tv [untitled] January 26, 2012 6:18pm-6:48pm PST
staff would give a presentation of the three properties as one case. dr requester has filed for these cases. the president is going to give a 10-minute time frame to address the three items, and you will have three minutes each. >> since we have to deal with multiple projects, can we please have 20 minutes instead of 10? different buildings, different lots, different developers. can we use 20? >> good afternoon. as you said, this is 3 dr
requests all wrapped into one. the proposal is to construct 93 single-family homes on adjacent lots. -- to construct three single- family homes on adjacent lots. the homes range from 2165 square feet to 2231 square feet of usable floor area, and each home include a two-car garage. just to give you a background, they were initially proposed on 2006. and there were concerns over an emergency access, adequate
infrastructure, steep slopes, and change in the overall c those interim controls expired in 2009. it is important to note this is three separate cases. the owner of a lot 11 sold to a separate owner in the past, so there are two lots. they are all the same architect, as they were designed at the same time. the review board is the dr requester in all three, although
neighbors have expressed concerns. the main issues raised is that because there are such, it creates a unique situation. they do not trigger affordable housing contracts. gooin response, they ensure thee was adequate water and sewer capacity, and the environmental review, a portion of it did look at a larger area than those three lots. the environmental review was limited and cannot go further than that.
they were not triggered. the development will be appropriately taken into consideration. the second issue you brought up was that the project will remove on street parking, and it is currently used, which is currently just a staircase, so they have no vehicular access. the planning code requires these to have two parking spaces. 7çánf]4there is an additional requirement based on the size of the buildings. the only alternatives to
removing on street parking is to get a variance, which is required, so we are ok because they were maximize for on street parking. az be adequate access for a emergency vehicles, and there could be soil movement after construction. we did consult with the fire department to ensure there was adequate access for emergency vehicles, and the fire department assured us they also have the right for parking red zones and other areas where they need extra room. additionally, the soil movement issue was covered by the geotechnical analysis, was not an issue either. the fourth issue was that the
designs idid not meet the review board and design criteria, and there are also concerns that the project should be required to meet the findings of those interim controls. regarding the design, the design team did look that this several times. they made minor comments and work on them, and we also work with them on sculpting the rear. the project is completely in compliance with guidelines. the additional comments about the east slope, we felt those supplied were very minor or did not apply to these projects. the residential design team review it before and after and found there were no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. the department recommends you
not approve this as proposed, and because they are located in an appropriate area to meet those guidelines. they already restricts the height of the buildings in this area, and these buildings meets those additional requirements. staff has consulted with other departments to address concerns about an emergency access, and there are no extraordinary circumstances. i am available for questions. >> dr requester. >> the attorney for the dr requester. this project is at a site that is undeveloped. it is an extraordinarily steep slope, and i have this in the report, but i want to show you
how steve is. -- how steep it is. this is the site. this is holloway. this is extraordinarily hard to access. you have to know how to find it, and this is as morel the street. -- this is esmerelda street. the utilities are difficult. i got this from the planning department. this is the main one they are supposed to connect soup. these are the sewer lines.
and they have to get from here to here. i want to talk about the problem we have. we have a developer who got this site for 10 units. they have gone through various reintegrations, and now they have a project with two buildings of five stories and one building of four stories going down the hill. as you gofaú understand, they are very modest, and they are coming down a slope you can only access by coming down stairs. you have a hard time finding it, because there is a freeway. oakdale does not exist. it is the right of way for the sewer line.
this is the freeway. they have no streets where people have streets and label. what you have is a project on a very difficult lot surrounded by homes that are very modest in scale, and they are looking out against a five-story building that does not appear five stories, but when you are next to it, it is a five-story building. what we are asking for is the buildings to be scaled down. we are asking the city to do a re-evaluation. the sioux were clarence says it is based on an old project, and
would you show this again? when they did the last stuart of valuation, there was going to be a small airline -- when you did the last evaluation, there was going to be a small airline that went down to holiday. that is the sewer line they say is going to be felt. of the projects that are here are a 11, 10, and nine. there are two ways to get there, this way or a property they did not own or this way. they did not have anything in here that shows how they are going to be build on these three lots without using other property in construction or development or for sewer and access. you cannot have a story line that starts up here and jobs
through thin air through a sewer line. these are not inconsiderable issues. for this site, there has been repeated issues. the neighbors are going to give you more detail, but you have of project you do not have the entirety of how it is going to be built. there is no longer a proposal to build about at the rear of 5 lots connecting gf. staff does not think it is a problem, but they do not pay attention, and they are avoiding the affordable housing, and i will deal with that in the rebuttal to reagan -- in the rebuttal. >> thank you. >> i am a 20-year resident, and
i wanted to talk a little bit, because the city put some infrastructure work in our neighborhood, and we knew the development was going to come right behind it, and 14 houses since the late 1990's have been built, and we have never found ourselves in this position. the project was brought to us by a developer, and we did not know there was a condition for trees, and that is where we found ourselves. they say they are going to put a road on the nine houses they are building. then it became seven houses. then it became five houses. and we see they are going to develop three houses, and this
whole process has been manipulative. commissioner borden talked before about how you deal with the community and how important that is to be doing this kind of development. this is a massive development for a small area. %]our house was built in 190. it is a story and 1/2. we cannot build a down slope development and have passed the house five stories and the other half to two stories and -- have half the house five stores and the other half to stories. even with the 14 houses where we never had a dr request, we did not even know what it was. we never had this kind of ongoing process, and then to see the lot get sold, he bought a
lot and the drawings thinking everything was ok, i assume, because we had our meeting recently, because the owner of each of these lots has not been straight forward and has not made any consideration for the issues brought forward in the very few times we have actually sat down and looked at this, so i beg you to look of the fact that this is not just some people saying to keep our hill free. do not ever do development. we,et'bjf understand these lotsg to people. we have worked with the houses in that immediate area. i come from the affordable housing community. good if we treated the communities the way this
neighborhood has been treated by this developer common there is no way we would be getting our projects approved. you would be ashamed and none of talking about taking into account -- you would be ashamed uof taking into account what makes that community special. we said how frustrating is that they spent five years working with us. it is not like this is a lot of fun for us. we once again find ourselves in front of a commission appealing a staff position because we are trying to save some trees or our neighborhood where we are trying to make sure they put space
between the houses so at least there is some light. they are famous for those developments were block after block is house connected to house on all sides. what is the point of living in a beautiful neighborhood is all you can see is the front of these buildings? nothing like that has been considered, and those are the kinds of simple request we have been considering. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a member of the east slope design review board. first, an explanation. over several meetings, the design review board was shown designed for five houses and descriptions of four others by an owner who owned 11 of the 12
locks, and and that is what you see on your screen. especially interesting was the scheme to access the interior lots with the right of way. at one point, a permit to cut down some of the trees was the ninth. -- was denied. the current project still proposes to use a driveway and also as a sewer line. this will have an affect on a large section of city-owned land. it will be affecting birds and wildlife and changing the slope of the hill with retaining walls or grating down the contours. also the slope of the three houses should be looked at to
i live at 178 brewster street. our neighborhood is concern that this look at a large project for all the lots. even though she sold to a contractor, we still feel that the size of the houses and the size of the project is going to be a big impact on our neighborhood, and of these homes, two of them are speculation homes to be built as a profit-making home. one is to be built for a private party to be lived in by the person who built it. the others are speculation homes. we are very concerned they are not concerned with anything in the neighborhood. all they want to do is build the homes and make their profits and get out, so in thinking about that, if they put in the sewer
lines for these three homes, we believe the infrastructure is going to lead to the development of all the rest of the lots. the size of the homes is going to block out the light and air from the homes. it really is going to become a tunnel. if you have not been down the walk, which is a true neighborhood treasurer, building on that lot is going to ruin the aspect, which is one of the joys of our neighborhood. i urge you to look at this triggered all but one of the homes are proposed to be it spec homes to be built for profits and not just to be enjoyed by individuals. thank you. >> good evening.
my name is robert underwood. one of the things i wanted to point out, none of us have any place to park. the way the parking spaces have been illustrated here is a related -- is a little bit unrealistic, unless these are small and cars. goousually there are four cars,d parking is pretty scarce already. if there is a limit to how many houses can be built at one time
without triggering this report, if they consistently make small projects, at some point there has to be a tipping point where you say, and of projects are here that if they all came at once, a winter -- they would trigger a dr, but you say, there is only one house or three houses. i am trying to reiterate the scope of the projects when they are finally completed. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i appreciate the fact there is a public forum where we can bring the concerns to you for a fair
and impartial hearing. when we first moved here, the street was under road. -- was a dirt road. when this was built, our assumption was this was going to provide improvements. when it was built, we found a lot of the work was not taking into consideration the actual needs of people on streets every atypical and undeveloped. in the reports you have seen, the developer has said we have checked with public works, etc.,
i must tell you the infrastructure built in the mid 90's was not adequate. i was home on july 42001 when a fire was started at the bottom of the hill by two little girls. it became a wild fire and burned of all whole slope. our house was the only house of the time. i was woken from a nap in the afternoon with the sound of popping that i thought was fireworks. i looked out my window, and one of my trees was on fire. what i was hearing was in flames. t'bl/ 911, and they o
find the closest hydrant, and they said, what do you recommend. i said to come to the top of the street, because the fire is at the top of the hill. the trucks could not get through. the fire fighter called the police, who were turning off hoses so the fire department could get pressure to put out that fire. i must beg you to have an environmental impact report that takes into account all of the unique factors of the neighborhood. i am sorry to take up one more moment. right now brewster street is a sizable to only one vehicle at a time. if to vehicles meet, one of them
has to back up. x1f3tmu>> good evening, commiss. i am an nine-year resident of joyous street. one of the concerns i have businesses -- i have is the real lack of planning. we are concerned about this approach, but really there are 10 or more lots that have to be looked at in the big picture. the infrastructure that is going to be needed to provide service to these buildings immediately sets of the remaining lots to be developed for current owners
because infrastructure is in place for all of the lots. we have struggled to collaborate with them. on the rare occasions we have not been asked to meet with them, there has never been a proactive approach to reach out to neighborhoods to see where there might be opportunities to resize the homes to fit the character of the homes. every night i walked up those stairs. i am going to look at five stories of the buildings in front of me, and the majority of stockholm's are two or three stories tall. the scale does not fit into the the other concern i have is the staging for equipment and surprises. while the homes are under construction, that is going to severely