on 22 needs to provide as you know a minimum of 15% rear yard at the rear, which would be along the side property line of our client. i said 50 feet -- i meant 15 foot rear yard that would be built by the appellants. maybe they got a mayor variance to -- a variance, but even with that 8 feet, they'd have a building of 17 feet deep. that's not logical, that's not what the planning code is all about, and it wouldn't be approved today. let's look at the next photo here. i wanted to show you from this photo the building next to our

client's building. this is appellant, this is a building next door, and how deep it goes into the rear yard compared to our existing building today. also look at these buildings. all these buildings built along here have deep, deep rear i can't remembered. now we're not proposing -- i'm sorry -- deep buildings into the rear yard. now we're not proposing to go as deep as this. you've seen what we're proeptsing, and it comply -- proposing, and it completely complies. here's a better view of it. here's the building next door. here's our building super imposed. here's the corner appellant building, and here's the building next door today on carolina, and you can see what we're proposing the depth is roughly equivalent to the depth

of the adjacent buildings to the south, right? yeah, to the south. we have provided mitigations to preserve the light to appellant's side property windows. our current building, as you know, has a corridor of 2'9" on the side that doesn't meet the fire code. never has. we're not proposing to allow it to continue to exist. it's not safe, and we're agreeing to create a greater set back along that line which has not been recommended by the fire department. we'd probably lose three if not more bedrooms considering how much feet is left at the four floors. and that will never be a safe means of egress. again, on the property line windows, we have told the appellants in return for

withdrawing their appeal, we would obscure more of the side property line windows than we have already obscured, but tonight, we're not making that pros proposal contingent to them discussing the appeal. but we are here to discuss more than the side property windows in if the plans before you. -- windows than in the plans before you. the proposed height of 36'11" as determined by the planning department is below the height limit of 40 feet. as you can see by stepping the mass in front of the building and using a gabled roof form, the building does not read as four stories when viewed from

appellant's corner lot. by the way, within the dormers that you see here is that elevator shaft -- i'm sorry, on the dormer on the other side is the elevator shaft, so there will be no new appurtenance on the other side to indicate the elevator shaft. are they monster rooms? no. the upper floor of three rooms are 2,908 square feet. the building that was rejects was a very different project. it was one that required variances. today's project does not. that project was not required to the same kind of intense scrutiny as ours do, and the residential design guidelines, i don't think they were declared to be part of the planning code

and mandatory that year. i think the williams case that was discussed by mr. gold came many years tlahere after, so --o the residential design guidelines back then were not applied as thoroughly as today. there were six notices of planning department to the project sponsor about how he should change the design in the last few years. the r.d.g.'s were very thoroughly applied here, and without disparaging the former architect at the time in the past, i just don't think that plan was as sensitive to the adjacent neighbored as this one. as you know, it triggered variances. this one does not. a new perspective, a new

building form, a newark tech has created -- new architect has proposed a new building. the pink outlines refer to an original referral to the city, and the blue represents the new outline. look here at the front line here and how much the building was set back at this key frontage back here. and as you can see, it was produced at the rear -- reduced at the rear, and it's been reduced at the corners, and a gabled roof has replaced a flat roof. much more sensitive building. also, the building here is approximately 500 feet smaller. the program is different, set backs are different. most importantly, the neighborhood has changed in those many years. there's many more three and four

story buildings. there's many sing will family home that's have turned into duplexes, and as i mentioned before, the sizes of the units, approximately 2,000 and 1900 feet respectively aren't terribly large. in fact when the planning department passed the residential design thresholds last year, which were later reject does, they specifically indicated the maximum sizes of three and four bedroom units, and these units do not exceed what was proposed to be a maximum under the residential expansion threshold. the building does maintain the original basement floor. as you see, it measures only

34'7" tall at the top of the gable, and 2 feet higher in the middle. just for context, the adjacent north neighbor's gable measures 30 feet. so just to conclude, and for give me for going on, i rary harary -- rarely have a chance to, but the appellant's property at 897 carolina does as you know contain a nonconforming building as to location, and planning code section 187 b states nonconforming uses, structures or lots, in failing to meet applicable requirements of this code are incompatible with the purposes of this code and with other uses, structures, and lots in the city and it is intended by the code that these uses, structures and lot shall be brought in compliance with the code as quickly as the interest

of the fair parties will permit. now we're not asking that that n nonconforming structure of the appellants be brought into code, although we wouldn't mind seeing side doors being created for safety. but what we are asking is for you to consider what a shame it would be to take a nonconforming building and let such nonconforming building what can be built next door today, especially given the amount of time and scrutiny the planning department has devoted, given our housing crisis which the mayor's office has asked the commissions to improve the number to family duplexes and to create them in the largest possible size for families, especially in rh-2 neighborhoods. we do want to propose --

although this was contingent on a proposal that never happened, that we select a small of selects plantings -- a wall of select plantings, and would show where we're going to add obscure windows. again, i'm proposing these tonight. they're not in the plans, if you wish to make them conditions of approval, that would be fine with us, and we'll show you in a minute where they are. so you will see it on the model, i'll explain it. let me make sure i get this right. the way i believe it's explained it we're going to take the windows on the two lower floors facing appellant that are not already shown in the plans as obscured, and we're going to obscure them below typical eye

level. i forget what that is to make sure that privacy -- excuse me? 5 feet, we're going to obscure them below 5 feet. would you point the windows out? >> if you could -- i don't know if you can turn it 'cause the camera can't see that part. the camera's facing the -- >> little more. >> more. >> little more. >> finally -- >> yeah, right there. >> right there's fine. >> we're offering tonight that the owner appellant of 897 may choose the paint color on the wall opposite that faced them. i mentioned plantings, i mentioned obscured wall, and the right to paint a color, perhaps a light reflective color of the choice of the appellant at the corner. thank you very much. >> you still have a minute and

35 seconds. >> well, i have a couple good stories, but i think i'll leave them to the next meeting. thank you very much. >> could you clarify something for me, please? >> sure. >> i heard one thing, and then, i saw -- i saw pointed out something else. the windows that you were talking about obscuring, was that only the second floor or was that the second and third floor? >> it's going to be the first and second floor, not the third and fourth floor on the side. >> now you've confused me further. >> so why don't we point them out. do you have a plan, an actual plan -- >> we've got a model. the model's great. >> yeah. can you show the model on the screen, please, so we don't have to go through the turning around. >> sfgov listening, can you -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so that would be the second floor, correct? >> right. >> okay. and my question is is it the

second and the third floor or only the second floor? you indicated with words that -- to me, that i heard, the second and the third floor. is it only the second floor or is it both floors? >> i have a question for the architect, darren. are there property line windows behind the garage of appellant at that level? i can't see. the garage hides that. are there property line windows on the ground floor of our building at the same level as the garages that we see on 22 street? >> yes. >> yes? [inaudible] >> but why doesn't the architect point out the windows that will be obscured, please, instead of the lawyers? >> my understanding here is that we were going to take the property line windows, which are the ones that would impede on their privacy and create the obscuring so that one in the

rooms, you would be able to still see the sky, but not look directly onto those -- >> [inaudible] >> one in the bathroom, and those two other closest here are two bedrooms. >> yes, that's fine. >> thank you. >> it's just that lawyers should never talk about architecture. you know that. >> is that all? >> any other -- any questions? >> no? okay. >> we are now moving onto -- >> julie, can i request that we take a four-minute break between and ask the city's patience so that we can >> okay. we are returning to item number 5-a through 5-e, and next up, we have richard sucre from the planning department.

>> welcome, richard. this is your first appearance at the board, but you are make regular appearances at the planning department. >> yes. >> you have 35 minutes. >> i'm here just to discuss a little bit of the planning department's review as well as the planning commission's actions on the proposal. just to give you a little history onto the background of the project, just so that everyone is clear in terms of the kind of long history that this project site has had, you know, the original permit for this came in 2001, and it included demolition and new construction of a newhouse. that permit was subsequently withdrawn back in october of 2002. subsequently, the same year in 2002, the project sponsor was the father of the current owner, filed fore vertical addition by

included a set of variances in the proposal. in that, a d.r. was filed of the building permit which was then brought forward to the planning commission who then substantially reduced that proposal in size. that was subsequently withdrawn by the project sponsor's request, so that was kind of shelved for all intents and purposes by the former owner of the site. in february of 2014, the project sponsor filed a new building permit, proposing a code complying alteration as well as another existing addition which included a vertical addition and horizontal addition to the building. the department worked fairly exhaustively with the sponsor.

we typically do works iteratively with the sponsor. so items get reduce index size and volume as perwhat -- based on what they kind of provide to us. and ultimately, i guess i'll focus a little bit on two kind of main items that the appellants are bringing up, particularly with regard to the rear yard as well as the compliance with the residential design guidelines. i think two things are getting conflated and confused in the discussion of both. planning code section 134 outlines a rear yard for most residential buildings, particularly in the rh-2 zoning requirement. this building has a baseline requirement of 45%.

the code has a provision that lets you reduce that requirement based on the adjacencies of the buildings surrounding you. so ultimately, the planning department and in particular, the zoning administrator had final determination on what the qualifications are for the adjacent buildings that surround them. and so what's getting -- what the appellants are contesting is this determination about whether or not the 897 carolina is a corner parcel or if it's something that follows the development of the street or the block. i think mr. kostem's presentation, he showed the impact that it has on our determination of rear yard. it was noted that i -- i discussed this issue with miss gardner back in november of 2015. subsequent discussion with the zoning administrator from april 2016 clarified where the

department's determination was regarding the rear yard. in this case, we ruled that it followed the development on the block. in this case, they're allowed to take an averaging rule for the property at 8 will 97 -- at 891 carolina street. so in this case, the zoning administrator's determination did evaluate the type of development standards that would occur on 897. we did look at the historical record of the building and its orientation on the block to basically make the determination that the building did conform to that larger pattern. it would be noted that of -- a lot of the arguments about whether or not the development standards would apply relative to 22 street versus carolina, if it was -- if the building did face onto 22nd street, the

buildable area for that lot would be very narrow, and so it wouldn't be basically be able to -- you'd basically have a 10 foot wide developable area because of the width of the lot and its length. so it's a key note in terms of whether or not the building was considered code conforming. i know in working with the sponsor, the department advised not to seek any types of variances. we did determine that the building met all standards of the building code. subsequently, when we brought the building out for neighborhood notice. the planning commission did review the proposal, including the arguments regarding the rear yard and the arguments regarding the residential design guidelines and did determine that they did ultimately end up

taking d.r. and did remove the roof decks, but they did approve the massing and the volume before you today. they did cite some of the concerns with the roof decks, but the overall form and design of the building was maintained in its current configuration as kind of shown in the building and the lot. so i just want to kind of stress that the planning department is the final -- the zoning administrator is the final arbitor in terms of what the configuration -- that a -- what the planning code offers in the review. [please stand by]

>> the property line windows are not protected by the planning code and not by the building code, to my knowledge. >> councilor, in his short presentation that he gave, indicated that he showed pictures of frontage on carolina. so it was legally converted asper thasper the planning. it appears now that there's garages where that entry would have been. >> i would have to research that matter a little further. we haven't researched the case history behind the work that has occurred at 897 carolina. >> it appears to me that because they're saying that 20 second versus carolina, i often say that people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. you know. so, because of the fence situation, i realize that isn't a non conforming fence as well.

>> the fence in its current condition doesn't meet the requirements of the planning code. the planning code would allow a three-foot tall solid fence or a six-foot tall fence that is 75% open. >> last question. regarding the side yard egress, i would imagine that egress inside the building at this point? >> yeah, egress issues are guided by d.b.i. i'm sure mr. duffy will address that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner lazarus do you have a question? if the building on the corner didn't exist, would the setback be adequate? would you see that this project would be approved? >> so if the building on the corner did not exist, you would basically take the rear yard based on the other building on the other side. it would align to the other building. >> so, you are not given the opportunity to do weeks of

analysis on this. would you bird dog this a little bit and if that corner project wasn't there and you were looking on the back of a match book, would it get approved? >> likely, yes. if it's in the current condition. as i said, we did quite a long review process between 2014 and 2017, we worked on several iterations with the architect and if the proposal before us was to come forward in its current state, we would likely would approve it. >> on the issue of previous council, they spent a lot of time on the non compliance of the corner building. he showed us the picture over and over again. i saw a non-paved road and

probably something that the conditions have changed in the city. and during that time, god knows how many changes in the planning standards are there. i don't know because i don't know. maybe that six foot fence was allowable in 1936 and it was put up in '36, who knows. or some other time. or all the other changes. when you have a nom complying building like this, but again, it was built in another time and in another age when there wasn't a paved street on the outside. how much does that really matter? >> we do -- this is a fairly common occurrence in san francisco. so you know, we're an old city. we have a lot of buildings that were built to a variety of standards. we have provisions for legal non

com formance. we don't penalize someone for having something that doesn't meet our standards of the code. in this case, this provides an opportunity for the adjacent parcel to have a rear yard that extends further out. the planning code provides for the provisions to allow for that and in this case the calculation of the rear yard currently ends is appropriate and meets all-pro visions of what the code would allow. >> final question, um, one of the appellants requested the largest windows -- i heard two things. thethey wanted a reduction on se on the back side. they want