i did do a search for a variance. i had a hard time finding a variance that was approved to construct new homes in this fashion. i went back to 1985 and did find a variance request denied on state street. this has particularly not been acceptable for this neighborhood. staff's report does talk about a number of property where there is encroachment in parts of a lot. this is to construct second dwellings in the rear yard as second residences. so i wanted to say as terms of affordability. it's mentioned in the packet. the outcome of this is there is going to be at 22 ord court which is considered perhaps affordable by what i heard from the previous discussions at the planning commission and it's going to replace that with another property that's going to be not considered affordable and it's going to put in two new properties that is not affordable so absolutely it is valuable to the community to add housing stock, but if you look at the outcome of this project we are actually losing affordable housing stock. it's a big

with about consistent with the plans with the variance you can't simply choose after the variance not to demolish a portion of the 0 structure that was non-conforming and be it that by itself will trigger a new variance that will not be consistent or approved by the variance even though they didn't build the small balcony it was - the other thing i want to be clear that our position on o this project is in 0 no way a judgment on the current owners everything with the prior owner it appears that you know whatever work that was done or not done in violation of the variance and the issued building permits before they bought the prompt and the work that was done was not done well, the issue of them going progressively from a repair to 0 proorment situation probably was a dry rot situation that wouldn't go away unfortunately you know bans the facts we have the project will require a new permit and variance i'm available for that other questions. >> what action will you take then. >> well, what we recommend here is the current permit is not adequate the permit that is before you should be d

in which case the lots don't qualify and the variance is required. a variance could be justified for this location however i have concern about the overall scope of the overall project and neighbor project proposed here would not be one granted a variance. seeing there is willingness for everyone to get together and discuss alternatives and i'm happy there was some discussion and alternatives discussed and i'm disappointed it did not carry it through and not before the commission here today but removing that third story would be more acceptable in terms of the variance and what came to light at the hearing was the tree issue and that i did have questions and concerns about. i know the department of public works is very diligent in terms of reviewing applications and they only remove trees when it's been warranted and there has been a hearing on it and they may make a decision and that will be appealed to the board of appeals which gives me a little bit of pause honestly in having a decision right annoy. -- now. i would be really hesitant to having a

that's probably the easiest and in terms of the variance, mr. sanchez, the variance has to do with the depth of the structures on state and the structures on ord not with the height of the structures. >> both structures are located within the required area of the yard. >> no matter what we do with the height, we know it's going to need a variance. one idea we might propose is we really don't need that lower floor although that doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference because you need the structural elements down there, but perhaps you need a way, the cars would go down a grade and your garage would be somewhat subgrade but that would allow you to have three floors and your grade maybe a few steps from street level, you would lower it significantly but you would still have separation of floors because otherwise you are going further out in the back which would cause more problems trying to take up more of the space in between. while you can explore the possibility of not having a garage. i think being up there in the middle, i hate to say it, y

variance. let me briefly explain why the city inadvertently caused us to miss that deadline. planning commission staff initiated a discretionary review of our neighbors request for a variance and other waivers from planning and building code requirements. we shared many of the codes raised by planning commission staff and work wd city planner to address those concerns. unfortunately the planning commission's decision in september in response so that staff initiated review did not address our concerns so immediately following the commission's decision we notified city planner smith that we intended to appeal the variance and building permits issued in the wake of the planning commission's decision and asked how to receive timely notices of those to seek appeal. offered to notify us when that was issued. that e-mail exchange is attachment three to our request. mr. smith has been nothing but very helpful and courteous throughout this process, but due to the press of other business didn't forward t

should it variance be granted. we wonder on what grounds commissioners might have a similar request on the neighborhood. why would ernest not seek to combine the two 2 units in the zoning to apply for variance on the state street in the lots. the number of dwellings remain the same and middle and high income residents would be shut out by 4,000 square foot properties and damage done to the environments. my partner and i believe there is a compelling reason. city clerk: thank you, sir, your time is up. >> good afternoon, my name is maryann drez ner and i have lived on ord court for years. a request to build three very large structures where there is now one small to medium structure. as i understand it the granting of a variance requires there be exceptional circumstances so the property owner would sustain real hardship if this matter is not granted. in this matter there is no hardship to the owner. in case the owner would be able to construct a smaller home, someone of median income can rent that home and it would

new balcony variance is required what you say it is note in the variance decision permit holders claim in their entitled do build a rear deck that was illegal constructed, however, it is permanently awe described subscribed to the building unless to conform to the variance is transferred from person to owner additionally it is exceeding the beyond the scope of the permit the first over the counter permit was permitted for less than 50 percent dry rot on the rear deck i'll show you a photo while the offer the counter permit was in effective as you can see the edition that was built and approved in 2006 and built in 2007 has been mostly demolished and this is what it looks like what it was bought by the permit holders in 2010, the permit holders were cited confessor xooepd the escape of the first permit and recommend they go through the permit process within one week without communicating the permit submitted for other over he did counter permit the drawing didn't fully disclose the work for example, a hero are the plans submitted and here is the area of work right here and they bubble j

. >> you thought it wasn't a variance. >> the variance could explain i can get it. >> why don't you take a look at that. >> i have a question too but i'll wait in response to your question as to how far the required rear yard the variance decision would have noted a hundred foot lot you can't go into the last 25 feet you need a minimum of 25 foot rear yard and the proposed addition went into the balcony was to extend basically 6 inches into the rear yard. >> okay and she made reference to an e-mail about an e-mail or letter i didn't catch the drift. >> it's not uncommon before an pillow case comes before the hearing there's back and forth communication brown the parties i think that e-mail is based on the information he received at that time, what i said would be true which is it is an combaeshth and replacement and those are issues combined which trigger a new permit and variance. >> okay. we'll took public comment how many people are prepared to speak about this okay step forward thank you can you speak into the microphone. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and

and i will ask the board or the body to deny the variance.

we did not over turn the board's decision to up hold the prior variance. we came to a new conclusion based on additional facts when a variance was requested for a second time. okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is your sound person here? >> june wintrof, the head of the noise regulation program is here. >> okay. >> or the person who actually took the measurements previously? >> there were a number of measurements taken, mr. peakus who is here last time. he is in the training across the bay and could not attend. >> okay. the suggestion to wrap the duct, and then all of the duct came from the department, did it not? >> no, i don't think that is accurate. maybe you would like to speak to this, because she was at both of the abatement hearings and she can discuss it with the first hand knowledge. >> good evening, i am the acting manager of the noise program, among others for the environmental health branch and i can tell you my recollection of what happened at that abatement hearing at which the wrapping of the duct work was discussed. what i believe had hap

is a required and a new balcony variance is required what you say it is note in the variance decision permit holders claim in their entitled do build a rear deck that was illegal constructed, however, it is permanently awe described subscribed to the building unless to conform to the variance is transferred from person to owner additionally it is exceeding the beyond the scope of the permit the first over the counter permit was permitted for less than 50 percent dry rot on the rear d

i am not supportive of this variance. and i would have hoped that they would find some way of negotiating a reasonable settlement, rather than have us take such a droconian action. >> assuming that we take. >> assuming there is support. >> i concur with the commissioner fung as the person from the public previously stated. you can't negotiate and come to the table with only one person does come to the table. and hearing from the other tenants that live in the building, it would be really unacceptable to have things vibrate throughout the day all day. if i happened to live there and so i am also not supporting the variance at all. >> any comments? >> this is a tough one for me, because i completely understand what the city attorney is saying. but it is hard to get around the fact that this woman has lived in this place for so long, and yet did not have this issue until the restaurant came in. >> second restaurant. >> yeah. the second restaurant. >> a huge upgrading of fans. >> the upgrading of the exhaust system. >> yes, i

this is a split lot and it didn't require a variance. this 15 -foot yard is going to be a little tavern. it's going to have a retaining wall. just to give you a picture of it. i did want to point out the project, i know it has different owners. this was a development from the same project sponsor. i don't know how you define a project sponsor by owner or agent. this was again sia consulting. they did not disclose significant tradeson the large development. this really robs the people who don't know what's going on like us an opportunity to know that trees are going to be removed if we are not notified of this. i wanted to show you the tree. quickly i will show you some other properties on the street and then i wanted to point out real quick. this shows just to the west of the property what these properties are. if you look at it from google, you see all of these rear yards adjacent to the property that have the similar thing. well, this is what it looks like from the street. everyone can enjoy this open space. this open space of rear yar

requesting the variance be denied. the exceptional circumstances which the project sponsor wishes to build at the back of the rear of the property. many other properties in the city are zoned rh 2 and manage to provide 2 units of housing without building in the rear yard. it is available to this project sponsor to remodel the existing building to provide 2 units of housing. any built project has difficulties. there are steep sections in the back of the yard, but there are options. you can look at the other developments and there are steep properties and there are options. developers i believe contractors are very skilled in that kind of thing. the nileance of this variance, the ability to construct units on the property would remain available as other projects on the class of district. again i wanted to show the alternative envelope that the project sponsor proposed and i have to reiterate that this averaging rear zone does not apply to this property. it goes further back than it should. you see there are a lot of oppo

>> for variance decisions, absolutely. again, we do it standard at the variance hearings through a form that anyone who shows up can sign and provide their contact information and request to receive a written copy or e-mail copy of the decision letter once it's issued. again, whenever it's a join hearing with the planning commission it's a different room layout, it's separate, we don't have that same method and in those situations if someone wants a copy of it they need to request it from the department either beforehand or once it's been issued. >> with that sign up sheet is there an expectation of timing? >> yes. the expectation is when the letter is mailed out to the applicant and published and issued it will go out to everyone who requested. that's the only opportunity for somebody to know that has been issued and be able to avail themselves of the appeal period if they choose to do so. >> the problem with nap is the zoning administrator doesn't give his destigs. decision. . >> and they've said there's going to be anot

and just the commissioner goes have moved to overturn the variance so i'll be voting if you're going in that direction. >> so mr. pacheco if you could call roll please. >> we have a motion if commissioner fung to adapt the finding no revision. >>

and just the commissioner goes have moved to overturn the variance so i'll be voting if you're going in that direction. >> so mr. pacheco if you could call roll please. >> we have a motion if commissioner fung to adapt the finding no revision. >> on that motion to adapt the draft finding commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. >> and commissioner wilson thank you. >> the vote is 4 to zero the finding are adapted and the 10 day rehearing request period is now closed. >> we'll return to item 7 which has been called appeal i believe is there anyone on behalf of the appellant? okay. seeing none then we'll hear from the permit holder

will be flanked by accessible units and i'll talk a little bit more about this condition during the variance portion of the presentation. so this floor plan is a plan of the second level on top of the podium building. and some some of the main items that i wanted to point out on this plan are the community room and the lapped the landscaped podium so we worked initially we had a smaller community room at the top of the podium and we worked with ocii to enlarge the community room and also kind of have it become more of a part of the landscaped court yard and so there will be some glass windows and when when i show you the rendering in a couple of slides you will see the visual connection being made between the community room and the court yard so it feels kind of more comprehensive and more of a common space rather than separated between spaces. on the on the left-hand side of the landscaped court yard you will see what looks like a little, you know, circle, that actually is where we're proposing to put some play equipment and just some community uses for the residents and additionally, right

we understand that a variance is granted to exempt this building from the code. the first problem we have is the patio for these second floor units is at the same height of the second floor bedroom of 380 avenue. so what that means is when the patio's pushed all the way to the fence line, a person or that rear deck will come just within feet of the bedroom window of 380 32 and avenue. a person leaning of that deck can touch that person's window. the owner of 380 32 and avalos. knew is upset about this. that will further violate the 30 foot height limit. because the thirds and fourth floors are not set back the building rises up past the limit and will cast a dominated shadow over the much smaller neighboring homes here. they'll lose sunlight in the bedrooms earlier in the year and earlier in the day. one of our neighbors is a graphic artist who depends on our natural light to do work and it will affect her livelihood. the rooftop mechanicals will expose the neighbors to excess noise 24 hours a day once the ac, elevator, commercial space go up on the roof the neig