cory teague, planning department staff. just briefly, did get a chance to look over the proposed plans by the permit holder just to see if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. the only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. in this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. the rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, what was the -- what is the max height they can go in comparison to where we're at now? >> so i think -- well, as was mentioned during the permit holder's presentation, the height district here -- it's a 40 foot height district, but because it's rh-1 dd, you take a 45 angl

>> good evening again, president honda, commissioners, cory teague department staff. it contains a two story single-family home and the building permit under appeal approved a third story addition and minor facade changes. the building building permit was filed on may 15, 2013 and the initial planning department review resulted in design comments to set back the proposed third floor at least 15 feet from the front facade in order to be consistent with the residential design guidelines point the permit holder made the requested confession and the code was entirely otherwise complying. the appellant requested discretionary review of the permit on march 23rd, 2016. planning commission held a dr hearing on july 8, 2016, and at that hearing an issue was raised regarding potential unauthorized dwelling unit on the ground floor. the commission continued the case to august 4th of this year and instructed staff to raemp the issue further. at the august 4e hearing indicated that while the ground floor space did meet the physical criteria to be an unauthorized dwelling unit, it

sitting at the table is cory teagu e and amanda shaw and russ higgins. the board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so that they won't disturb the proceedings and you carrie on conversations in the hallway. participants are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes to present their rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board identify you, you are asked to submit a card to the board before you speak, we also have customer service survey forms on the podium, and we welcome your comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a hearing, the board's rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff after a break -- ok or after the meeting. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast at 4:00 on friday on channel 26. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note t

cory teague, planning department staff. so on august 21st of this year, they submitted a letter as to whether the property at 21 brompton avenue could continue the use as a parking lot current property is split zoned with a smaller portion to the east towards diamond street, being zoned glen park nct neighborhood commercial transit district, and the majority of the parcel to the west that fronts on brompton being zoned rh 2. but the subject property originally consisted of several adjacent properties that were zoned r 2 and contained two single-family houses. those properties were purchased by the city, and the single-family homes were demolished or removed. the city vebl in making his determination, the zone being administrator searched for any authorization during that time to establish the parking lot as a legal use of the property, but no such documentation was found. instead, as noted in the issued letter, the r 2 zoning at the time did not permit public parking lots, and the 1971 general plan referral required for the

teague. >> good evening, again, cory te. would reiterate the carryovere last hearing that the zoning administrator supports the issua variance for the revised plan fe new elevator. i'm available for any questions. >> that's a front yard setbac s. >> correct. front setback vair yns. >> thank you. >> now we can public comment. mr. silverman, if you'd lierk t, you can do so now. -- if you'd like to speak, you o now. >> good evening, president hondd commissioners. david silverman. i work with the owners of adjac. if i can get the overhead. just to refresh your memories fe last hearing, this is the gauths home over here. this the yee's home. this is the easement in betweens the tower. contrary to what mr. patterson d you, the -- excuse me -- dbi had a notice to the gauthier's to re tower, not to demolish it. it's a big difference. what the yees are proposing is d an elevator here that would go t here in the middle of their sta. the commission advised them at t hearing that they could not do t because this needs to be 36 ince and

>> good evening, president honda, commissioners, cory teague for planning property staff. the property is located in the rh 2 zoning district. the subject permit was originally filed on july 31st and was approved by the planning department by a senior member of our pic staff over the counter on august 9th. the planner noted on the approval that the proposed deck and stairs were also exempt from neighborhood notification due to their limits height and projects. as such, it is the planning department's position it was properly approved. this appears to be more of an issue between neighbors and not a question of whether the planning department's approval was proper. i'm available for my questions you may have. >> did you see the connecting stairs for the rooms down? >> did i see the connecting stair. >> it's about 1 foot away from the wall. >> this on the proposed ground floor plan? >> mm-hmm. >> and let's see here...and what was the -- what was the question about the location of the stairs? >> no questions, just observations. >> oh, okay. thank you. thank you for the observa

cory teague, planning department staff.just briefly, did get a chance to look over the proposed plans by the permit holder just to see if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current

cory teague, planning department staff.just briefly, did get a chance to look over the proposed plans by the permit hol