tv [untitled] March 20, 2015 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT
you want me to talk about the landed slide i would like to move into the variance i'm asking that the variance be grant evaluated a 3 by 3 feet adjustment only 9 feet to justify a variance one special circumstances here that don't apply generally to other properties in the vicinity and two hardship if the variance is not granted and 3 denied a right to jiechlt and it will harm the neighbors and 5 the variance is in harmony with the planning code so here's the drawing or the site plan here this is the site plan and the 26 hodge's is right over here 17 feet by 63 feet they say they have a special circumstances because they're small and, yes they're small at 17 by 63 your
small compared to the lots but there's a special circumstances here that doesn't apply to other places on hodge's to the left is 14 hodge's 16 hundred square feet smaller at 16 feet wide you you know narrow and 20 hodge's a next door is smaller and has a rear yard the vallejo street is 11 by 12 feet witting wide they have a rear yard clearly the requirement is not met you need to meet all 5 variances the variance shouldn't be granted clearly two neighbors are harmed 26 hodge's their slide is 26 inches past the neighbors wall
here's 26 hodge's and thirty hovjz and here's my house a lot of open space and the sun comes this way that's my light well this building shouldn't be coming out here this building is aligned with this small building this is inches beyond the neighbors wall they're required to you pull back to the neighbors wall and this is asked for consideration they said no, i'm asking for a 3 feet by 3 feet 9 square feet open space right over here pill back 3 photo by 3 feet 9 square feet i'm looking this i'm on a cliff i'm adjacent to a crystal-clear there's exceptional or extraordinary circumstances my light wells have a difficulty assessing lighthouse it's a near
vertical slope at the base 26 that hodge's is on the edge on top nobody has seen a slope like that they receive light through my adjacent neighbors deck this is through my neighbors deck i'm protected by the planning code those guardrails those glass doors provide light to my light well, no wall mr. sanchez made a mistake thought there was a we'll here this is an attorney provided at the last variance hearing and mr. sanchez said there's a wall this is a story board this is a permanent wall anyway so this story board a temporary wall so in addition to the cliff there is a tree canopy
and the neighbors 3 levels are on top of to the right i'm living in a partial cave and here's the image so what it is the sunlight goes to way and comes down over here there's no way to block it you did the set back there's an open space 3 by 3 feet i'll get more sun that's how it streams the architect came to my house and bans the site conditions any light and even if it is insignificant light because the the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and the light well, i have a serious noise concerns 26 hodge's has college students living there i have to go to another part 69 house they're at the property line they have 3 levels at the
property line the decks and windows open up and so my neighbor has written it is too loud no way there's a competing evidence there's no harm they have internal light i'm going to have less light and less air i'm living in a cave if you provide 3 feet by 3 feet set back for me thank you. >> why didn't you provide a belief. >> i was under serious emotional distress my decrease said you may not want to think about the landslide and the circumstances. >> okay. we'll hear from the variance holder.
>> good afternoon john doe 234ig9 from reuben, junius & rose i'd like to start and could you speak into the mike please. is that better i'm to start by giving you a site plan you saw before the photograph taken from ms. mars house where it sat from the project so that's one factor that makes her property not effected by the project and another factor as you can see i heard about her light well, that is all the way over here this is
the variance area over here that is shaded in yellow and as you can see her - if it's visible stall from her light well, it has on a impact on here light whatsoever also regarding her light well, this is where all the bushes are over grown this is her light well, that's probably years of growth since that's been used for any light to enter into the building so of there was an impact on light to her property because of the variance is shows not urging that portion of the property to get light i just want to speak briefly about the one property that is
potentially minimally effected is the thirty hodge's the income tax neighbor and that neighbor is actually here today to testify in support of the project because his project increases the privacy of her home and that's why this is the case that is the existing condition as you can see there's a staircase that runs up next to her property and what we'll do with the project is enclose this and this is the variance area and so that will increase the privacy of her home she's fully in support of today and if i could just quickly explain the importance of this variance area that is a small area but this is a tiny little house we're trying to make it a usually family home currently it
has a kitchen that didn't have a full-size refrigerator so this project will louse allow us to put in a dining room and kitchen and living room this is the living room area this is the jog that will get taken out of the living room we lose a sixth portion of the living room if we can't use that ear in addition the property line windows over here this is really the heart ear and will be the focus of the living room for you know television or a fireplace and so this is important for the project we were have that area the dr has cut down the project sixth they've drew back the set back from the alley and made that room smaller with the issue of the variance easy we're
comfortable it will not negatively impact ms. mar by the project has already been decreased and so we're going to go ahead obviously and create the smaller thvrt but it is important to maintain the space in the living room one 09 issue i want to mention we're talking about the plan in terms of the sunlight 50u8 see this is north and so in terms of of the sun it really rises and it sets and really isn't impacted ms. mary mars property is not impacted by the sin. >> office of the city administrator one other issue is the slope work that is part of the plan we're going to go ahead windfall tax project is approved
it is one of ms. mars concerns we are looking to remedy the problem in terms of the property we tried to meet with her she's skalt the meeting we're happy to do that and hopefully get the project approved and that will benefit everyone in terms of the noise that's been an issue raised and the project sponsor is talked with the tenant and it will not be a problem again, thank you. >> i have a question. >> yeah. >> so the property is tenant occupied. >> did property is tenant occupied the intent to make it occupied it can't be used as a single-family home so with this project will allow us to do make it a usually single-family home. >> so to move in as you make it
a more usually single-family home or for the tenant. >> it will be inhabit by the family to have it thinking has been marked by a family those tenants will not remain. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll be brief it's westbound an rh3 it is currently a single-family dwelling whether there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that justify the granting of the variance i'm agree yes, it is 63 feet and 17 feet wide is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and so the code doesn't require the
smallest lot on the block it is the conditions of the property are such i'll read from understanding one there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property that the intended use of property that doesn't apply to other properties as i think has been demonstrated there maybe one smaller lot but typically the lots in san francisco are larger than that lot existing building is in compliance to the rear yard line and the proposal will notes bat or make that worse it is taking spades and enclosing it lots are typically 25 feet wide i think also the variance holder
noted i don't see how there will be potential impacts to shadow if the scope of work authorized in the variance to the north and the west of the light well, that was raised a cause of concern that was one of the actions i had during the variance where light bends around be somehow in inbehind so we heard the dr last week and made changes to the third-story appendix it is not subject to that they set back that from the additional to preserve light from the alley and those are further to create a usually single-family dwelling i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> that was the only change
through the front. >> the set back let's see i have the - so they increased the front set back at the third-story with the width of the closest space approximately 4 feet and increased the depths the third-story addition to the - approximately 3 feet it shifted back on the building and reduced the third-story deck at the corner above the portion that thought subject to the variance so part of the proposal analyzing the variance has a deck above the new structure that was created and that will remove that deck above that portion that's clear
so and you know, i think that ask not conflict with the variance we can invoke that and the planning authority what about restrictive and that's what we did nicole. >> excuse me. >> a portion of the deck on the third-story. >> correct. >> i'm sorry the second-story 0 roof. >> second-story roof third-story level and those drawings show a notch on the north corner already you're saying they made it deeper. >> let me put it on the overhead so this was an existing let's see deck second-story w508gd
deck the new deck was to extend above the area and they required that be cut back so basically this rectangle right here - is to be removed from the project as part of the discretionary review decision which i think would perhaps go to he'd the concerns raised by the appellant court for the potential noise issues. >> i'm not sure i understand that because this is the roof of the now enclosed area. >> it is developed under the proposal with the deck and the commissions decision removes the deck from that area. >> and are they removing the portion of living room.
>> not commission that still will be a roof the commission said i can't - >> oh i can't have a deck on this corner. >> exactly no changed in regards to the variance just snow deck above the portion that requires the variants thank you. >> so ms. mars request for a might have adjustment was that considered earlier. >> at the variance hearing a lot of the issues that were raised really dealt with the los angeles police department slide landslide potential and the engineers but i didn't see how i don't know how any proposed
reduction will do anything to affiliate or address the concerns of the appellant i don't see how the proposed area impacts the property in any way thanks. >> a question mr. sanchez who initiated the dr. >> the dr requester was melody the appellant. >> okay. thank you echo any public comment on this item? is there someone who wants to speak please step forward. >> good evening my name is karen i'm the owner of thirty hodge's alley to the north of 26 and the area that we are talking about where the variance is
there has already been a story board put up for months i'm in favor of that it will increase the privacy on my property not to have that an open stairway with people running up and down we don't know what kind of family will leave i think it is to my advantage to have it enclosed i've had a very good relationship with the project next door and feel they've been consider rat of my needs i'm approving of the variance thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you is there any
public comment? seeing no other public comment we'll take rebuttal ms. mar you have 3 minutes. >> you can go ahead ms. mar. >> okay. i want to first address thirty hodges louisiana she's been supplied with a skylight and her asleep will be stabilized that's expensive work so i don't i understand why she supports the project sponsor i'm okay with that but it has to be disclosed what she's getting for the support i think louisiana is a little bit confused i do support the enar closer of the staircase i support the 3 by 3 feet only the
last 3 by 3 feet it's currently open space. >> overhead. >> this is currently open space but the open space beyond the staircase i think you should leave that 3 feet 3 feet open i was at the dr hearing i didn't get a lot of information out the only thing i got out were those 3 drawings a lot of the drawings i didn't bring i was under stress that's why i wanted another chance i had a better job today but barry my neighbor who wrote the letter collaborated my he said people railroad singing and shouting and making noise during the early hours he collaborates that
i'm up against those neighbors 3 levies of deck and going back 3 feet by 3 feet my bedroom and light well windows are here. >> asking the - >> go ahead, please. >> i'm sorry what. >> i weren't on the overhead we're not seeing it. >> so i think not 3 by 3 feet what is the harm no harm to it should 26 hodges they're going to have a little bit less of a living room 3 photo by 3 feet the harm is more to me, i'm downhill by a cliff like living in a cave within 03 neighbors above me the harm is impact to 0 it me is about greater and to people that live there that's
why as far as okay. thank you. >> you have 30 seconds. >> as far as the slope work a notice of violation that the slope was unstable and get downhill neighbors i'm upset the project sponsor didn't look at the project on 2012. >> ms. mar is that a rental 0 property and it is the bottom unit because of the landslide we platoon to remold it and rent it out to a family. >> this is the back building. >> this is the rear i live in the house in the rear uh-huh. >> is this a tic. >> no, no thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. night have i 3 minutes of 3 minutes ofy 3 minutes
of o 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you in terms of lou lou support of the project she considers the project to be beneficial for her property and given the only property impacted shows in support of the project we're helping with the slope work behind here property in terms of the slope work we're trying to remedy the slope at 26 and thirty we have i forgot to mention frank our geotech technical expert working on the problem he is here if i have questions about the slope work just a few other issues the property that the rock fell down is vacant for quite a while we've been trying
to get in there and the slope of the rocks has nothing to do with in terms of of the space this is a tiny space that every square feet is virtually in order for us to have a family use that space live there and we need every inch of the space having the project cut down we're trying to hold onto the leadership and have that be usually common space and in terms of the noise planning commission hearing was the first time we heard about the noise issues we would have remedy finding them and in terms of having people live driver's license we're trying to have people that fit in with the neighborhood and have a family there but we need to pursue the
project in order to do that. >> i have a question counselor it was mentioned that the property has a notice of violation does it currently have one. >> it does her property has a notice of violation ours does and the other neighboring property that is a supporter of the project they want the project to go ahead so we can all remedy the slope work and the two issues the first is doing the slope work obviously within the context of the project and the other keeping up the rocks we'll happy to do before we do the slope work but ms. mar has yet to let our contractor on her property to get the rocks off we're ready to do that as soon as she give us assess. >> what was the notice of violation.
>> one was issued no 2012 before the purchase of the property it was closed at the time and then there were two novs open our property and her property and communicating with the city and explaining first, we're trying to get work done and going through the process to get the work approved they understand as long as the project is approved we'll go ahead and correct the problem and the rocks on the property we can't figure out how to fix the property until she gives us permission we had a meeting in the morning is he cancelled we would like to solve the problem. >> when i purchased did problem the nov if didn't show up. >> it was non-disclosed. >> correct. >> thank you.
>> mr. sanchez nothing further okay commissioners the matter is yours commissioners and i'm not sure mr. sanchez wants me to talk about this this isn't the i think the there's some logic to what was discussed in the va report in that if you were to do anything on the first two lefltz that will require a variance to the rear. >> can't hear you. >> okay. >> speak into the mike please. yes. >> the - the point i was trying
to make is that the first two floors since the building pretty much goes to the rear property line any type of work within that will require a variance question is whether this small enclosure of the stair as a variance should be addressed in the is that you as the previous comments recommended to additional envelope that would be gave through a variance i don't find that way in this case, i find that the question of the variance is probably addresses is well addressed in the 5