>> so i think that this is very important way, and i understand that the developers, and they are interested to make the money and that is great and i fully support that. it is a vacant lot that they own and they have the right to develop it. and however, like we pointed out in the beginning, they don't have a right to be granted variances. the code is there for a reason and this is specialty.

>> they purchased both lots and remodeled it and i am very happy with my home and sold that to us for $800,000, more than double what they paid for it and now they have the second lot which they subdivided and dating back to whenever, you know, these or whenever that original property was built, they sold off the lots and this last remaining lot, and they got a really good, they are doing well with it. and i don't think that variances should be granted so that they can build a larger instruct you are solely for the purpose of making a bigger profit. it is not in the interest of the neighbors, and the direct neighbors will be negatively impacted by the variances that they are granted and it is not in the best interest to the future home owners that are

going to have the property that doesn't have enough open space in the back and i hope that you come to our side and agree that they should not be granted these variances. >> i got a question. >> yes. >> so, i mean, you are an, engineer, and so you are pretty articulate guy, especially with details and it is now being made aware of me that the developer that is selling the next property also sold yours? >> correct. >> so evidently their disclosures must have been pretty concise, considering that they are the sellers of the next door to the property that they are now developing? >> you mean the plans? >> yeah. >> yes, again, they provided me very detailed plans that are still the same today. i was aware of what the property looked like the only thing that was not included was that they did not say that the plans required three variances to be built as they were shown.

>> i thought this was a structure being build to code and they were allowed to do it with the property i was not aware until after i purchased the home that that property indeed was granted three variances to be built as it was designed. >> but whether it was regarding the variances or not, when you purchased the home, you at that time, accepted the fact that this home was going to be constructed next door and you had privy and detailed plans to what the finished product was going to look like? >> right, and actually here is the... i am sorry could you... and you can't read it it is an eye chart. and we could certainly provide the copies of it but this is the actual final contract addendum that was required to purchase the home. i highlighted the box at the bottom... >> do you have a physical copy of that on you? >> i do not. i have an electric copy on my lap top. >> go ahead, and why don't you

read that? >> i could blow that up as well. i could easily just click on it. >> okay. >> yeah, read it. it is like three lines. >> so, the top part based i could summarize and certainly, i could dig into it but the highlighted part on the bottom which is important to the next few slides and it said that here are the plans and we are not guaranteeing you that this is the way that it will be built but it does say notwithstanding, that the seller acknowledges and agrees that the development by the seller for any of the entities will not incorporate any backyard or deck elevated more than 3 feet above the existing grade. so that is what we discussed. and as you mentioned that was my main concern was how much shade will i get and could they pop up this huge deck that will create a lot more shade on my small usable rear yard. so here is this existing plan from the rear. and the line as it is shown is

6 feet above the existing grade, where they marked the bottom of the property, the bottom of the structure. and here is a side view, and you can see this nice terraced rear steps in the back that does not exist. it is rough and rugged and the same as the hill was and never developed on and sloping down this red line is approximately what the lot looks like other than this cement stairway that runs alongside the side of my home. and here is actually what the backyard looks like, and you are probably all familiar with the approximate height of a garbage can and the red line is drawn of what they are showing is going to be the back of the new instruct structure and they said that they will not be developing or put in the hard scraping over 3 feet and the plans show it at 6 feet. >> i don't think that i

understand about that. >> i do. >> yeah, help me understand. >> i don't understand what is going to go in there? i don't have a great imagination. what is going to go in that space? when you say that the structure itself? >> yeah, the building, or the back of the building will end, right, so i have it in the cans at the rear of the proposed building, that is going to be the back of the part that sticks out the 14 feet. >> and what about the red line goes out further. >> and so the red line, is that is what they are calling ground level of the structure that they are putting in. >> so it is all land? >> so they are going to have to create new ground and new hard scape to elevate the existing lot up to that red line. >> because of the garage issue? >> that was discussed earlier? >> because of the way that it

is designed. >> all right. >> i don't know how how much you can change the existing grade of a lot before it needs to be permitted and that is where i go in down here. is there another variance needed that they are elevating the back of the lot 6 feet above the existing grade to say that okay, now we are still within the and this is told where it is tight right there, that is pulled directly out of the vernal heights special use code that it will not exceed 30 feet above grade and they do meet that and at the end it says, the rear most eight feet of length cannot exceed 32 feet above grade. >> they are measuring that 32 feet from this red line. >> so they have to now transform this lot and bring it up to that red line to measure up to the 32 feet. >> okay. >> and then the contract that i signed with them and the

addendum said that they were not going to change more than 3 feet. >> i was not able to look and measure things. >> how is that going to impact you? >> it is going to be a lot more structure in the back. >> the height, the grade, i don't... how is the higher grade going to impact you? >> the whole rear variance is going to impact me. if that rear variance was not granted i would have a lot more sunlight and there would be more of that open green space that is very valuable if we go back to... >> the green space from the... >> yeah so as you can see here. >> you don't have much green space behind yours? >> i don't. >> the green space behind the property of the proposed project. >> there is may flower and this is all green space and we have a lot of wild life. >> but you bought a property

th had no green space. >> but there is an animal highway back here of all of this green space and stuff and it is you know putting one more structure where the rear set back next to mine is going to really cut that off. >> okay. i see. i can see it from the picture. okay. >> thank you. >> you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> i guess that maybe my last question or my last response or comment might be just to look at this project in reverse if we did not request the variances i think that my client would be greatly debtmented by the two adjacent properties because on the already small 70-foot lot there would be a large front requirement set back because of the vernal height design restrictions the structure

would be exceedingly smaller than both adjacent properties and both would then create or have privacy concerns on the proposed property. and both properties would then, or would also you know, cast larger shadows upon any open space that was provided at 639. and that is why this is set up to address these types of situations so that when we are not looking at a you know monopoly city and we are looking at an organic city we are able to respond to the correct context that we are working with. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department, i don't have much further to add other than what is in the letter and

what i testified to previously, the section 311 requirements and there is also a white orange poster that go on that for 30 days and no limitations as to who may feel a discretionary review, because you may know there is no requirement for standing, you can be a neighbor next door, a neighbor in nevada, i mean there is no limitation. much as someone filing an appeal to the board of appeals does not require to be someone who is even impacted by the project. for the variance, there is a ten-day mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet and also a 20 day poster, 30-inch poster that gets posted on the building for the 20 days before the variance hearing. and so those are the notification processes. i see that the disclosure agreement that was referenced earlier was signed in october of 2012, the variance

application itself was filed in july of 2012, the application was on file and the item itself had not yet been noticed, i believe, and so that would not have happened in october. it would have gone out, poster 20 days before and ten days before. so again, we find that the requirements for the variance here have been justified and i do not take the variances lightly, and i think as noted we are to be you know restrictive in this, and i find that here given the condition of the adjacent properties that does have an impact and i see nothing in the state law that prohibits one from considering that, the fact that there is no citation certainly by the appellant and that sites with any clarity that prohibts that and there is references to the specific provisions in the different municipalities which to me indicates that if they felt it necessary to include at the local level then it is probably not included at the state level and i just briefly looked at the state, at least the first part of the state

ordinance and did not see anything that would restrict that and certainly this has been something that has been considered for variances and in this case, the size of the lot and the topogrophy and i think that those are all considerations as well and it is not just the condition of the adjacent property. the code complying would be 30 feet tall. they could actually extend the length that they are and they would need to make a set back in the buildable area and so they would have to create a larger zig zag, if you will and take away something in the build able area and in exchange for that gain in the rear yard. and so over all extension would be allowed, this was reviewed by the slope design committee in vernal heights and they did not have any issues with it. thank you. >> it is very rare that you support a variance.

>> very rare. >> i like to think that the note of variances that have been applied for have gone down dramatically and it could be a sign of the economy or other factors >> i have a couple of questions. i am trying to remember the first one. were you personally involved. do you have personal knowledge for the original plan verses what is now and the one that was before you know subject to the 311 notice? and to what extent has it changed at all from that point. >> it was issued on the same day of the variance hearing and what was noticed under the 311 should be essentially the same as what i have reviewed at the first hearing under the variance. >> the application itself was for the building permit was submitted in i think, april or

no sorry, february or march of last year and our residential design team reviewed it and gave the comments back on it and i don't know to what extent the changes were made. and after the first application was made, i mean, i see that there was a notice of supplying the requirements that we sent on this in april, and maybe the project architect could address what if any changes the planning department had made to the project as initially proposed. but the variance was applied for in july and we had the hearing last year and that is when the notice went out. >> the next question that i have relates to the vernal heights east slope design board? do they have different slopes? >> yes, there is an organized east slope review board and we do ask for the people to go and see them and have them review the projects. when you say the special use district is that because it is subject to these design review

boards? >> no. because there is an over all special use district as legislated and that or has different requirements than elsewhere in the city given the unique nature of vernal heights and that was implemented in the late 80s. >> so what did that, what is the... >> i think that it is advisory only. >> okay. >> capacity. i don't think that there is... there is not a review process where there is an approval or a denial. >> but they are very organized. >> having the support, and i think that in response for finding it for and received endorsement from and is that a... i mean, what is the rate at which we should apply to that in terms of is there... are there standards that are review more stringent than what the city will allow. my pdsing of the process and it

has been a while since i worked in the south east. they are more restrictive than maybe what the codes would allow. the code will say that you can do this but the design review committee may say that we don't like the project. >> okay. that is all of my questions. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> comments? >> having dealt with the east side design review, they are tough. i mean, so they are very organized and they want certain things to be addressed in their neighborhood. so, given that i take weight in the fact that rsea does not support the variances very

often. looking at the project, i don't see that, it is a huge impact, the fact that there are two units that are under 1,000 square feet. and on that particular block, even though the lots are small, the homes that are particularly surrounded are the several of the larger homes on the block. and so basically, you are getting and it is just bringing the center piece into parody and so in that case, i would say that the zoning administrator is correct in his variance. >> no error. >> no error, no. >> thank you. >> any other comments? >> nods? >> no error, but a difference of opinion, but that is okay. we always have that. i would concur with that basic finding. the fact is that on the frontage most of the homes there go up to the property

line. and the two homes, and then the two speakers, who are appellants, actually have homes that are non-compliant with the current code. >> the qu of,he impact and i am not sure that i quite agree with them on the level of impact that they foresee. the privacy issues related to the deck, the deck back there is visible to everybody, for half a block. and the shading, it was probably the over all envelope that has not changed from the documents that he was given when he first saw it and i don't see how the shading mostly of his roof has significant impact upon his occupantcy. so. >> okay. >> and i'm inclined similarly.

i think that i want to address, you know some of the issues raised by the appellants, i think that how to engage with them is a concern for the public and i think that is new home owners, and vernal heights, i mean there are a lot of things going on there with respect to wanting to insure that you can have a say so. and it seems to me though, that whereas there was some level of notice and some effort at attempting to organize, a response, it does seem to me that notwithstanding, not showing up for a discretionary review, their voices were heard in some ways maybe you did not get everything that you wanted, with the variances but it sounds like some part of that edbut the process and in is a c

issue. >> and i think that the issue on principle of the green space that is an important one, i think that our city, i live in vernal heights in a different part in seeing the structures that i mentioned and i recognize that we want to maintain that on principles as well and the particular location of this property, next to and as commissioner honda was saying, it seems to me and in a comment from the variance holder that it would be very negatively impacted if it had to maintain ta small size that i think would be appreciated by the appellants but it would then be in some ways not benefiting from what is already in existence. so, those are just the additional comments or otherwise i agree and concur with everything else that has been stated. >> we have a motion? >> i am going to move to up

hold the variance decision on the basis that he did not error with his position. >> thank you. >> could you call the roll, please? >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to up hold the granting of the variances on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion, on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0, and the granting of the variance is upheld on that basis. >> no further business this evening,. >> the meeting is adjourned.