ts building. >> so the property line i believe my clients own the derivative yeah. this is the driveway right here going as all the way back to this line this is the essentially the property line so okay. so the appellant is using my clients by way of of easements they agree that the uses of my clients property are inconsistent with the zoning decision as you know the appellant has the burden of demonstrating the zoning administrator has record or abused his creation would be an arbitrary misuse we believe the appellant has failed to do so in

the set of laws commercial uses are not allowed in the residential zoning as stated so the appellant claimed the zoning administrator violated their constitutional right to legal protection unstomach for a lingual and commercial use they claim their commercial use we obviously disagree i think that if this were true turn a century of you land use law on hitting its head the city can decide that a commercial use is inappropriate in some places and appropriate in outside the so over the course the city can decide has it did here my clients residential garage and backyard may not be used for commercial storage and parking

so we ask you, please uphold the decision thank you. >> question counselor how long have your property clients been at the property. >> how long have you guys lived that. >> a year every two. >> they need to come forward. >> hi i believe we purchased the property in 2014 and moved ♪ august or september >> my question would be what was the disclosure in regards to the space in the back. >> there was a disclosure but the reason why we find out about the easement is because basically, the valid of the elicit in the disclosure passage the seller basically sent us corresponds saying they realized the easement were against the

applicable laws that's the reason we knew about whether or not we should challenge those easements. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening skooundz planning staff the subject letter was issued in response to a letter seeking clarification you first is it permissible under the applicable laws this is the commercial to store the trash cans at the subject properties garage and is it applicable for the guest to use the backyard for parking in reviewing this and the material submitted by itself letter of determination requester we found no evidence that the parking at the rear nor any use of the

building to store even though trash had been authorized by my city agency, in fact the information priority was a to the contrary an ongoing violation so with that information research from our starch we come to the conclusions there was no grandfathering in of the used for the subject property so we issued our decision this is before you this is a relatively straightforward matter the anticipate had the ability to submit any evidence that the parking garage in the required backyard rear yard or the space to store the trash it had mia any permits to allow the use i did not see any materials in the brief so your conclusion remains the same we don't see the use of

the garage for storage of trash is legal or authorized from the planning code i'm available for questions. >> a few coming mr. sanchez your chain of research did it go as far back as the original stone when it this building was built. >> that part of it certainly the zoning has changed over time and may be allowed over at some point about it was to the creaking contrary it was provided by i did letter of determination requester exhibit b in their materials referenced to a conditional use that referenced actually a leg expansion of the parking at the rear of the property after the code changed i know we've had

several rezoning 1960 from our first planning code to the second version that will wielded down to the residential property sometime at 1968 after the zoning change in 1960 an illegal expansion of the parking we didn't see did reported when we are be looking it historically given the fact the sand bar maps showed the extent of the parking we have this conditional use authorization which even is accrediting this as an enforcement issue is pretty clear-cut. >> when was that building built. >> in the accessoryed office 1908 but from the photos some point that this was a major

alteration i don't know what year that appeared around the same time as at adjacent builds but i don't have that date in front of of me. >> mr. sanchez at one point during your research b did the parcels connect. >> i don't have that information in front of me let's see if you can try to research that now but i don't see anything that jumped out. >> i mean when i glorification through my briefs earlier and they could have been but i don't have the past block in front of me. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> hi, i'm holly b a r b a r e

i live in the building next to the corner adjacent to it i wanted to input that it is very much a residential and were and commercial conflict with the residing there my building is old didn't have a lot of noise installation so things like the parking and such it has a large impact are you done. >> yes. >> how long have you been at that property. >> 8 years. >> is there any additional public comment okay. seeing none then have rebuttal starting with the

appellant. >> i don't really have a rebuttal only a point of clarification i think our property that there's some amount of share of the driveway some questions about the driveway it's a shared driveway that was used historically by the entire block the evening terror block they forfeited their right to use the driveway it is a small slice of the driveway thank you. >> we can have rebuttal from the determination holders. >> no rebuttal. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> no? (laughter) >> so commissioners the matter

is submitted. >> maybe i was getting used to us. >> you know this city also amazes me how the patterns of land use are always to interesting question here is perhaps maybe resolved on a legal and civil basis more than at this particular forum but the question. >>was the zoning administrator letter of determination an error or i'll just say error because he would never abuse it sorry - and the question i think the answer to the question in my mind it that he didn't error he

is correct in saying it is a fractured determination the zoning is residential and therefore i'm not supportive of the appeal >> i concur going over the material i just couldn't believe this has gone on without anyone saying anything i agree with the commissioners. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his position. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to huddle the letter of determination that the zoning administrator didn't railroad

error or abuse commissioner adams commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you the zoning administrator order is huddle on that basis thank you. >> okay. so we'll go back to item number 8 mr. halves please step forward madam president and commissioners we've reached an agreement with the appellant in the permit condition the only item outstanding was number 4 a contract showing a sold be it resolved back up left arms previously stated a dba we've reached an agreement on the product is a d bs 82 that's the

language in writing and the issue of replacing that with other method if necessary the next night is already incorporated. >> that's correct. >> okay. good thank you you made our job a little bit easier we would if there is further dislikes required no than that the appropriate motion to grant the appeal and uphold the permit to be extended to july 31st, 2014 and incorporation of noise mitigations as per the list dated day today. >> with the conditions agreed to by the party mr. pacheco i know you want me to read the

moths. >> adopting the list of conditions that are stated 225 and the expiration date is 7 31 you want to go ahead and read it. >> he's got it on the basis of the agreement of parties. >> yes. >> so we have a motion from commissioner fung to upheld this night noise authorization permit with adaptation of conditions as signed and dated 2 slash 252014 and the expiration date be extended to julie 31st 2014 and this decision a rer7b9d based on the mature agreement of the party on that motion to upheld with conditions

and that extra condition on extending the date to 7 slash 31 and commissioner president lazarus arrest commissioner honda and commissioner wilson thank you vote is 4 to zero that permit is uphold with those conditions and that extra condition on the expiration date thank you. >> okay. thank you so we'll take items 10 a and b appeal number. >> call the item. >> i feel the tempo 02 both at 1784 sean's street versus the zoning administrator and anthony with the department approval for the property on sanchez and anastasia of a rear yard vaurnts

to construct a 2 story building on january 23rd of arrest alteration project to include stared to include some donors and windows as well as electrical plumbing and we'll wait for the commissioner to return and you'll have 4 minutes to present your case. >> okay. we're ready

commissioner president lazarus if i may have a short pointed of order we have 3 new photographs, some screen shots of property with the variance accredited and a february 25, 2015, active exhibit that are new we have copies available for the board if they'll it for mr. gladstone. >> can they be 2340r7d into our presentation. >> i think their presented i would give the other party a copy copy. >> sorry.

>> thank you. good evening my name is anthony this is my wife kate pool we and our two children live here at 1782 sanchez street and the house immediately downhill to the south of the project sponsors so here we are we're asking the board to overturn or modify the variants our neighborhood proposal to fill in their backyard allows what the design guidelines prohibit filling in a rear yard and intruding on privacy and leaving neighborhood cut avenue oh, from light and air and space this year alternates to allow the project sponsor to add space to their

homelands without a second-story that rise 26 feet behavior our backyard and erecting a wall on the southern property line that leaves a 3 foot back at the back of the southern property line that red dot it the back the record clearly talks about the hard impacts that the planning department staff found that we quote would be greatly effected one big impact the tension extension extension leaves us with quote no southern exposure essential that's because if the planning staff found the project sponsors existing house quote extend deeper and it that exudate and encroach and cut off

the proposed from open space and shade the adjacent building to the north the adjacent building will be encroached and cut off it's our house our 3w50ishgd are backyard garden the commissioners additional recognizing the expectation was quote kci terminal advisory commission lit from the south to the north and quote the impacts on the adjacent property are just two large the neighbors seen this have agreed with the project sponsor sponsor saying light will be destroyed or taken away the record repeating confirmed the hash impact to fill in the backyard let me show you why because those northern end of sanchez street a particularly

steep our backyard is about 4 feet by my measurement below the project sponsors our eir regularly shaped boarder fads there's that end to the west in the pill last year's on 72 randell street unlike the od's of sanchez the larger lots have expansive views into another backyard to coveting and the bay bridge and the skyline on the elmo the picture in the exhibits showing the view to the backyard and here to the south you'll see the sunlight that comes down throw in january of last year you can see these buildings here and here and here

which because their lots are higher than ours basement and second stories blocking our view to the west this weekend we took photographs after raising flags to the height and the extent of the depth this to 0 the right is where the their end of tare wall at the end of their blatantly and their first story end 3 feet from the end of the property this plastic bag barrel fits in the property this is what 26 feet on the second-story and right where it is this was a sun in the afternoon behind the second-story would be

blocked by the it by the end of february and then a little bit later ducking behind the building on randell street this is precisely the type of backyard extension that the residential guidelines were designed to protect neighbors like us against an extension in the planning department w0rd cut off sunlight in the words of the residential design guideline leaves us boxed in and cut off and on top of they want to perch their rooftop duo deck to enjoy the garden they've w5u8d off and want to enjoy your groundingy and open space the examples of rear yard extensions and the variances

that the project sponsor cited conforming confirm how this departs in the neighborhood i've made google shots and given to mr. gladstone this show those property as you can see from those that none of them and come close to walling off a neighborhoods backyard or blocking their sunset i'll be happy to discuss that with you more and that's example in 2013 the particular time residential design team made a proposal they recommended converting it into a first-story extension and boxing up the space at the end of the building this is was a reasonable response within the

planning code and design guidelines but all the commission administrators strayed and permitted i did inpubically impacts from the project sponsors they did this because project sponsors claimed 09 alternatives to expand they're living space within their space trigger unwill affordable upgrades the board should reject this argument for two reasons first, the project sponsors argument it is too expensive but fill in their backyard this argument can't stand up under scrutiny whatever the project sponsors say the only evidence unput-down evidence those two educated and highly income folks pay only 6

hundred plus in property tax the partnerships second our structural engineering xhuflt we k5kd on monday after reading the perceive has significant figures that are inflated after years of project sponsors not providing data or fingering figures to move their master suit in the brief they've served thursday afternoon that provided for the first time the plan cost of seismic upgrade we have not had the opportunity to review the design and clauthsz flying the findings and have our seismic engineer propose alternative if

this is a issue the gentleman should be reviewing the data proposed alternates of the second-story about cost as much as the gentleman said that is no reason to allow the public defender's to see wall off their neighborhoods of the project sponsors are added may want not moving their second-story an inch forward you do from the drawing they could move the rear of their project forward and have a smaller master space but have built in drawers this is plenty of room upstairs for a kid's bedroom or use the study upstairs by adding a small closet they could eliminate the

rooftop deck this will not require the upgrades it doesn't make sense to asking him on on the service upgrades we and the neighbors have done the upgrades why not the prpdz they sit in a foundation uphill our remodeling team said if an earthquake knocks them off the hill it will brick or bring it down to our house seismic upgrades that can't insure the seismic upgrades so the seismic upgrades have not a reason to throughout the residential guidelines the historic presentation golden gates is an argument bansdz a false crisis choice between their drawings and the straw

man, i'm putting on the screen they've labeled up here it says rdt preferred edition if you look at the preservation argument it is falsify labeled the rtd edition falsely created this to the planning department by labeling that rdt preferred edition in the not true and the lastly brief this design reflect our katz and mine modification this is not true one of the actual modifications buzz moving the second-story forward keeps the second-story we've measured that at least 26 feet from the sidewalk that's fallout back from the sidewalk from the front of the house and the two donor messengers we're added we know

this is compliant because this department scrutinized it and asked us to make a modification based on the historic presentation concerns so the historic premise argument is speak also and the project sponsors falsely preferred that from soliciting from neighborhood n neighborhoods can you dune in and this the departments recommended this box says we have looked at the landowners drawings in an alternate we understand the department of health favors it was the offer blown design i'll showed you they've signed a letter support our appeals and asking the