sucre. so a lot of this discussion this evening has been in regards to the orientation of the corner property. now -- and i understand that -- that the zoning administration -- administrator has already made a letter of determination or an e-mail of his determination. the question would be is in the eyes of the planning, is that -- is it oriented on 22nd or is it oriented on -- and i asked this earlier, but what i'm referring to is legally. is it on carolina or is it on 22nd? >> it is on carolina. >> okay. >> we are stating that the frontage for the purposes of creating the rear yard is oriented towards carolina. >> and sorry to interrupt, but during all this process, was it determined that the garages and the facade change was consistent with permits and approval? >> we didn't research the alterations that have occurred to the building at 897 carolina? >> i mean, do we know when that happened roughly? i mean, 'cause looking at the -- at the front of the building, i mean, i can't imagine tha

sucre. one planning staff fafred the planning code to be applied, and the planning director favored the r.d.g.s. both of those solutions and interpretations of the special lot situations is -- will provide preservation of rear yard mid open space and respect of the adjacent property. as mr. sanchez assessed -- i'm sorry. it is important also to note that permit holders, project sponsor from the architectural firm wrote a letter to richard su. , re stating, quote, the property to the south is set back so far that it is no street presence on carolina street. it is nonconforming. for all intents and purposes, its main street presence is on 22nd street. we the appellants agree with mr. iguchi. as scott sanchez assessed the corner lot with regards to whether it fronts on another street, he believed that development regulations of the planning code should be applied to the property. while my lot is typical 25x100 lot, it is atypical in the way that it was developed. applying development regulation

sucre. >> jonas...okay. good afternoon, commissioners. rich sucre, planning department staff, here before you on behalf of linda hoagland. -- for the proposed project of 2918 mission street. as a reminder, the project includes development of 75 residential units, 6,700 square feet of class one living space. the project does not include any off street parking. at the sept 28 planning commission hearing, the planning commission adopted a motion to disapprove and directed planning staff to develop a disapproval motion. i've passed out copies of this for your review and consideration. subsequent to the hearing, the department realizes that we could have been more clear in how we conveyed some of the information on the new shadow study that we presented two weeks ago. we certainly appreciate the impacts. we have heard the concerns from the community and the board of supervisors regarding the new shadow cast and its potential upon the well-being and use and enjoyment of the school yard. as with much of our work within the larger mission, we try

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