>> that is another page number that is different. i just want to make sure we understand that we are on the same page and whether we are proving a specific plan or a plan that achieves a specific goal, i guess that is for us to decide, perhaps. >> yep. >> thank you. >> argue with the permit holder, because you still have time. is a some if you were sitting with? >> no, that is the architect, we are fine. >> do you know the page numbers we should look at? >> come on up. >> i am the architect. i would like to clarify the sheet numbers for the board. >> speak into the microphone more. >> the approved permit that you have in front of you which references those pages are both of the original permit applications which has not been

revised, of those do not show the two parking spaces or the storage space. exhibit j and the appellant's brief it's reflecting what we show in exhibit a of our brief which is to restore the parking spaces and to the storage space and i like to clarify that the approved set as a side permit. we intend to submit an addendum before we can start any work and receive our job card and we would like that to match what you see before you dated this month of this year. >> thank you. exhibit j is the one we want to look at. thank you. >> thank you, you can be seated. we will now hear from the department. the planning department. >> thank you. the subject property is located within our zoning district and contains an existing 16 illegal units. proposes to add four on the dwelling units of the ground

floor. the issues have been raised by the appellants here is the removal of their housing services and the loss of the storage in the parking. it is great to hear they have reached some resolution as to how to proceed. i refused -- i reviewed the plan with the permit holders and that would meet planning code requirements and we would drop one of the proposed four dwelling units and they would retain the parking. it is all fairly straightforward there would be at least the two sheets, the a 150 and the a 201. the 8201 is a basic floor plan, and the 8150 is the exiting diagram. there maybe other sheets that need to be replaced as well. we have not received a full set of the revised plans. the permit holder has. the permit holder is asking to trust us, we will revise the centre the, because addendum his

are not appealable. if after they don't do it, that is the end of it. what the appellant is asking is that he grants the appeal and adopt the revised plans, i don't know if the department his have the ability to look through plans, or they haven't received full at revised plans pick the exiting diagram will be more interesting of a requirement for d.b.i. to review. and other issues at the permit in the project description says five additional dwelling units and now they would only be proposing three, but we could work with d.b.i. through the special conditions permit to make that change, it would not be the first time that that has happened, but it does make things more complicated down the line. one thing that was raised by the appellant is the noticing that was done by the property owner to inform tenants of their rights. it is concerning that there were issues raised by the appellants that i did not hear at all responded to you by the permit

holder, it maybe they thinking response about how they correctly did notice, but a couple options of either board to continue the agent to to allow the property owner to submit the revised plans to the departments and come back at a later hearing to adopt this plans for the agreements that they worked out in the meantime, they can also redo the notice to make sure it was properly done and posted invisible and conspicuous locations, and also that the proper people were mailed to the notices. and a half being done, but at least they will you be able to respond on a rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> it would be your recommendation, i am hearing, for a variety of reasons that you would be very comfortable with us continuing this for a couple of weeks just so forget the plan states, get all the dust off the furniture and move on.

>> you are -- i'm really not a fan of continuances, but given the benefit that could be had to allow for full revised plans to be submitted and proper noticing , i think it will help it get ironed out. >> don't leave yet. do the units comply with the exposure requirements? >> yes, all the units are meeting through the front. they did the glazing at the front. the four separate units have windows at the french that face onto the streets. they are meeting -- meeting the exposure requirements. >> there is a building requirement for exposure, also. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> you thought you would get through a whole hearing without us. >> it's okay, it is not really a big one for us. the original permit was actually properly reviewed and issued by

d.b.i. the revised plans, we obviously have not seen them yet, and i would encourage the architect to contact, if we are going to do a continuance, to contact the original d.b.i. plan checker and rent the new plans by building code with exiting and egress, light and ventilation, all those things will come into play, and to make sure that they're going to be okay if we do approve them under -- under a special conditions permit. the permit will drop a units. we we have the original permit at four units, but now we will have three units, so they are a little complicated when it comes to the permit to get the wrist -- reinstated that we have a special conditions permits. we will have to be aware of c.a.c. time and make sure we do our paperwork properly. it gets a little confusing, but that's what it is. that is all i have to say on it. just go to the d.b.i. plan check

and make sure it meets code before we put it through the process. >> thank you. >> thank you. is that any public comment on this item? how many people here are here for public comment? please come up. >> come on up. >> hello, my name is kathryn, thank you so much for having me. i live in an apartment building 759 sixth avenue. i wanted to affirm the appellant 's case. i did not receive any notification of the changes to our apartment building in any public areas, or in a mailing, and this is concerning because it did represent a loss of housing services. i just wanted to let you know and affirm their case that there was no notification to the tenants. >> thank you. did you lose any parking or storage? >> no. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you.

connect speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm with the san francisco land-use coalition. i just wanted to bring up in support of the appellant, the process of noticing for the a.d.u. as you know, there are a lot of issues with this process, particularly because the workflow is broken, so the landlord is supposed to notify the tenants by way of posting their notice in some common area , as well as sending them individual letters, but there is no way for the department, for either the planning or the d.b.i. to verify to make sure that this is actually happening. in the absence of that, when situations like this arise, in this case, this wasn't, i'm sure , as you have noticed, it wasn't okay for the tenants not to have received notice.

it is pretty clear as we heard, and secondly, this is a dispute between the landlord and the tenants. this is a contractual dispute, and we wouldn't have been here and going through the memo have taken it as mediation with the rent storage. this is the correct way of handling this. we are not expecting every a.d.u. that comes to light, for tenants to be okay with it, so we will be having situations like this, but we do want to encourage landlords before they go through the permit processing , if the tenant has issues that they will have to take it with the rent boards because you cannot evict cars or storage without just cause. this is the law of the rent ordinance, so i do not understand why we keep on facing

situations where the landlords are basically breaking this law and we have to bring it all the way to you as an appeal, and sometimes we win, and sometimes we don't, so i am hoping that this body can actually shed some light on this. this is a contractual dispute and should not get to this level , that two party should resolve it at the rent boards before it comes to here. that is sent. thank you very much. by the way, one last thing, i want to remind you that there was a case 363 jersey when they were -- when there was a similar situation where the permit holder after receiving a permit arrived here with some changes and they wanted to memorialize that, and you cited with the appellant and he took that case and forced the permit holder to go back and redraw everything.

this was last year. thank you. >> thank you, is there any other public comment? >> good evening, my name is dave , i am a neighbor on the same block on sixth avenue, i don't live in the building in question, but i'm sitting here thinking to myself, his any consideration given to the reduction in parking spaces on the lot? it was not clear to me how many parking spaces are being removed , perhaps four or five, i am not sure, and then there are new units being added, people with more cars. the street is already packed so i don't know if this plays into decision-making at all, but i see a reduction in parking coming to my block, which is already hard to park on. >> it is tough being a part

owner. >> it is. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? we'll move onto rebuttal and and hear from the appellants. you have three minutes. >> we are very glad that we are coming to the structure. >> i love it when you're smiling when you come up. >> i'm very nervous, actually. if i don't smile i may cry. >> sorry. this has been a long and drawn out process. it has taken so much away from our personal life and work life and we really fought for this. i hope it is not just for us. i brought my son here today so he can see that we live in a democracy and life doesn't always work out in our favor and it is not always fair. but we have so much more great system the other people. i want to thank you for this platform. it is so empowering.

my neighbors just came and i'm so happy we had this opportunity i want to assure you that we want to work with them. we have no problem with additional a.d.u. in the city. we want to provide housing for people but we don't want to do that with something illegally taken away from us. i can't just stop paying my rent because i will lose my job. i i have abided by this for over 16 years. with that said, i want to reassurances that with all of these changes that nothing will drop. we have had a lot of untruths and falsehoods through this process. we are on edge with the process but we want to believe in the process and we are glad that hopefully you are here to help us mediate for this process that would be the resolution that we want to. as much as we don't want to be financially compensated, we were given a notice during this process we would be compensated every month and again, we will

not make any income out of this but we don't want to lose anything, we would like to have provided this provision until the project is done. thank you for your time, we appreciate it. >> thank you. you did well. >> again, i concur with robin that we want to work with the landlord if we come to an agreement and we would be glad to see the board approve the revised plan once it is submitted and approved by the planning department. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i just want to take a moment to address the notice issue i was not part of the process. it was drawn to our attention and we did notice we posted more next to the door of the garage

area where the affected spaces where and where the storage unit was, it is right by the door, i have a picture of it and i could show you. we have mailed the notice for the particular language and mailed a copy to ourselves at the same time. so we did comply with the notice of requirement at the time. i have the copies with me and i can put them on the projector if you like. >> are you done? >> i still have a question. according to the brief, you have several other projects. >> that is correct. you seem like you are willing to work with the appellants pick this board will be here for a while. >> exactly. thank you. >> understood, thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, anything further? mr. duffy?

>> can you clarify so everyone knows what the notice of requirements are so that folks know what they should have expected or can expect if that is part of the future? >> the noticing requirement was implemented last year. it wasn't a requirement when the application was first submitted. it is essentially a courtesy notice for those who maybe impacted and expect to see a loss of services to inform them of the rights under the rent ordinance. it is not to notify you of your discretionary review or anything along those lines, but it is meant to make people aware that there maybe changes, and usually through the process, even before we have this noticing requirement, we were this -- expect the property owner to work with the tenants about what is going on in the property, and i will often mitigate or address any of these issues. >> it is a high expectation, just so you know. >> we will see those concerns addressed by property owners.

>> so what is the date, how many days ahead of time? >> it was a 15 day notice that was given. >> the question is, although we trust most developers, we still have a 311 notification that is required, and in this particular case, especially since the approval of mass a.d.u., that is what we see prolific right now is people are buying multi- elite units buildings and picking the parks awake. because they do the soft story retrofit, it allows him and a limited number of a.d.u.s as long as they can fit it and be illegal. but with that type of prolific stuff happening, shouldn't there be a more formal notification process rather than saying, hey, post a note up and we are good with that? >> that would be up to the board of supervisors. >> there is no 311 notice by the additional a.d.u. biggies a spee required you need to do

neighborhood notice for the addition of a dwelling unit and that is no longer required. >> we're starting to hear more before this body and the notification process was different, but this way it would help, especially people who are tenants at the -- in the city long-term, sometimes they don't have the access because we are working. >> it allows someone to spend money and file a discretionary review from the planning commission. >> it will streamline the process and the notification -- typically there will be a posting of the permit on the property when the building permit is issued for the a.d.u. and they can appeal that to the board of appeals -- appeals, a more streamlined appeal process rather than having multiple appeal processes every which way >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> who would like to start? >> i think we will need frank. we will have to condition it, i

think a continuation. >> i was going to say, i like mr. sanchez charge idea of a continuance. we need to give breathing room to all parties, just for clarification on what the actual plan is being submitted that the planning department have the opportunity to review the plan and they have the chance to review the plan and that the tenants are given the comfort that the plan is being reviewed and they're not going to be put into some corner. i would move for a continuance. just at the recommendation of planning at the very least. >> what are you asking for? >> a continuance. >> what do you want to see other continuance? >> a continuance resulting in the plans being properly submitted for review to planning

>> if you want to do this, you could go through a special condition permit whereby we issue a determination and it goes through building without having to wait. >> that might be a good idea. >> i also heard from the recommendation of the planning department that it would give some opportunity to the tenants to be assured of the comforts that they have really seen the final plan and that their questions will be fully vetted. >> it will not go through the review with the department, they can do that, but when it comes back here in a limited time frame, this board could issue a special condition. >> i would just like to see a continuance. >> okay.

>> i would just like to see a continuance. if someone would like to make a motion that incorporates what would make you feel -- >> you can make the motion. i don't care. >> we will allow them to go through the proper reviews, at which time when it is brought back here, we would take that set of drawings and issue a special conditions permits that would memorialize what has been permitted. >> just to clarify, it is to indicate the drawing. there's so many different numbers on the same drawing that allow the parking -- it will be a full set. >> i think it would retain twice what sparking -- parking spaces and a storage space. >> it would be three units rather than four units. >> right. >> is that acceptable? >> that works for me. >> so which one is making the motion?

>> i think the president. i'm the vice president, i give it to the president. >> a motion is being continued to the next immediate -- available meeting on april 17th . is that sufficient time? would that be sufficient time for the drawings and the review? >> come to the podium when you speak. thank you. >> are you requesting, and you can speak -- >> i want to be clear here. are the steps that are being recommended during the continuance to revise the site permit and then come back here, at which point we would submit a separate addendum, or are the instruction specifically the addendum? >> we are requesting to revise the drawings for a final set, submit it to building and planning for their review of that, get their blessing, and

then to weeks from now, bring it back here and we can issue a special conditions permits that would then be accepted by the building department. >> i believe the building department suggested to go back to the plan checker who reviewed the plans so that that person could have -- they would be his familiar and they would look at them. is that correct? >> come forth. >> to be honest, that is a streamline as it will get, considering the reduction of services. >> the only clarification is i don't submit the join us as much us bring them to dvi and go back to your plan checker and have them review the revised drawings for building code compliance and you might want to speak to your planner as well. cementing them wouldn't be the proper thing, but they will go to intake and that would be confusing, but then we would want some language on the special conditions permit to revise the language on the

actual project because instead of four units, we have three units, we are preserving garage spaces so we will need to work on revised language as well, but it is more or less contact dvi and. >> vice-president swig: the original checker. i can work with you on that. >> that would help you a lot, just so you know. >> does that answer your technical question? >> we just don't want to run afoul of this. we want to do it right the first time. >> and then just answer a question, would you be able to get the plans to them by our next hearing date on april 17th , would you have time to bring them in and have them reviewed prior to that time? >> yes. >> okay. we have a motion from the president to continue this matter to april 17th two enable the permit holders time to have it d.b.i. and planning department review, revised plans with the goal in mind that if they are acceptable that a

special conditions permit would be issued at the next meeting. >> we neglected to ask the appellant for their availability on the 17th. >> are you guys available on the 17th? don't cry. >> thank you. >> thank you. on that motion... [roll call] >> okay. , that motion carries and we will see you on april 17th. thank you okay. >> let's take 1212 minutes. >> we will take . >> welcome back to the april 3, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on item number. this is item number six, david

d' onofrio appealing the permit awarded to rob oliver for project proposing an addition to the existing single-family home. we will now hear from the

appellant. >> and computer? >> do you want to stand in the middle or do you have a presentation? >> i do have a presentation. >> okay. >> may i have the computer? >> yes. gary -- or -- okay. okay, gary. >> good evening. i'm dave, i'm the owner, and i'd like to say this is opposed by a significant number of adjacent neighbors in the area. red box is subject property at 11 gladys street. yellow boxes with the neighbors opposed. red box is subject property, 11 gladys street. my home is this perpendicular

blue box right here. so as a bit of history, this home was built in the rear yard of number 5 gladys street and occupies virtually 100% of the lot. so you know, at this point, there's a request to intensify this nonconforming structure. if i'm here in my back yard, i'm overlooking the roof of 11 gladys street. the roof line of is 1 gladys -- 11 gladys street, so if this building is built as proposed, these are some of the impacts on myself and my tenant who's here this evening. so of course rather than looking over the roof, there'll be a bedroom window in my back yard, which is my primary air

space. obviously, an impact of air and light, and there's an estimated financial impact of $400,000. so again, back to the aerial view, you'll notice that my house is set very far back from the street. my back yard is only about 6 feet wide. as it backs up to the reservoir, i can't use anything else. it is the 100% outdoor space for my tenant, lauren, down stairs. as i mentioned, my name is on the appeal, but in addition to myself, there's jerry bosco. she could not be here because of food poisoning.

she's going to lose light to her home, economic loss to her home. dr. green is going to suffer severe economic loss, severe loss of light. you can imagine. so in summary, it's not just myself that's impacted on this, my neighbors are all here. a big reason we're all here is we all support development on this lot. we have proposed multiple alternative solutions. we've proposed building changes or project redesign, and these alternative plans are not nearly as injurious to the surrounding neighbors. so what we're looking -- it's very easy to kind of dismiss this as a small 600 foot

addition down in bernal heights, but this has a very large out side impact in all of the surrounding neighbors, and i ask you in joining me to find a compromising solution that allows the project sponsor to get the size that you needs without impacting the neighbors. >> good evening. my name is pat buskovic, and i believe that this plan under 317 is going to end up as a defect in demolition. i don't believe in 317. i believe it's fundamentally flawed. at the back, there's a 12-foot tall gravity wall that needs to be upgraded. it's got 8 feet more dirt placed on it, so they're going to have to retrofit a 20-foot-tall wall and keep the building in place. they're going to add a third floor, and everything below is going to have to be code

upgraded, but they're going to have to keep everything in place as they upgrade the wall and the building. you can't do that. you can't deal with the fire upgrades at the property line walls and holding up the building without crossing the line and generally it happens in the field, where a neighbor, not me, not my client files a complaint that says you've torn too much of the building down. my client has given an alternative approach. i understand they don't want it. my client doesn't want to be here in a year depending that because on a defected demo, you guys don't like enforcing them, everybody gets hurt. they don't want to do that fine but they can't be doing a demolition in the field. so we've got an alternate approach, but if they're doing a variance, they can't be doing a variance that includes the

possibility of holding up a building while maintaining 50%, demolishing the back wall 20 feet tall while you hold the building in place. it's just not possible. so we would suggest that at a minimum, if you go along with the variance, at least refer this project back to the building -- or planning department after building marks it up and goes over means and metrics on how you keep a building in place when you do all this work. thank you. >> good evening, members of the board of appeals. my name is sarah hoffman, and i'm representing the appellant tonight. what this boils down to is the owner wants to add 9 feet of height. a variance cannot be granted

when it will injure neighbors as it will here. if the project can be lowered by just a few feet, we'll avoid most of those impacts, and our client is ready and enthusiastic about exploring compromise options with the project sponsor here. and we believe there are alternative options that are both feasible, they'll avoid an unlawful demolition occurring, and they'll avoid the injurious impacts of this project. thank you. >> i'm sorry. your client mentioned that you had alternative stuff. do you have something you could put on the overhead? >> if we could flash the overhead back up? >> laptop, please, sfgov. >> so if i can briefly explain it, a lot of the existing height of the project comes from the excessive garage height in the existing

building, it's an over ten-foot-tall garage. and so what our architect and our engineer have suggested is rather than trying to place a story on top of the building, where you already have a ten-foot garage, we can lift the building and slot a new level underneath. if you have anymore technical questions in there, mr. boskovic is probably the person to ask about those. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. so we will now hear from the variance holder. >> good evening. is this on? good evening, members of the board. thank you for your time tonight. jodi knight on behalf of

reuben, junius, and rose on behalf of the project sponsor. we're here today on a project to add 669 square feet to a 971 square foot existing home. it's a modest addition to an existing home. it's been through hearing by the planning commission, the zoning administrator, the board of supervisors, and a ceqa appeal, as well as a long review by the planning department, and this is a project that has been really thoroughly vetted by the city at this point, and we're hoping to have an opportunity to move forward with the project at this point. if i could have the overhead, please. this is just a little rendering to give you an idea of the relationship between the buildings. this -- this is the existing condition. you can see the existing house, and this is the appellant's house next door. you can see it's set significantly above and to the rear of the lot, and it is much

higher than the -- the -- mr. oliver's house. and this is the lot with the addition, and so you can see the appellant's house is still significantly above rob's house. and this is the front yard. i know privacy impacts have been raised. you'll see that not only is this area the front yard, but there's an adjacent house directly next to that front yard that has windows facing into that yard. it's not a private space. the deck that will be added, there are two decks that will be added, a small deck to the north and a small deck to the south, and that will be the only open faspace for the fami.

just to give you a sense of existing and proposed conditions -- sorry, that's a little bit small, but basically, the house as rob has it now -- thank you. the house as rob has it now has a very small bedroom. it's really kind of a -- barely a bedroom, and his kids don't have their own rooms. it's a really, really small house for the family, and what he's trying to do is add a level that has bedrooms for he and his two children and a bathroom that the family can share, as well as a little bit of open space. the building as designed is going to be 30 feet. the height limit is 40 feet. he could have technically put another level on the house, but really all he's looking for with this project is a small home that will be a sufficient size for his family. you can see under the proposed -- one change that was made that the property was

originally pulled back from the north and from the west to make sure it conformed to the slope of the street and minimized the impact on the street as well as surrounding properties. the roof deck on the north was pulled back to maintain the privacy to the existing building to the east. you will -- you have -- i know you have the variance decision in front of you. just to run through that very briefly, the findings as they were held in the variance, the findings were extraordinary circumstances. the lot is only 1,250 square feet. it's a very small lot. the house is built basically full coverage. the long end of the house is parallel to the street, so it's an exceptional extraordinary site condition. enforcement of the code would

result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. it would basically eliminate the possibility of an addition. essentially, this house is built in the rear yard and it's been this way for many, many decades. this house is an illegal conforming site addition, but if there is conformance, there is no addition, and this can't be a single-family home for any modern use. it allows oliver to create a useable single-family home. the square footage of that home is slightly less than appellant's home next door. the variance is not materially detriment to the public and the vicinity. we did hear some -- view impacts were raised. as we all heard a million times, views aren't protected in san francisco. there may well be some minor

view impacts, particularly from the front yard. and that house -- as we all know, views aren't protected, and we did do a study from the building itself, and you can see from a standing eye level, there's a -- there's a pretty moderate -- there's a pretty moderate view impact there. it will -- even with the addition, because of the way that the houses are offset, even with the addition, there will be -- you know, a significant view that's maintained, and then, this is actually -- we also did have seated eye level which has slightly more view impacts, but again it's not exactly an addition that's towering over the house. there are moderate impacts because it's building next door but this isn't an issue where there's significant air and

light impact to the next door building. in terms of the structure, the architects are here to answer any questions. we disagree it is structurally more reasonable to raise the entire house and build you want nae -- underneath the house. we've had multiple discussions, and we just don't agree about the building of the property. the proposal, we think, is not structurally feasible would add significant cost to the project. in terms of other structural issues, there will be -- this will be thoroughly vetted by the building department. they raised possibility of building issues. this will be reviewed by the building department. it's already been reviewed by the board of supervisors, and we're here today on the variance which we think was properly granted. thank you. >> i have two questions. in the brief, it says this

property, as you alluded to in your comment, that this property benefited from a lot split. do you know approximately when that was? >> i don't think we have the specifics? >> maybe the department might have some better clue on that. and then, the second question is how long has your client been at the property? 12 years, you said? 20 years. [inaudible] >> okay. thank you. >> and just also -- one of rob's kids are here today. his kids are approaching adolescence, and the idea of having the kids -- >> i have a 16-year-old. i'm sorry to hear that. >> yeah. >> we will now hear from the planning department.

>> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. it's located in bernal heights special use district. the subject lot is unique in its configuration as the permit holder variance holder noted. it's about 50 feet wide and 25 feet deep. typically, lots in bernal would be 50 feet wide and 75 feet deep and be oriented so that the narrower portion is facing the front. based on your records, it was -- our records, it was constructed in 1941, which predates not only the current zoning requirements in bernal heights special lot use district, but also our requirements that were enacted several years later, i believe in 1946. the variance holder submitted this application in 2015. they under went section 311

neighborhood notification about a year ago, in march and april of 2018. during that time, one discretionary review request was filed by the approximate alleyant in this matter. hearing was held by the planning commission on november 8 of last year. at that d.r. hearing, the planning commission did not take d.r. that was a unanimous vote to not take d.r. and to approve the project as proposed. it was a joint hearing, and the zoning administrator considered the variances at that time. subsequent to that hearing, the categorical exemption was appealed to the board of supervisors, which heard that on january 15. at that hearing, the board of supervisors upheld the planning department's ceqa determination, and subsequent to that appeal, the zoning administrator, mr. cory teague issued the variance decision letter for this case. with that, taking into careful consideration the impacts of the property -- of the project on the adjacent properties did restrict the size of the deck

on the north side of the property, considering that. and i think overall, this is a unique lot, but it's a unique block because it's on the same block as college hill residenc also, the midblock open space because the reservoir provides midblock open space. i would note that thad the building been more towards the front of the property, they probably would have had less negative impacts, it would have been less visual because they would have been maintaining a constant building wall in this location. i believe the property zoning administrator properly granted the five findings have been

met, the small size of the lot, the small size of the house, and the small addition that's proposed, it is a small set back requirement in this case. >> it is 3 inches in this case. >> inches, inches. >> size matters. >> so 3 inches for the front set back. it's approximately 3 foot front set back requirement, and it would have a rear yard requirement of 15 feet, so there's a very small buildable area on this lot, given the zoning restrictions which know reduce and encumber the subject property. so with that, i'm available for any issues that the appellant has raised regarding section 317 and possible demolition --

[inaudible] >> -- and found them to be credible. you know, things do happen in the field. we've seen this happen. it is not to anyone's benefit to exceed the scope of demolition, which will result in suspension of the permit and the conditional authorization use hearing before the planning commission if they're found to have exceeded the scope and delay the project review. not good for the neighbors, not good for the project sponsor. we do -- it's up to the architect, and i understand they're here tonight to demonstrate how they may be in compliance. that's really part of our building review, not part of the variance, but it'll be up to the design professional, who's actually signing the plans for this project so stand by those calculations. we appreciate that there may be others who are interested and make interpretations based upon the plans or their knowledge of

the sites, but we really rely on the professional that's signing the plans, we rely on those calculations, and that's all i have to say about that. >> i've got a question. are you finished? >> yes. >> okay. go ahead. >> so what is your thoughts regarding that the hardship of the property was caused by the lot split, even though not caused by this particular owner, that had the lot been the regular size, they got the benefit of having a lot split on a pretty small lot? >> i know the argument has been made before that whatever happened in the past is now the responsibility of the current owner, but when looking at the findings, we're looking at did the current owner -- it says, the owner are the applicant, are they responsible for the hardship, and no, they're not. i would not see that as being the case. also, at the time the development was made, it was

code compliant. the laws have changed -- >> and is the rule now roughly 8,000 square foot before you're able to lot split? >> no, it's 1,750 feet if you're within 25 feet of a corner. >> okay. and next question is both appellant and permit holder displayed pictures of the obstruction that would be -- but they look really different from each other. could you give me your thoughts on that as to which one is more accurate here, and look at the plans, as well. >> this is the problem with rendering and depictions. i don't like to stand by and say either of them. >> are you running away from the question? >> we reviewed the plans, and i can say this was thoroughly vetted by the residential design guidelines team, and the

zoning department. >> okay. don't run off. >> i was running away from every question i can. >> generally -- no. what about the alternative concept of putting -- putting the room down stairs and raising the building? what kind of -- i know we're in a variance discussion here, but what's the viability of that if that came in front of you? >> well, raising a building would still require a variance, because the existing building is a legal nonconforming. if you're raising it or not, it would still require a variance. i'll leave it to the design professional on this case to give their opinion on what is more feasible. i think either option -- >> six of one, half a dozen of

the other. >> we've seen some people make some ridiculous proposal like, wanting to raise a building five or six stories. there's no one perfect solution. we look to the design professionals to put forward the best solution. >> okay. thank you very much. >> but the corollary question is what does a code compliant alternative look like? >> there probably is no feasible code compliant design given the 15 foot rear yard and code compliant set back. it specifies in the variance decision letter, i think they're left with a buildable area that's -- i think this one is actually 6 feet. >> i was looking, just very quickly at it, and you can do more than that. at minimum, you would be adding the two rear bedrooms plus

something else in front of it. all right. based upon that, i was just wondering whether that was an alternative that staff asked for? >> i don't know what alternatives staff had asked for, but in terms of the any expansion of the envelope would require a variance because the buildable areas when you're -- [please stand by]

>> this is a great project and both houses that i built including this one and the one off sight. i want to put a wrap-around deck and pop up the floor but i don't want to disturb the neighbors and one of the things is it's not supposed to cause that kind of material damage. that's an amazing privacy loss for both of thos these houses. i think there's big trouble. pat alluded to that earlier, which is, i do believe this project will be red tagged. perhaps a different vary anson a different plan. here is that 20-foot retaining wall that has to be done to this new project. it holds back tons of rock on the neighbor's problem, that would be me. that wall will need a drain that has to be 12 inches. this is all code. it can't go on the neighbor's property.

so the drawings, as submitted, aren't even possible. it's a gut and definitely will destroy these floors. there's just no other way to do it. so i am terrified that this building will get partly disrupted and become a neighborhood nuisance. we have plenty of crime in that neighborhood during construction, i know. i got both my properties broken into. i was on the property everyday. imagine sitting there for a year. i grew up with brothers and it was crowded in there and i'm sorry about your 16-year-old, i'm a former public high school. i know some of this stuff. i feel for you and i hope you do get a variance that allows you additional space. you deserve it. but why would you want to do it at the expense of your neighbors? we will work it out with you, i'll double -- and thank you for your time. we stop this here before it comes back. no one is explained to me how they're going to do this.

>> thank you. hello. my name is amy kyle and the i'm the next neighbor over from dan, would just spoke. i think my letter should be in your packet that i sent in. i guess what i want to say is that bruno heights has a special use district that helps keep the houses aligned with yards in the back. it's a historic character for the neighborhood. this house is sitting already in what is supposed to be the open space on our block. for the lot that was subdivided. i understand that was done long house and the house was done long ago and he bought it a long time ago. i've lived there for 22 years myself. the way the planning department is looked at this has really not differentiatated the issue of a variance for horizontal space from the impact of the vertical

space. if this guy just came up here and said, well, it's going to node a variance no hatte mattert you do. it's not that everyone is opposed to any variance, we're opposed to the major increase in height. the other issue that has been misleading the way it's been presented is the idea that the reservoir is the open space for my lot or dan's lot. which it isn't. the reservoir is further over. the open space for our lots goes up to behind the houses that are further up gladys street. to just dismiss the impact on our air and light and use of our property because there's a reservoir a couple houses over is just wrong. it's inaccurate and wrong. i ask that you consider the variance. i'm not opposed to the variance but i'm opposed to the dramatic increase in height which is going to create a giant wall on

the eastside. dan's property it will go up another 12 feet or whatever. none are to scale and it's hard to tell. we're going to be in a hole there. the hill goes up the other way. i do think there's a lot of space in that building now. you don't have to put so much space into storage and garage. there are other alternatives that can be considered. no one else gets to build out into the open space and the rear of these yards. i don't, dan doesn't, no one else gets to. i don't think that this much encroachment into what should be open space should be allowed. i'm not saying you should tear the house down but, i just think this is really excessive. thank you for your consideration of our comments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is lauren and i'm

the tenant at 19 gladys street. i live right next door. basically i just came to talk about the impact of quality of life. the front yard that it will be effecting is the only outdoor space that i have. with my unit, i have such a lack of natural light in my unit, i actually brought pictures that i'd like to show of the window space that i have in my unit that is going to be blocked if you can pull those up. i live in the studio and the only windows that i have are that front corner bathroom. so that's the back area where there are no windows and then this is the unit, the front two windows that will be blocked by the new addition and this is the end view.