tv [untitled] May 31, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm PDT
was three units because they didn't know what it meant. r 3 meant one or two units. i think that's perhaps the only reason they chose to include this report which was probably the 3r report when they purchased the property in 1997. at the time they have owned in in 97, attached to that was a copy of the 1987 to two. the ml shows two units. the city has spent a year trying to resolve this. we've had a rehearing and significant resource are spent on this where it's very clear all along when the appellant knew from day one it was
legally two units. the report from 1997 revert to two family dwelling. the significant amount of staff time. we have had staff review and write the letter of determination, multiple appeal hearings and the appellant is unwilling to provide adequate information to the ford -- board and we find that extremely offensive. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners i had wanted to work with commissioner honda to try get the mls information he was looking on the overhead so you can all see it and it would be on the record. the way his computer s it's not possible. i know sometimes he brings his ipad to the meeting. it's important that everybody here see the same information.
comments. >> i think we've seen enough. why don't we leave that there and if anyone has questions, we can see it. >> counselor, have you seen this before? you've never seen an mls report? >> no. >> the reason why i ask is i asked you earlier. >> take your time. maybe we can take a quick break while you explore this information. okay?
>> i just want to hear your thoughts on what was presented on the computer? >> as a point of order i would object to this. i thought all evidence was supposed to have been submitted before this hearing. i don't think the commissioners are supposed to be gathering their own evidence. sorry. >> i would like to strike and i don't know if we have the order is here, but i would request that the board disregard what was presented and i don't believe i understand the information. >> is there time for anymore comments? >> i want to point out there has been a lot of -- about my
clients voracity. >> i'm going to allow time only as to the additional that no one had any notice of. >> the accusation that my client, there has been no testimony that he ever saw this. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, the matter is submitted. would anyone like to start? >> when we heard this case the first time and reviewed it, at that time, there was an element of thought in my mind that when the pros was subdivided and the
designation where the loss occurred. it didn't necessarily allow one to see the transference that is related to the property. so there was an element of understanding how perhaps the nsr did not then show up with respect to the particular lot, the other thing, however is that the preponderance of the evidence especially the that's now been further supported by looking at the actual drawings that occurred with the cfc, i believe that the preponderance of the evidence shows that it was two units. >> anybody else?
>> i would agree. at first i was sympathetic to the reliance issue but once we went through the timeline and were able to under the sequence of events, i am also of the opinion that it's a two unit building and that had evidenced and the notice of special restrictions and that is not void. it could have been discovered. it unfortunate that it wasn't discovered, but i do believe it was discoverable. and for those reasons i would also vote to uphold the zoning administrator and i would like to say that i had information about the mls listing and it was
relevant. >> i concur. >> i would echo the comments of my fellow commissioners and i have nothing different to add. >> i will move to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning. >> is that based on no error or abuse of discretion? >> that's correct. >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to uphold this letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion. on that motion president haung; thank you, the vote is 5-0. this is a
rehearing. so no other rehearings are allowed into the boards rules anan order of decision order shall be released tomorrow. >> commissioners i would call items 7 a and 7 b. sf sf sf b of the rear yard variance and off street parking pad located on the open area of the subject property which qualifies as the required rear yard. both
parties are standing up so it looks like some settlement has been reached. >> yes. planning department. scott sanchez. we have gone over revisions of plans and those revision add a parking space and subsequent to the board and they have also added in a storage for trash cans that would be in the crawl space area and accessed from the driveway and they have been clarified to show there is a minimum of seven foot clearance of where these cars would go under the existing deck. had this proposal been presented at the time last year i would have been inclined the grant the variance. i know it's now before the board of appeals. i just wanted to share my
thoughts with the current provision as opposed and it would be inclined to over turn the denials based on the plans plans but the most recent revision was dated the 15th. >> may 15? >> what took so long. if this took -- >> my apologies to the board. there were some issues raised by the planner at the time. the owner went to someone he felt had a certain expertise in dealing with these issues. i was uninvolved with the project. there was a hearing held. i think we were here once to reiterate this that the owner was in ireland dealing with a tragedy at the time. i
had just gotten a letter. we had no idea that this was going on. so since then we've been trying to work with the planning department to bring a project that is acceptable to them. as a last hearing what it came down to was a one car parking for a one off street parking. scott felt it was not acceptable and after the last hearing we asked for a continuances and we did a study on it seeing it was possible and what we proposed today is a two car solution. the lot is wide. we feel fairly straight forward to get two cars into that. thank you. >> okay. thanks. >> i do have plans. i have larger plans. mr. sanchez asked me to load those up. i brought them with me if anyone needs so thooe -- see them. >> okay. thank you. is there
any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. just based on the briefing materials and of course always pending oral testimony, i wasn't originally convinced, however if there is a compromise that's been accepted with the department then i'm willing to go with them. >> i agree with you to have one substandard park. since they have come to an agreement that there is two parking spots and it's not substandard, i don't have a problem with it. >> okay. we have a motion? >> the da knows that i'm not
enamored with most of his motions. i move to overall the zoning administrators, it's not a determining. >> it's the denial of a permit. they are two different denials here. >> okay. so we need to address both the za denial and the building department denial. >> you will need findings for both. >> it could be on the basis of may 15th revised drawings. >> i will make it simpler. based upon the may 15th documents and the provision of two parking spaces versus the one that was originally, we found that resolves the situation. >> so we have a motion from
commissioner fong to grant both appeals, over rule both denials and issue the permit with documents state may 15, 2013. they have stamped may 16 for the record. you find the provision of two parking spaces resolves the concerns. okay. so with that finding for both cases that the provision of two parking spaces resolves the concerns. on that motion to overall issue the permit grant the variance with those revised
plans and findings, president wong, commissioner hurtado, lazarus, honda. thank you. the vote is 5-0. both denials are over ruled. thank you. so we will now call item no. 8. building inspection with planning department approval. the property is at 865 offel camino del mar. the permit to alter a building. demolition of existing sooner or sooner -- thank you. i'm here today with tim who are both available to answer any questions or provide
comments should you have any concerns. this property has had a long history of disputes. to give you some context, original owner of the subject property faced opposition from the neighborhood given the small lot size. when the lot was subdivided in 1961. it consisted of building restrictions to address the concerns of all interested parties. at which time the house was constructed to a maximum configuration.ionly more than 50 years later the project sponsor we believe is seeking to intensify the structure beyond the scope of what is permitted by the code and what was previously agreed to in the settlement agreement. this is the property owners attempts to build small lots beyond what is permitted for code and when it's pressed
against physical constraints and they knowingly intend to span the building when it's not characteristics with the neighborhood. is undisputed that the project sponsor was well aware of these building constraints when they purchased this property in 2006 as the agreement was recorded on the property and i quote the parties especially understand that this agreement shall bind and also be for the benefit of the air successors. this agreement was recorded on the deed. clearly the sponsor new what they were getting in to when they purchased the property. i wanted to raise this equity issue that the project sponsor was aware of the building constraints. so
this leads me to my next point. the there appears to be two discrepancies in terms of the height and we believe that the project as proposed as exceed the 35 height limit. i went through the numbers. if you add up the various floor levels you will see the total height is 8 feet and 2 inches. this is also consistent with the 1962 plan that architect joseph compiled which also has the same measurements and concludes that it is around 38 feet at the
height. going back to the 2012 plan, the last page of the sight permit does not include the variance floor level calculation however it determines the height is 35 feet. this is confirmed in the 311 noticed in 2007. the notice indicates that the building height is 35 feet. i'm sorry, 38 feet. unfortunately there is no pit. so in 2012, the number has been reduce today 35 feet. there is a host of discrepancy. we would like clarification from the zoning administrator to clarify how they calculated the height. >> thank you, members of the
board. my name is sam kwaung, architect and retained by the pell appoint appellant to review the case. >> before you continue, i need you to disclose quite a long time ago i had a financial relationship with mr. kwoung. i was his employer for his first job. that was a long time. >> i haven't spoken to you about this case at all. >> the respondent said that the owner, the appellant has never looked at the files of the case which is not true because i was representing her and i did go to the planning department and research the history of the docket and found a lot of discrepancy. first thing that is missing in the final set of drawings is a survey plan which was included in your submittal.
a survey was part of the original submittal by a previous architect and subsequently the survey is removed from the final set. so it's like asking you the size of this room without giving you any tape measure to figure out how big it is. so i was able to get a hold of the copy of the survey and i did some analysis and the first mistake i find is that the point they picked as a start point for measuring the building height is inaccurate. this is very unusual. the front of the side is an angle. so the
code mentioned that the start point should be at the center of the building at the rear of the curb at the property line. which is what i have figured out but it's not what is shown on the plan. also because of the sight is slope, there is an average grade that has to be ba of the lot. you divide by nd distance and the height difference and you get the grade for the east and west side and determine the average which is a center of the lot, that's the average grade of the building. so. the second mistake is that they did not use the center of the line of the lot to establish the height. so. because of these inconsistencies, the final thing i did find, is the drawing on the sheet 3.3 is not
drawn to scale. i over laid a drawing of a section from another sheet and laid over the drawing that they showed on 3.3. what you see in red what they show and what you are supposed to see is in black. i think the department should go back and review this case. >> before you sit down, help me with the top sheet that you over laid on the top of the bottom. tell me what's what? >> the first sheet? >> the over lay. >> she's talking about the section. >> that one. yeah. >> this is a copy of sheet 3.3 from the applicant's set of plans and what i did is i over laid a transparent film which i