square feet to the building to the north. it is bigger than any adjacent property. nonetheless, the appellant would have you over turn our denial, and allow the construction of what was represented in the variance application of a 2200 and that contains three bedrooms and three and a half baths and a work space and entertainment room and while that is really just to illustrate the scale of what we are talking about the fact of the matter and what does matter is that the appellant has not provided the justification or the basis to add on about 450 square feet of bonus space that is not allowed under the planning code. >> the configuration of the new lot is entirely of the appellant's own making and while that new configuration does suggest flexibility, in

the application of the code standards and what we have granted that with respect to the yard and lot area, and parking. those, regranted variances are balanced by the mass reduction requirement. so we are granting flexibility, but it is important to maintain a building that is ultimately in character with the neighborhood. with that commissioners, i thank you for your time. we do urge you to uphold our decision on the only one of these four variances requests that was not granted. >> could i ask you the question, what is the purpose of the mass reduction requirement? >> in general terms, we have interpreted it in the pass to be the reflection of the very kind of bernal character which is a fine grained small buildings and narrow streets environment. it is very unique in that it is, i think in my view any way,

kind of one of a kind. the buildings are very small and the character is fine grained. >> got it. >> very fine grained? >> is that what you said? >> fine grained. yes. >> it was a slightly different reason. >> i might use that on my next marketing statement. >> fine grained. >> the reason is because berno had one of the few supplies of a lot of lots and really small buildings left it became a place where people wanted to develop and they started to develop, three stories over garage flats, huge buildings. >> and then there was a lot of stuff in the beginning and appeals here every week. and planning also, and eventually, there came with this, and which is unique because i had never heard of it before until it showed up at bernal.

you know? >> i have a question. on the 1720 to 1750 square-foot calculation, that is interior space? >> yes. it is sort of a generalization, and the formula is a little bit difficult to articulate. given the fact that there is no voids in the house, it is a three level plan, 1750 gross square feet. >> interior. >> gross is exterior wall. >> okay. thanks. >> >> okay, thank you. >> i don't believe that there will be any public comment on this item. so we can move into rebuttal. miss tan, you have three minutes of rebuttal.

>> i'm not fighting about his trying to keep the size small. but i'm asking about why in june i be sending the way to calculate even the hypothetical way to calculator regular lot, this is what i have for regular lot. and that i have proof that, that we could build a over 2000 square foot house even if we do after the mass reduction. and this is our lot. because of the regular size, we cannot count the 1000 square

foot as our maximum square foot and this is since june i present and i argue but there was no feedback and then at the end in august, they went as a 1495 that is coming from nowhere. and then, i talked to my owner and then he just say that it is too small and so that is why we go for appeal. and then after the appeal, it does something good. yeah, certainly in february, we were different, 1720 to 1750. so yes, my owner with the own are i talked to him and he said yeah if we were given that in the first place we might not wasted time to do the appeal. we maybe would just go ahead and try it. it is only like 150 square foot.

i try to redesign and i can do it. but because of before they want me to cut 400. i cannot with the three bedroom house, i cannot do anything. >> miss tan, do you want to withdraw your appeal? >> no. i don't. because at this point, i think we were being, we will suffer from that unclearness until now. and why was that 148 square feet of difference, why not just let us do the 1898 which actually for one, i am not sure how to calculate the 1720, from what i did is the 2500. but i don't want to spend time doing or arguing that. if we could just go ahead and get work. >> 1750? >> no.

1750. is just accepting something, some number that they just throw out, there is regulations in the mass reduction. i follow how to do the calculation and i verified it with the panel. and i never could see the zoning administrator. it is always the panel just go between that do all of the calculations and all of my drawings go from her to the zoning administrator to come back to give me a answer or a number. and i don't know why we were not given the chance to explain if my diagram was wrong, why am i, like, different number. but at the end. after we appeal and then we were given a number and so at this point, i tried to fight for my, for the owner to why not, unless, yeah, maybe you explain how it is calculated.

>> otherwise, >> yeah. >> the set backs and stuff i do the calculations that way. >> are you finished? >> then, you are faced with the following situation. >> you said as one amount, and planning is saying that it is a different amount. why should we take either? >> because i think. >> we could make it less. >> isn't that just a calculation. it is not just a number. >> i was... i was trying to get to a point but maybe i should not have said it quite that way. let me ask you another question. did you call the planner and meet with them? >> i did. >> and how did you two resolve the calculations?

>> i work with the panel with my calculation. but then at the end it is not the panel that sets it, it is he, or she would communicate to me to say, oh, the zoning administrator said no. and this is the number. >> what number did she agree with you? >> in the calculation? this is what... >> the planner and you agreed to a number? >> no. we agree that the calculation comes up. >> to what? >> 1100 and that is like, too low for a lot like this. >> wait a minute. >> you said that you came in with 18-something, and you both agreed that it is 1100? >> the 18-something is our proposal after the public

hearing when the zoning officer expressed that our house 2000 square feet is too big, he wants it smaller and so we tried to reduce to see if we could get it but we don't get any numbers. >> wait a minute, the 18-something you knew that based on your calculation that was not the correct number? >> but you were willing to accept that number; is that correct? >> that is a negotiated design that we give. the numbers always come up to be less than 1200. >> but that you came up with, also? >> yes. that is the proof of... >> they are offering you 1720 to 1750 now. >> yeah. >> this is so new, i just heard it a week ago. >> if your calculations show that to be much less than that,

i would take this. >> sorry? >> if your calculations show it to be less than 1720, right? >> your calculations? >> more than 1700 because... >> now i am confused. >> hold on one second. >> so what are your calculations, what should... what is yours? >> 2500. >> because, this is the code, it is like it is like in the true case of our regular lot, there is no way to get the 1700 number. it is only the 1100. >> but according to the zoning administrator, they have already given you several variances already. i mean that i am looking at the pictures, and you have got a very big house on a very small

piece of dirt. >> you have a big house for a little land. >> i don't understand what you say. >> okay. >> we don't have a lot of physical property, you don't have a lot of land but you have a large house on it, relatively speaking. okay? >> you know i don't know if it is worth further questions and answers. i think that if you continue to have questions and require clarification, with respect to how the number 1 750 became calculate i think that it is worth your while to continue those discussions with mr. sire and his team. >> we don't have any further questions of you. >> we don't have any further questions. >> we have no further questions. >> i tried to make clear about the hypothetical way to do... >> yeah.

>> your rebuttal? >> just briefly commissioners, do i want to apologize to you for bringing this miscommunication to you, obviously this is not as cooked as we would have preferred it. we want to reiterate the apologies to the appellant with the miscommunication along with emphasizing that this is a miscommunication commissioners, i would suggest that it is in her favor, with respect to the issue raised by the appellant on rebuttal with respect to the development and the potential of a regular lot, i don't think that we disagree that a regular lot would have a greater development potential. but what she fails to acknowledge is that this is not a regular lot. and this is not a regular lot because of the action contemplated as part of this

particular proposal. she is creating her own hardship so to speak, so we would urge you to up hold the denial of the only one of the four variances that we are not granting, thank you. >> so just, of course, the first number came up substantially lower, for the house that was going to be allowed from what i understand? and then how was... was there some kind of miscommunication or was there just an error in the calculation or... >> frankly commissioner i think that it was a bit of each. there was some very complex diagrams, a great deal of thought put in and made by the appellant in how the figure should be calculated. they were calculating, they were based on some false assumptions. >> because looking at the drawings it seems that 1750 is pretty gracious. >> with 1750 is what the code allows. it is just briefly and

explaining with that number comes from, we did look at the maximum buildable footprint per story on this lot and got that for the three stories which is the highest number of stories that you could have on here. we were looking at a per story square footage. excuse me, commissioners. >> i am sorry, i don't have mine. >> that is fine. >> but that is the maximum allowed there is based upon the standard set back and everything else, right? >> based on the required front set back. >> yeah. >> rear yard set back and height allowed on this particular lot. >> that is what creates what the maximum would be? >> it is not arbitrary, it is specified in the planning code and that is how we got to the number >> she disagrees with the way

that it is calculated. but what i am confused by is that she almost said that she and your planner arrived at a square footage of 11 or 1200 square feet is what i thought i heard. but any way, all right. >> okay. >> all right. >> based on the size of the lot probably made more sense. you know? >> okay. >> the commissioners matter is submitted. >> okay. >> if the department in their calculation indicates that it is 1720 to 1750 and that is close to what the negotiated scheme that the appellant originally wanted, of 100 and something off i am prepared to go with that and uphold the

za's, are you going to make a motion? >> i was making my statement first. but, i prepared to make a motion. and... >> do you want to make a statement. >> no just a quick. my inclination was to move and if a motion were to be made i would vote in that favor, in favor of that. after the hardship, i think that i am fine persuasive of the zoning administrator's position that the hardship was not made by anything other than the appellant themselves. >> yeah, i mean i am in total concur ans with that because they wanted to save the existing house. >> right. >> but i am going to move to

deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's determination on the variance that the maximum allowable area is 1720 to 1750 gross square feet. >> and would that be on the basis of any hardship faced by the project sponsors at their own doing? >> i don't think that is necessary. >> i think that it is based on what the calculation shows allowable for that lot. >> okay. >> you don't find any hardship? >> i don't find any hardship. >> right. >> and i don't find any

hardship. >> >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner fung. now, commissioner fung, but in reading the variance decision, the way that they wrote it, it is actually hree grants and a denial. and so, probably not, it is not a separate denial. it is actually the granting of three. >> i think that the deal was only on the denial portion. >> the whole thing is appealed. >> we are up holding the whole thing. >> that is what i was recommending then that the decision is to uphold the decision in its entirety. >> i think that is okay. that is what makes more sense. >> yeah. >> okay. >> so the motion then is to uphold the decision in its entirety and you said on the basis again? >> that is the calculations that the mass reduction calculations were correct, is

that right? >> yeah. >> and that there is no finding of hardship. >> right. >> mass reduction calculations are correct and no hardship exists. >> right. >> okay. on that motion, to uphold this variance decision in its entirety, on that basis, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president is absent. >> commissioner honda >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0 and this variance decision is upheld. >> thank you. >> we are going to take a short break.

[ break ]