district of vernal heights. >> speaking about non-complying neighboring buildings, my building, 637 and 633 these are very old structures mine. >> i am going to stop you because you are talking too quickly. and the time will stop. >> your property is one of the non-complying properties? >> yeah. >> correct. and so, i am the property directly to the north and so as you can see in this image, and

whether the short yellow and red line and that is where they are proposing the 639 and the three buildings to the north have a deeper set back. and and but, as you can see all of the other buildings or most of the other buildings on the block do not have a deep rear set back and a lot of these are rh 2 buildings that have two units in them and although there are single families in there as well. and here is an image from 1938, and you can see our two structures right there and none of the other buildings existed and these buildings that are outside of the code or have deep rear set backs are extremely old and they were built before the code and not only is it not logical to base the variance on the homes it is in violation of the basic california land use law. and also these structures at that time we were, they used 6 or 8 lots and you can see these huge yards. and there is again, from google maps, all of the blues of the

structures and you can see the green space. finding two, unnecessary hardship, sxf that they need that they need the extra square footage to be able to build rh 2. and entire block is rh 2 and however over 60 percent of the homes are single family and a single family is not viewed as negative by anyone in the neighborhood, if they can't fill what they deem large number two units in the structure, build a larger single family unit. >> okay. >> and another variance they got was there was not enough open space in the rear unit and so they are saying that there is enough space in that open space and it is actually eli's backyard that they are counting as open space and the only reason that it exists because he does not have a big rear set back. >> okay. so, this is back, and that was another point that i am making

it was mostly the rear deck is the back 15 feet and underneath the rear deck that is not usable livable space and so you can look at it as just a deck. >> and okay. this is a very important one, finding four, that granting of such a variance will not be materialal detrimental or injurious to the property or the improvements in the vicinity, that is untrue, the eli property will be negative affected and the privacy will be compromised and they have windows looking into their backyard, where the variance was not granted we would not have this issue, my property to the north... a towering instruct you are, and the front variance it is going to shade the front of my house and in the back it is going to add shade there as well and i plan on putting on solar panel which is not going to happen with the 14 feet in the back that will reduce the efficiency that i will be able to get out of it.

and allison property to the east or behind it, again, the shade issues and also, the minimal green space and she is worried about drainage and a deep slope and not a lot of green space for that. >> you will have time on rebuttal. >> how many more slides do you have? >> ten more >> let's hold it then. >> okay. >> could we hear from the variance holder now, please? >> what i did was i put together a basic time line of some of the events so i can read through this, but basically, we had initial neighborhood out reach meetings back in january and february of

2012. and we met with the neighborhood design renew committee who all praised the building's design. and we had actually redone our neighborhood out reach meetings because of the tech caling of not providing the envelopes, and we actually notified the project twice to both commissioners and neighborhood groups and neighbors. and then, we had a variance hearing set for december 5th, and our first contact with any neighbors came on december 2nd and at that time we met with most of the neighbors here, and who are party to this appeal. and most of their concerns at that point dealt with on street parking, with the green habitat and with the safety of the garage doors and typically the things not relating to the

variance, or not necessarily relating directly to the comments that they are making at this time. and i will also say that the appellant who was just speaking, we actually had e-mail communication with him while he was in contract for the property. and as part of the disclosures for the purchase of his unit. we sent him drawings and described the property and he had some concerns about whether or not there would be an opportunity for 639 to expand to the rear yard and we assured him that that would be required with a variance, and we did not see that as being a sposbility based on what we understand the variance and when those can be granted. we assured that was not part of our plan and for this project and did not think that was happening, that was the only concern that we heard from 637, and the neighbor to the opposite side we actually had communication with during the 311 process regarding concerns for property line, or windows that were facing towards the property in the rear yard.

as part of this 311, process and as noticed during the variance hearing, we actually removed those windows from the property so as to not to create any privacy concerns. at that time we accepted those changes and that was part of the variance decision. and i will also just want to show, this diagram here. and it does come up. >> i do want to stress the fact that any of other place, or many other places on the block, this building depth would not be appropriate as i think that demonstrated by the appellants, and in this situation, however, we located between the two of the deeper buildings on the lot. what we have done is we have tried to respond directly to the specific site constraints and the extension, or the deepist extension of the building matches up with the deeper buildings of the north and the shallower part of our building matches up to the

shallower building to the south. and another point that i wanted to just respond to as part of the appellant's discussion was the appropriateness of a 2-unit building on this site. we went to great length to minimize the size of the building, of the project. both units are what we consider family-sized units so the two-bedroom units which is supported by the general plan. and they are designed at 900 and 95 square feet, which in my, you know, probably four or 500 residential projects that we worked on is extremely small for a two bedroom unit and we got those to works and we are providing the two car stackers as a way to minimize the footprint and the height of this building, most if not all of the two unit buildings on this block would not comply with the vernal heights design review in the sense that they are all three-story buildings

which they exceed the height limits this building does comply and much smaller in mass and lower profile and some of the comments that were reflected also during the design and review presentation with the neighborhood group. and let's see. yeah, and i think that we went to great lengths to make something that was appropriately scaled to the specific context that we are dealing with. i think, you know, the variance, the zoning administrator can probably speak to this more, but, the way that we understood the variance to be granted in this situation was to respond to our immediate context not to set up a precedence for the rest of the block and i don't think that this building being here has anything to do with precedence for a future development either. and that was another point that the appellants had repeatedly brought up. >> and that is it. >> could you address the concerns raised tonight, it sounds to me that the concerns regarding shading and light,

may be new concerns that you had not heard before tonight? is that true. >> that is correct. >> is there any legitimacy to that based on the design that you have worked on? and the adjacent properties? >> i can say that our building, or 639 is uphill from the building on the, or that shares the rear yard and so there is a potential for shading to happen there regardless of the size of the structure. and i will also note that that is dealt with as part of the vernal design guidelines in terms of limiting the height of the building building and working with the slope and the contour of a slope like that to mitigate that situation. >> and that is higher up, is that what you are saying? >> no i am saying that this property, is higher than the parallel street down below the hill which is one of the appellant's comments about it. >> you said that 2 was going to directly effect the appellants.

>> the appellants speaking? >> i don't see how this could have any impact on his property. >> maybe misunderstood. >> that was one of the discussions that we had in the e-mail or while he was in contract with the property. >> shading. >> and impact on the property. >> i think that the appellant that was speaking is due north. >> which would be higher up this. >> but is much lower and going to a single story building. >> is that right? >> the sun as it traverses in the south to the west would cast the shadows on the lot. >> yeah. >> so we would cast shadows on his roof. >> and his yard. >> yeah. >> and yard, because it is... would it? >> i want to hear the yard part? >> could you put that picture back up these illustrations are helpful to me. >> because the one to the north is the speaker from the appellant. 637. >> this is north. >> 637 is the one to the north of the project?

>> yes. >> and the three part is the furthest back that it is proposed to go, correct? >> right. >> and so the shading is not going to impact the yard, it is going to impact the structure. >> there is potential that it will be a little bit from that corner. >> okay. >> >> the direction of his pen represents probably the sun angle at maybe around 2 or 3. >> the ground floor, the floor to floor height that you have at ten 12, is that required for the stacker? >> correct. >> because most of the buildings and i can actually pull up some of these photographs, but this is a typical photograph where reflt of the buildings were built with double garage and then an

entry to the building in this situation we took the pains to minimize and so in order to do that, with the minimal lot depth which is 70 feet and the minimal building mass that we are trying to create we had to use a car stacker. i mean that is one of the benefits of being on a slope like this is that we don't have to do a lot of excavation and one of the disadvantages is that we need to have the extra height in the garage to independently access those vehicles. >> and minimizing the garage, opening, did that then allow for an off-street parking to be right next to that? >> right. >> could you show me a picture of it. >> no because it has not been built. >> okay. >> there would be the space, the curb that somebody could actually park in and is that...

>> correct. we are maintaining an on street parking space to the north here. >> the property to the south has a garage door on the south side, so you could probably fit a smaller vehicle in between those two as well. >> so the impact of that curb cut, if it were a single family home would be the same regardless? >> yes. >> i get it. >> are you done? >> yeah. >> so i have a question, so as mentioned earlier, the person that spoke was in contract during this and so how many conversations did you have with them? >> i had not conversations but e-mail correspondence. we were... and i don't recall if it was his broker or the developer's broker that put us in contact and asked the questions about the property and we sent a pdf of the site permit as was notified and as was submitted to the city. and then we responded to a couple of questions in that e-mail which from my

recollection only were questioning the extent of the possible future deck on the lower level that would lock light into the neighbor's rear yard >> so evidently the disclosure or the pdfs were viewed. >> correct. >> and those questions were pertaining to those specific pdf? >> it my understanding because there was back and forth discussion about them. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department as noted the public property 639 and it does allow for the two dwelling units and the item before you is the variance and seeking three variances one from the front set back requirement and one from the rear yard requirement and one from the exposure requirement of the planning code.

the front set back is 6-5, and the proposing a front set back of 2 feet. and the rear yard requirement is 31 feet, 6 inches and they are proposing a rear yard of 17 feet 6 inches. and also, exposure for one of the units that is exposed to be on front of the street and the 25 feet in width or the rear yard or any of the open area, and so the lower unit, in this case because it is a down sloping lot, only faces on to the rear yard, which in this case because they are seeking a rear yard variance would not meet the requirements because there is no open space variance and they are satisfying the open space for the planning code and the lower unit by access for the rear yard and the upper unit for the roof deck and i think that it is sensitively designed, it is just a hatch and so you have the transparent railing and then you have the roof deck and then a hatch that is a minimum

at least impact on the neighbors there. and as noted the lot size is 25-70. that is standard relatively standard for the vernal heights and that is true. but for, the lots throughout the city, the standard dimensions are 25 by 100 feet that you would find for the rh2 zoning district. and so here, the subject project that the building permit application that is on file went through the neighborhood notification under section 311, notices sent out in the beginning of december and expired on january 24th and it goes to the owners and occupants within 150 feet of the project and so if someone was not listed as the proper owner of the property, they should have received it if they were the occupant of the property it goes to that address and that includes the plans for the project and there were two variance hearings on this item and first heard on december 5th, at that hearing

there was neighborhood opposition and they responded to the variance notice, at that point, i think that the variance notice had gone out, and the 311 notice had probably gone out that day or date before. and i continued that item to january 23rd, and i wanted time for the project sponsor to meet and to discuss the concerns of the neighbors, some of the issues that were raised were concerns about the treatment of the front set back because concerns about whether or not it was properly landscaped, and there was resulted as concerns about whether or not if i recall correctly, an underground creek and concerns about drainage and so we continued the item to january, and also, it is my recollection at that time that i mentioned that some of these concerns that are being raised by the neighbors could be addressed through the discretionary review process and surprised that none was filed and we had to get to the hearing on january 23rd and listen to the concerns by the neighbors and i understand that there are concerns, but, looking at the

design of the project, and i think that has a sensitive design that does adequately address the planning code requirements and i believe that it meets the five findings necessary to justify a variance and so that leaves my justification to grant the variance and the building permit application has not been approved by the department and once it does and reviewed by planning and that permit would be appealable to this board at a later date but that is the current status and you know, finding here that they are meeting, you know, the requirements of the allowances of the rh2 zoning district to have the family sized units and two bedroom units and i don't think that these are monster units of trying to gain the system in any way or building up larger than really should be permitted on the lot. and i think that the adjacent property has created a hardship for this case and the planning code requirements are based upon the adjacent properties and you have the set back requirements that are dictated

by the nature of the properties and i can't see how you can't include the properties when reviewing and discussing the decision and so i am not aware of any state law that would preclude me from considering the adjacent properties and there is nothing in the planning code. if anything you should call upon your knowledge of the neighborhood and the adjacent properties to make that or take that into consideration when making a determination. so noted that these are approximately 1000 square foot units and not monster units by any definition i would say. and so again, with that, we found that there was sufficient justification to it grant the variances and i am available for the questions. there is a pattern and it is not a predominant pattern. but, the down hill, neighbors they are actually in an rh 1 zoning which has a less regard requirement and on the subject block it is rh2 and the properties do as noted they

extend further into the rear yard than the adjacent building and i think that is or works toward the justification for the variance and i am available for the questions. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> i could not find where you got the 6 and a half foot on the front set back requirement. >> averaging on the adjacent property. determining the required front set back? >> i was wondering whether there was a legislated set back. but, if you look at it, it appears that the what they are proposing is almost the average between the two. >> yes, i see. >> i will go ahead and clarify that because i worked with the planner ben fu on this one, this area right here, actually identified, as xh is further up to the street. and it is actually partially an open entry area and so it is

roofed but because it is opened as an open entry area, and opened to condition air and not part of the actual residence it was considered not to be part of the building mass and so we actually had to average back from what we are noting here as the 5-6 and a half. >> i understand. >> thank you. >> thank you, is there any public comment on this item? >> please step forward. >> >> i'm brian olsen and i live at 619 which is on this block and i was kind of drawn into this appeal for the variance when the notification happened. to the neighbors, a lot of neighbors were very concerned

about the size of the variations being requested. and i don't know if those shading issues came up because i think that it was more general with the other neighbors wondering why are they or why would they grant them a 14-foot, extension and into the rear yard? so i think that a lot of those concerns were addressed. from the neighbors, through letters and also a number of neighbors attended the planning for the variance hearings, in december. and so i don't agree that those concerns were not brought up about the size of the project, both the height and the inch of the rear yard into the front yard, i think that was the important part of the neighborhood opposition. and i think that a lot of people are concerned about the loss of green space going on. with these buildings encroaching into the rear yard.

those yards are very they are kind of wild in a way. secondly, i can see the advantage of wanting to build up into that space because it is difficult to traverse, and i have two small children and they are kind of like mountain goats running around on the ter aces down there. but we provide because we are within the required variance and we provide a lot of green space for habitat and there is a lot of birds and animals living in our yard. and flowers and bees and all kinds of things and i kind of object to the trying to say that the roof top deck is the same as that green space. so they proposing a roof top deck, and there are two other projects on vernal hill, recent projects that are monster yus and one on vernal heights boulevard as you turn the corner and the other one on the top of fulsom and they both have roof top decks and it does not replace the green space

that was taken away by the size of those projects. and so i am concerned about this setting a precedent. i don't object to the design of the building or of having a structure in this space, that was sort of brought up as that this is private property. so why are you objecting to us being able to build what we want to build on. and i think that the neighbors came with the concerns that were legitimate. and i don't think that the developers addressed the concerns that the neighbors brought. so any way, that is what i want to say. >> thank you. >> i have a request before you believe here. so, when you met with the developers, and possibly the project owners, do you feel that they addressed a lot of your concerns or were trying to address a lot of your concerns? >> i felt that they presented the project simply as they had in the variance hearing.

they showed us what the project was, they tried to convince us of the merits of the project just as they have done to the planning commission. and that is what they did. >> well, i mean, i heard earlier that, you know, one of the neighbors was concerned about the windows looking direct, so they removed the windows. so, you don't think that they were... >> i think that was the sign, i think that actually occurred even before, the variance hearing, that was kind of like they had done that even before the very first variance hearing. i felt like there were a lot of other concerns and not only with the water and the drainage, and they have an answer for everything as to why this project should go forward. and i think that the neighbors also have some legitimate concerns and i don't know what the process is. but it seems to me like the neighbors are kind of locked out of this process. >> were you aware that there

was a discretionary review process. >> we were and i feel personally responsible because at the 11th hour the night before and i emailed the block saying, we have not done anything about this and we need to do something about this. >> is there a reason that you did or did not? >> i think that me, myself, i was like sort of the only person that was either in town because it was the holidays, or sort of on top of the deadline. because of my interest in this. >> so you said that there was quite a bit of interest against the project. so... those people that were interested in not seeing this project go forward were aware of the discretionary review process that is supported by the city and county, correct? >> yes. but i don't think that the... we were given the impression on the variance hearing that we were meant to work it out with the developer. like it was not... there was a chance with us being able to work something out with the developer >> and i am just trying to fill out that... and you know, it was much more serious.

>> yeah. well if it was, then, why didn't that move to the discretionary review process. >> i think that we did not realize how serious the discretionary review was. and i am not an adjacent neighbor and so my interest is on principle and i do have concerns about it, but i don't feel like the process is really fair. >> okay. >> it was just going to ask for the variance and going to be granted. >> but that is why we have the discretionary review process. >> right. i understand that. any way i can take responsibility for it but i was not able to pull off the application by myself at that. it is the one neighbor who presented tonight at that point did not think that he could be involved. >> okay. >> you answered my question, thank you very much. >> okay. >> is there any other public comment? >> seeing none, we will start with rebuttal and the appellants have three more minutes. >> i will make a few more

points, we were in discussion and contract at that point i did see the plans and this is a big structure and it is going to impact my property and my property negatively but i want this property and it is our first home and the market is crazy. and that all being said when i looked at the plans and everything, no one ever told me and it was never stated anywhere that those plans required three variance and again, i never got proper 311 notification that i was even allowed or due process to file a discretionary review. so again, like what brian just said when the neighbors were rallying around and said do you want to be involved? >> legally, i don't think that i can be involved. i am an, engineer, when i look at legal documents it confuses me. i did not think that i would be allowed to file the discretionary review because i had signed off on the plans when i purchased the home as

one of the disclosures and i was incorrect. and any way, >> i mean, i am in the southern 645, adjacent property and so i did have the conversation around the privacy and the rear variance and the privacy in general they did not remove the windows but alter to a smaller profile but between the roof deck and the windows there was with the deck and all of my living area in the backyard and all of those windows look down on to mine. >> privacy issue. >> did you receive the 311 notice. >> i don't recall getting a proper 311 notice, and one of the things that we started to discuss, did you get the notice or not? there was a general uncertainty. i know that there was a hearing coming up and that is when i sent the first e-mail saying that i travel a lot for my job and i will not be here for the review. >> you knew that it was happening? >> even though