>> item 11, appeal 14-6 [inaudible] the property is at 1410 [inaudible] properties llc of a street improvement permit. construct new 15 food wide concrete sidewalk to provide a walking path from clarendon after to subject property. we'll start with the appellants. you have seven minutes. >> good evening president lazarus, members of the board. steve williams. i can true hi truly say without a trace of irony that

this has been a long and winding road for the other neighbors.it's the longest case i've ever had, more than ten years. i summarize this appeal should be granted on page 2 of our brief and i'll start by reviewing those quickly. first is the legality issue. article 9 of the public works code governs all and any work in the unaccepted right away. the permit was not granted with article 9 and not properly granted. the owners of the property are financially and personally liable for maintenance and use for anything consent is required. d just as specified in article 9 and that's probably the most

important point in this appeal tonight. the sebd second is that the general plan, the planning code and numerous other policies and programs mandate preservation of open green space and these unaccepted undeveloped streets and rights of way a specifically defined in the planning code as public open space and must be treated as public open space because that's what they are. this is why the driveway sought by this development team was unanimously rejected by the board of supervisors, not once, but twice. once in 2006 and the second time this year when they went back for a second bite of the apple. third reason, practicality. the design was simply slapped together after the developer's most recent loss at the board of supervisors. it makes no sense. it's dangerous, it goes straight up a very steep

hill, and there's a large utility box up legislative sidewalk. you've never seen any sidewalk like that in your life. it's right in the middle. the developers made this application without any outreach to anybody in the neighborhood, without any discussions and ignoring our pleas for a reasonable settlement such as the use of that existing walking path. the fourth reason is fairness. this is a real bait and switch by this development team. every prior approval granted by the city was based on the representation that access would be obtained from mountain springs. from 2006 when we were here last and commissioners fung was then president of the board of appeals, until 2012 when they got final plans to

build access from mountain springs, exhibit 13 to my brief, the access was always represented to the public and all the city agencies, planning, dbi, dbw is planning from above and mountain springs. that was 100% the development's idea. that's where access was obtained and where the neighbors on mountain springs consented and approved access from that site. it's just not credible now after six years for the development team to say well, we suddenly find that's not practical, we changed our mind so we're going to change this project. and that's what they say on page three of their brief. let's start with article 9 as exhibit 18. it governs every aspect of

development in the unaccepted streets and the other sections of the public works code deal with the accepted streets and there's two kind of streets, accepted and unaccepted. one the city's responsible for attaining and others, the local homeowners who abut it are responsible. item 15 directs the construction and maintenance of the sidewalks and directly refers to article 9 by saying if you're dealing with an unaccepted street go to article 9 and i brought some of those code sections depending on the arguments made by the other side. the requirement of consent for homeowners abutting the unaccepted street for improvements is well established and the developers were required to obtain that for the access from mountain springs. that's what dpw requires them to obtain. if you look at exhibits 5 and 6 you'll see that's where the

consent is and they said this is mandatory, that the consent had to be obtained in order to go from mountain springs and that's why it's so important for this board to understand this point. the developers are asking to build this steep concrete walkway which will only serve one building and will be a private walkway and the metulas will be 100% responsible for its maintenance and slip and falls. it does not follow the code. the second issue, the green policies. this new project they've proposed d violates not only the green policies, but the prior decisions of this board. this is the walkway that the developers brought up the first time to the board of appeals and the board of

appeals made a ruling, which was the only thing the neighbors were asking for that this all be reduced. cut less of the green space up. this is what was finally approved from mountain springs so 15 feet wide sidewalk violates that prior rule, also violates all the policy. it makes no sense. if i walk in front of your house it's not 15 feet, the sidewalk in front of my house is 8 feet. this is absurd. it was not thought out correctly. the practicality is extremely steam and i touched on the fairness issue. we're asking the board to set aside this improperly issued permit and if you're going to issue this permit as it is, provide them the tools with the same indemnity the city would demand and that same indemnity is written into exhibit 5 and 6 where it was

coming from mountain springs. you have to give than if this is going to stand. it shouldn't stands, but if it does they're entitled to the indemnification for this private walkway to this home. i'm available for questions. there's a million exhibits. i know the briefs were thick as a phone book. i know way too much about this case. happy to answer any questions. >> i think we can hear from the permit holder now. >> i am the architect for the property. the property owner karen woods is here with me. the prior appeal of this project was denied by the board back in 2006.

the house has taken a long time to approved permit for this legal legislative sidewalk should be upheld. in short, the neighbors didn't want the house on this property and now the house has been built and they're still trying to make things difficult for her. she would like access to the house and to sell it. it is a legal legislated 15 foot sidewalk. the history behind this appeal demonstrates why the appeal should be denied. throughout the history of this ro jekt there's been an adversarial relationship between the appellant and karen. and they asked us to revise the design. in all four cases we worked with the neighbors, redesigned the project and were able to proceed with good will from them. thal fought us throughout the permitting and construction

process. we met with them but were unable to engage in any meaningful discussions. they refused to let us into their home so we could see firsthand what their concerns were. they insisted we narrow the building so it was only 17 to 18 feet wide. they allowed for no new loans. normally neighbors allow me and my clients into their home so we can feel empathy for their situations, determine which impacts are most significant and deevery window was as important as the other and we needed to narrow the building 7 to 8 feet along its entire length. by the way, their house is a typical, being wide and extendsing very close to the rear property line. it had open space on neighbors does not constitute an entitlement. they told me we need to redesign the project their way or they'd stop construction of the house.

inspite of their inflexibility important to them and designed setbacks and notches into the design to responds to their concerns. they fist attempted to block the permit for their home through discretionary review at the planning commission. the planning commission az proved our design finding it to be well designed and fitting with the neighbor context. concerning the driveway across access from the after avenue to the house. parking in the gra raj our approved design approved a drive way. working with the planning director we modified the design and obtained a positive general plan referral. the driveway was approved by dpw but required final approval by the board of supervisors. because of the influence of the neighbors the project never got out of the land use committee. we applied for and were granted a parking grant by

the zoning administrator. a neighbor who we assume was working with the appellate was blocked, we redesigned access [inaudible] to 1410 canyon street with a landing at the bottom of the stairs. [inaudible] since we were able [inaudible] these approvals aed the project to continue and the permit was approved in june 2010. given the history of the permitting process she reached out to them home changes to the house design. [inaudible] came to an agreement in july of 2010. karen made changes to the house design and they promised to not make further attempts to block further construction of the house. karen was optimistic that the

neighbors would be impressed with the house. this hope was that the neighbors would eventually see him as a good neighbor and could reengage them after construction to see if they might be open to [inaudible]

as minimizes disruption to neighbors [inaudible] for access to the site. karen followed proper permitting procedures [inaudible] again, con sis don't with the history of this project they opposed this legal sidewalk. they're ununwilling to make any compromises with karen. the cited section of public

works apply to streets, noting sidewalks. they argue that the walkway is e kwi lent to removing open space. a sidewalk is not a building, it does not remove open space. the proposed sidewalk has ha lower slope throughout the city and finally they resort to attacking karen's character accusing him to try and deceive neighbor ws a bait and switch. he nevada hid his desire for a driveway to neighbors. he has reached out to neighbors to reach a solution everyone could accept.

>> that was not part of a settlement. that was our way of figuring out access to the property so we could get a building permit since access to the driveway was denied. >> the neighbors knew about the stairs? >> oh, absolutely. >> and you're saying there was always -- your client was always clear about the driveway. >> he gave up on the driveway and would have accepted the stairs if that was the only way of moving forward with the project, but as soon as the house was built he realized the stairs weren't going to be very practical, in fact,

certainly more dangerous than this sloping sidewalk we're proposing. >> one last question. has there been any discussion about indemnity? >> no, not as far as i know. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'll try to sum up all the issues that have been brought up since. first of all, i'd like to address article 9, section 406 which the a pel lant and mr. williams address in their brief. we believe the appellant misconstrued dpw's policy about the applicability of section 406 article 9 of the public works code.

our applicability for this is when there is a proposal to construct the entire street, so the entire stanion property line to property line for the feasibility that the city would ultimately accept it for maintenance. in a case like that, yes. absolutely. all the fronting property owners need to consent because ultimately they are the ones that are going to be either paying for it or going to be assessed a certain value of it until the improvements are paid off, thus following the board of supervisors this approval of the proposed driveway to the site through the right of way, mark brand came to us with a proposal to construct what is already

legislated as a 15 foot wide sidewalk along both sides of the street for the stretch of the street. and mountain spring and i know it's hard to see off this, but there was app copy of this map also included in our brief, but the official sidewalk here is 15 feet so there's a ledge slated sidewalk width that

the matula's are already responsible for maintaining, whether it's approved or not, whether it's constructed as a con skreet sidewalk or whether it exists in its current state as just unimproved shrubbery basically. so based on that, we issued a street improvement permit for the construction of this 15 foot wide sidewalk to city standards, no additional notification was required as a result because the sides walk is being built to city standards. there's a number of projects all over the city where there are unimproved sidewalks and based on the better streets plan, ada improvement to make it less liable because if a

pedestrian is walking on an unimproved sidewalk it would reduce the liability for the property owner that will ultimately be responsible for that sidewalk. thus we request you up hold our decision to issue the street improvement and provide access to the subject property. i'm here to answer any additional questions any of you may have. >> in your department's criteria for the design of a ledge slative sidewalk is there any requirement on where it's placed? >> it's placed adjacent to the property line. this line on this map -- this

line right here is the property line on the east side of stanion street. this sidewalk is constructed adjacent to the property line and because it's legislated at 15 feet that's what we typically require. we often allow construction of less of a concrete sidewalk, you know, to include possible landscaping, additional information, but in this case due to the com cast box that currently exists, here's the

existing cable box. we initially contacted com cast to relocate that box to provide for of a path of travel but they informed us that the box could not be moved, thus when i informed mr. brand of this information he asked what is the minimum path of travel that would be required and under ada the minimum path of travel is 4 feet and here again, providing 4 foot 7-and-a-half inches of unobstructed path between westerly -- what will be the curbline essentially and the wall from this cable box. . >> and the legislated sidewalk be placed elsewhere? >> no. . not typically.

>> and some of the other instances where you mentioned earlier in your presentation talking about the >> if there's building within, behind or off that right of way andsome form of access is required for the closest sidewalk to their front door, yes, we often issue a street improvement permit for them

to construct that stield walk. >> if there was no building that was being accessed by the sidewalk, but they're creating a sidewalk to utilize the open space would that be allowed as a ledge slated by the legislate a sidewalk where there may not already be a ledge slate legislate property owner. >> thank you. we can take public comment. can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under public comment? okay, if you wouldn't mind

lining up along the wall that will help move things forward quickly. if you haven't filled out a speaker card we ask that you do so after or before you speak. the first person can certainly start. please step forward. >> i live in house number four and done so for five years with my family. this is a wonderful neighborhood where the people who abut this unaccepted street cooperatively garden and maintain both the staircase that exists to allow us access to our homes from

clarendon. we maintain all the trees and garden such that it's a place that's known in the city for people to come look at our garden. we enjoy that community. we live quite far actually if you compare even house number one, which is perhaps the furthest from clarendon over quite a gradient. the neighborhood opposition, i'd like to characterize it. i'm new to the neighborhood. we've never wanted a driveway at this property because we feel it's not characteristic of the neighborhood. we like the community we have and we'd like this particular unaccepted area to be in similar vain where it's gardened and maintained and an attractive area for all of us. when we saw the permit filed

for this development it's a 15 foot sidewalk with curb cuts. you get come cast to move the box and you got your driveway so that's from my perspective and the neighbors, the objection we have to this. . a sidewalk would be greet. great. a staircase is what you need for that steepness of property. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm charles shoe, i'm a resident to the neighbors inviting us to a reception to view their plans for 1410

stanion. they included a small copy of the plans in that letter. a number of neighbors attended that session and then subsequently we discovered that the drawings that were presented to us for which they were trying to solicit our approval were not the same drawings on file at the dpw and planning department so in fact, what they were doing was -- can only be characterized as a bait and switch. we don't want to engain in inflammatory language, but mr. brand has characterized the neighborhood as personal animus, which is incorrect. i didn't know either of these parties until after we had been drawn into the issue

when we had since then i have actually personally met with mr. woods and mr. brand and have been -- i had invited them to meet, i've arranged meeting space for us to talk and have repeatedly been presented with misrepresentations of their intention and plans. my core objection to this is that they cannot have it both ways. they can't say they hearing they're attempting to be good neighbors, but then say he wants to build a house and sell it and get out. he's an out of town speculator. we would be handing him a gift of several hundred thousand dollars at least, which would immediate ly leave the city. there's no benefit