tv [untitled] June 10, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT
footage issue, i agree with the previous speaker. we have -- we should have found this issue at the beginning. at the exit quarter was not from us. that was from the previous exhibit. it says exit corridor. miraculously, in the three, months since the exhibit, it has now morphed into an unusable storage space that does not be counted but still has a door for exit from chased. at the end of the day, it does not matter if you are for or against. it does not matter how many people you have on the petition, it does not matter how many businesses are lined up, if the neighborhood once the chase bank, have the conditional use hearing which is required by law and let the people decide for themselves. that is all we are asking, commissioners, follow the law. you cannot reinvent the idea that suddenly the exit corridor is something new. it is written on paper, it is
written in but the exhibit. i am not talking about formula retail, not talking about 312 notification. if that is beating a dead horse to follow the law, so be it. but at the end of the day, the law is the law and the planning code is the planning code. we have submitted all the evidence before you. let's have the conditional use hearing and let the neighborhood settle this rather, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. christine griffin for the permit holders. i think the issue was presented clearly by the senate administrators, the two chief people who measured the space. that one out there, they have the plan, the area in question is not available for use as part of the bank.
it is not a designated exit for the bank. at the door is not necessary for fire code from exiting from the bank. chase has chosen to keep the door because it is an added safety for patrons and employees. they do not need it. it is not required. and it is not available to them for use. that is it. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. i would just like to note one item. there has been ovations made there were no public hearings on the case. this is the third public hearing, and the board of appeals still has the same notification requirements. notice was done to owners and occupants within 150 feet of the project. this is a duly noted public hearing. with that, i am available for
any questions. president goh: would you address the allegation that their appeal was rejected? >> i believe the request for discretionary review came after the building permit was issued. once the building permit has been issued, the proper process is to file an appeal with the board of appeals and the planning commission cannot hear it. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if the project sponsor worst to submit plans and a designated area as something and it was a specific designation and would trigger c.u. because it would be over 4,000 feet, it is an option for them to rename that? can they decide to avoid the c.u. process we're going to use it for storage and said? bridget for storage instead?
>> it is important clarify that it was not an exit space, it was not a space under their use or lease, that if they were too common with a revised. and crossed that out, we would have a question of whether they still had any intention of using that space or any intention of occupying or renting that space. the case it is it has never been their intention to occupy or use this space. vice president garcia: i am not suggesting that. before you go down that road, what i am saying is given the plants they had, if they are to avoid the c.u., they're not barred from designating some space as nine use. >> as long as it is less than four dozen square feet, that is acceptable. vice president garcia: some question if that is manipulative, etcetera, but that
is available to them. >> the space in question is not for the sole use of the candidate, it is not for the soy use of the subject tenet, so i think it is clear that it should be left out of the usage copulation. vice president garcia: -- for ãgarcia: thank you. >> the motion is submitted. vice president garcia: i will go first. square footage, and formula retail. this is a permit for an atm. one speaker spoke about the atm. i must not have been paying attention, because i did not hear one single person talk about -- hear we go, somebody did, thank you. very few people spoke about the atm issue. this had to do mostly with the square footage, and we just learned whether it is feasible or fair or not, they can read designate an area to avoid that issue, which has been stated by
the zoning administrator. as for the formula retail, i think it was mr. sanchez also who said this constitutes or functions as a re-hearing. this board weighed in on the formula retail issue. maybe this does not rise to the level of collateral or something like that, but to me, the comments of this board, the vote we took the last time this was heard. those issues, square footage and the formula retail, to rest. as for the remaining issue, i don't think in my life anything has been presented that, one, the process was wrong. never mind on that. whether there has been abuse of process, by which side? what has been clearly stated by mr. sanchez, 312 was not
required, so there is no other issue for the atm. they are allowed to have it inside. the process that went through to resubmit the permit satisfied that the planning department, so i intend to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. icommissioner fung: i am in basc agreement with that position. the atm permit rests on itself. the issue of whether it is 4000 square feet rests with the department to enforce what was presented to them. therefore, i believe that has also been addressed previously, and i am prepared to uphold the permit. commissioner peterson: i would concur with my colleagues. there was an economic decision made by the landlord and reducing the square footage.
maybe that is a technicality, but it is within the law. i think the argument is trying to make it a legal, technical argument. i think there are bigger issues, and i think that has to be addressed elsewhere. i would also uphold this permit. president goh: i am troubled by the square footage issue. i was at the last hearing, and i still am, perhaps i am more trouble now we have the measure met and we have changed the name of the title of the corridor being changed. the most troubling to me is getting a hold of the department figures required the sunshine request. i think in order to have open process and have people feel heard, we need to be supplying
-- >> thank you. if you could call the roll, please? >> on the motion from the vice- president to deny the appeal and a pulled the person on the basis that complies with the code, commissioner fung -- [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 3-1. this permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. call items 9a, b, and c.
three appeals, all filed by sina tarassoly and maida taylor. subject properties at 207, los palmos 3 permits to erect three- story single-family houses. one with 1240 square feet, one with 1303, 1 with 1304 square feet. we will start with the appellants. you have seven minutes per a. >> i would want to thank the board for hearing our appeal. i know that we're supposed to
center around quality of life issues, and i will do that. at the first outset, despite reassurances to the contrary, putting four homes on a lot where one home exists now, and that the statutes that exist, the zoning, it is legal. to the point, though, i like to speak to the fact that the three east lot or shaved -- they were shaved a few inches to accommodate the fourth lot. i have the drawings on file with the planning commission that recalculating. after calculating the area of all of those lots, that fourth what appears to be legal by one square foot. a lot minds of the three easterly lots were shaved in water to make that fourth lot legal. -- the lot lines of the three
easterly lots were shaved in order to make that fourth block legal. they are one zone, but one position of the zoning statute is chosen to be ignored, and that is that the project should be consistent with the predominant pattern of development within the neighborhood. could i please have the overhead? the predominant pattern of development within the neighborhood is clearly in excess of 25 _ feet. i did calculations and enumeration of 108 homes in the approximate 300 feet of the project, and of these homes, there are six which are on lots of less than two dozen square feet, which represents 5%. -- on lots of less than two dozen square feet, which represents 5%. imost of the homes are 2500
square feet or more. the question i asked it to you is, what does the term predominant mean? does predominate mean and the, some, if you, or one? there are six lots under 2000 square feet. i would ask that you consider that the portion of the statute that addresses predominant pattern be addressed. because these four small lots will increase the number of substandard lots in the area by 40% and will be imposed on one corner and one set of residents. there are other quality of life issues that come into play. the value of existing homes will be greatly impact ied, and we he data on this. we know the legacy of mayor brown's tenure was the fund's
ability of use were allowed to be considered. but they do count with appraisals. the initial appraisal of one of the homes, when the new product was accepted, and the loss of you would arrest, the appraiser lower at the valuation on his home by $60,000. there are eight homes on the north side that will lose their views. in aggregate, that is a loss of almost half a million dollars to the neighbors on the north side of the street. none of that is being taken into account by this project. in addition, the imposition of this project has made the homes on the north side of the street unsaleable. one of the homes that was for sale, basically prospective buyers would walk in, would be told in disclosure about the project on the south side of the street, and prospective buyers would leave. as a result, for college students have moved into the
property. they'll drive, they all have guests on the weekends. at this and salable property now has four to eight vehicles all vying for street parking at the same time. we already have a high-density area. there are at least three homes within 150 feet of the project where adult children have moved back in with their parents because of the current economic climate. those adult children are married and have significant others or children, and this has also imposed tremendous density in proximity to this corner. transit first is a myth that our neighborhood. the developer has at least six people living in the existing house on the site. one of the people, one of the young men who lived in that house works nights in a coffee shop out in the richmond district. he works the 2:00 a.m. shift. with the transportation cutbacks, he could no longer get
to work unless he leaves before 10:00 p.m., meaning he there are rides at work four hours before his shift or he drives. he has bought a car which is also parked on the street. the existing house is being blighted, the property neglected. i like to cite commissioner antonini from the planning commission who made a site visit and entered the house. in his statement at the planning commission, he said the house is, "pretty rough." it is blighting the valuation of the other homes on the block. our homes are our largest asset. the position of the density, number 2, in some ways the crowding that will be imposed is going to decrease the value of the homes of everyone in the neighborhood.
we expected one home when the existing law was divided into two. there was no one who was expecting a for you are holmes a record one home is not feasible, but two -- no one was expecting for homes. when hamas is not feasible, but these are -- one home is not feasible they assured us the maximum height would be 19.5. it is 22 feet. they have 10-ft ceilings, which is unnecessary. good it is only being considered what it looks like from the street rather than uphill, downhill, and across the street.
thank you very much, and i look forward to your opinion. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to introduce one of the architects 0. first, my clients are happy to be here. it has been 23 months since the first appeal was made to the planning commission. after the there were two appeals to the board of supervisors. we were happy that the planning commission was unanimous in approval. the board of supervisors gave
unanimous approval as well. i would like to point out of a have stated of this project compliers we do point out of this project complies with the improvement group, and that means they not only comply with stiff financial guidelines but with the guidelines proposed by a group of neighbors speaking tonight. the letters say they oppose variance. at one point there was. there is a conference about meeting the guidelines. in their brief, they also say the planning code and zoning code do indeed allow but do not
require smaller lots within of zoning districts like his. but does not surprise us, because we have counted 100 lots in the blocks closest to this. here you will see we do not have a big enough map, and in the very next block you will see blocks like ours. goothe overhead shows what it wd look like. they would be different from the ones next door. goolenders want to see a lot of
equity and risks set aside greater -- set aside. two homes would have to be much bigger. there is a lot of reliance on the rules. gwe ask you to keep in mind of these are what gives someone comfort, some predictability, some sense that if you take their risk and follow the rules, there will be the homes that are proposed. there is something fair about allowing someone to rely on the rules, especially if the group itself that is opposing has
written those rules. each neighborhood has separate properties and land patterns. their rules were written for the geography of this neighborhood, and it follows the geography that was part of a rules formulation. the concessions my client made -- my client navies of the request of the property owner. this is a letter asking for a group of concessions. they ask for them, and here they are. first, reducing the ceiling height of the master bedroom and the ceiling by 1 foot. moving to the roof overhangs at the rear. a lowering the roofline by 3 feet 11 inches.
this might show the appellants in a better photo, also building a 10-foot tall fence at the rear. keeping the retaining wall, which was not planned, and there are many others i do not have time to discuss. these were stopped after they were offered, because it turns out he offered a payment of $10,000 for what he called the cost of making the appeal. there were no strange negotiations. dr. taylor involved one of the former planning directors, who have some weight and knew the rules before i was involved and
was well-represented in coming up with the concessions that were made. she has talked about loss of property values. we know property values are speculative, and my property value has moved so far down i could not get financing. these are not monster homes. a range between 2300 and 2400 square feet. if the neighborhood wants to read to the loft to allow lots of less than 2500 sq. ft. terminal -- to redo the loft to allow a lot of less than 2500 square feet, and we can do that, but that is something they may want to investigate. the commissioners felt of the rules were the rules. do not apply the changes
the board of supervisors upheld that on october 5. the permit was issued in on october 7. the building permits were appealed to this board on october 21, scheduled for hearing on january 12. a few days before the appeal, the appeal was filed on january 7. the board of survivors heard the matter on march 22 and unanimously upheld the appeal, so we have had unanimous of holding -- upholding of the project end of the permits that are before you -- and on the permits that are before you. i would like to point out that no variances were sought.
it was determined of variants was not required, and that was withdrawn. the board of supervisors has found the project lies with the planning code, and we think these are modest developments of the turn we like to see an would respectfully request the board denied the appeal. i am open for any questions. >> we do not have anything at alsl on the process. >> i apologize. we specifically submitted to live aboard -- to the board, and i do not know how that happened.
>> i was of explaining the question i had to ask had to do with the board up held. >> thought was categorically exempt. the appeal but was -- was that it was inadequate. goo>> could you say what you sad about the height limit? >> it is a little quirk of the planning code. is actually a 35-foot height limit. you can increase the height of the building. good >> what is the height of this one? >> 22 feet.