mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning department. just some overview, it is 161- 165 newman street, located within rh-2, two-unit density zoning district, located within the vernal heights special use district. i think this is the first variants appeal that the board has heard that i conducted the hearing since the start conducting hearings in june. this item was heard on september 22, 2010. the subject application seeks variances from the lot area, rear yard, and usable open space to allow the subdivision of the lot into separate, legal bahts, one approximately 25 by 46 and the other 25 by 50, but which are substandard in terms of the lot size, even though it is a corner lot. it still requires a variance. into the findings, the vernal heights special use district does have some smaller than normal lots, but they are still generally 25 by 80 feet. the subject lot as it exists is generally larger than what we would typically find it in vernal heights. however, the property is excessively developed. in 1998, there was a building permit

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. i would just like to note one item. there has been ovations made there were no public hearings on the case. this is the third public hearing, and the board of appeals still has the same notification requirements. notice was done to owners and occupants within 150 feet of the project. this is a duly noted public hearing. with that, i am available for any questions. president goh: would you address the allegation that their appeal was rejected? >> i believe the request for discretionary review came after the building permit was issued. once the building permit has been issued, the proper process is to file an appeal with the board of appeals and the planning commission cannot hear it. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if the project sponsor worst to submit plans and a designated area as something and it was a specific designation and would trigger c.u. because it would be over 4,000 feet, it is an option for them to rename that? can they decide to avoid the c.u. process we're going to use it for storage and said? bridge

mr. sanchez also who said this constitutes or functions as a re-hearing.this board weighed in on the formula retail issue. maybe this does not rise to the level of collateral or something like that, but to me, the comments of this board, the vote we took the last time this was heard. those issues, square footage and the formula retail, to rest. as for the remaining issue, i don't think in my life anything has been presented that, one, the process was wrong. never mind on that. whether there has been abuse of process, by which side? what has been clearly stated by mr. sanchez, 312 was not required, so there is no other issue for the atm. they are allowed to have it inside. the process that went through to resubmit the permit satisfied that the planning department, so i intend to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. icommissioner fung: i am in basc agreement with that position. the atm permit rests on itself. the issue of whether it is 4000 square feet rests with the department to enforce what was presented to them. therefore, i believe that has also been

mr. sanchez was in the position as the zoning administrator, the acting zoning administrator. we believe that mr. sanchez performing in this new capacity may have been more conservative in his determination of the extraordinary circumstances, practical difficulty, and the hardship of the merits of the case. i believe mr. sanchez stated in the hearing is concerned that we had not won criteria to overcome, but we also cannot meet the requirements for rear yard and open space. we have submitted cases in our documents in which they interpreted the various elements within the code to allow for the split of properties which without exemptions for all three. as well as the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, similar as to ours. we feel this is just the type of appeal for which the board was created, which is to provide oversight of the decisions made within the city departments so of residents are given equal and fair treatment. we're not real-estate developers, we're just to residents that would like to own our properties equally. severna heights review committees have show

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department, and in response to the information, the property across the street -- it does not appear those were subdivided recently. those buildings were built previously. the building in front was built in 1930, both prior to the lot size requirements. the building on the north side of the lot was built between 188 the aunt 1907. that is the information i found -- 1880 and 1907. they have done a good job of differentiating this, and also a stablishing there is neighborhood support for this. the department cannot just make a decision based on the fact there is neighborhood support. we have to look at the impact of the general plan, and i think issue is the similarity between the two, and that is a fair result large building developed. -- that is there was a large building developed. have there been a subdivision, that would have resulted in a smaller building. had the front building been smaller, had it been closer to being a code-compliant in terms of the rear

mr. sanchez? >>

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. i would just like to note one item. there has been ovations made there were no public hearings on the case. this is the third public hearing, and the board of appeals still has the same notification requirements. notice was done to owners and occupants within 150 feet of the project. this is a duly noted public

mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just to clarify, the proposal is for three new single-family dwellings. each of the buildings will provide two off street parking spaces for the use of the residents. the existing building will remain as a single family dwelling. it is an rh-1 district. in the future, they may be able to subdivide the lot. but that would be through subdivision and demolition of the building. that would have to go through the section 317 process for loss of a dwelling unit. i am not aware of plans for future development of the property at the corner. to clarify, i am available for any questions. vice president garcia: i am confused. it seems mr. gladstone said there would be two new curb cuts, three houses, three garages. >> there is actually a net gain. there would be three of street parking spaces with three curb cuts required. that would provide two off- street parking spaces each. the current plan would probably result in removal of one off- street parking space. we are looking at a net gain in eac

mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon. i will be brief and just speak to 3.3 good -- three points. there is no notification required for the change of use. gthe notification issue involves the atm on the exterior wall. we noted that notification would be required. at the hearing, it was even required by the board that the revised plans to be adopted. the board did not reach consensus at the hearing, so following the hearing, the permit holder submitted a revised permit that address the issue, and it was something they mentioned in the initial review. they moved the i.t. -- the atm inside the building. we approved a permit, but the notification has been issued. the board has expressed concerns about the use and wanted to verify that we do not do this for actual construction, and we measured the site, but you have to be for you -- before you the notes of the site. the site is actually smaller than what is in the plans. they are within the size limits of the planning code. anything more than 4000 square feet would require additional authorization is essentially functions as a rehearin

mr. sanchez for his work on this. i know it's not easy. ok. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to, i assume, approve this project with the added condition offered by the police department that project sponsor continue working with them, work with them, on their security plan. on that motion, commissioner gordon? [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. president olague: we're going to take a 10-minute recess at this time. >> thank you. please stand by. [10-minute recess]

mr. sanchez. mr. sanchez told them everything would be fine. the contractor said they would move heaven and earth. only the next day, when mr. sanchez talked them into signing the document, it turned out that mr. sanchez is a sleazy lawyer who is skimming them into a contract to spend something $2500 to negotiate the mortgage -- refinance they been trying to do with no guarantee of success. fortunately, they were savvy enough and also my contractor talk to me than a lawyer. i said you can't do it now. it seems to me and my feeling is freddie mac is trying to raise his figures and looks like it can get lots of people help a refinancing mortgages like ours and in the meantime, people like my contract for her really should be being helped by these programs are getting help they need. >> well, i search within the treasury program, the hip program has been an unmitigated disaster. from the very outset it was as they can eat. it really was almost the worst possible combination of kind of people coming up with an idea of how to not tell people is real

mr. sanchez for his work on this. i know it's not easy. ok. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to, i assume, approve this project with the added condition offered by the police department that project sponsor continue working with them, work with them, on their security plan. on that motion, commissioner gordon? [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. president olague: we're going to take a 10-minut >> okay, the planning commission is back in session. my understanding since the recesses you will consider the continuance of item 15, which is the market and octavia monitoring report follow-up hearing. so moved to what date? >> june 16 or whatever 16th it is. commissioner olague: the proposal is to continue this in the june 16. >> second. >> wanted to make sure to place at the end of the calendar because a lot of the individuals that hope to be here wanted to be here, and that is why we are continuing it, so we could have more input. commissioner olague: on that motion for continuance to june 16. com

mr. sanchez. and mr. sanchez told him everything was going to be fine. as my contractor said, they were going to move heaven and earth. only the next day when mr. sanchez sent documents and talked him into signing the documents, it turned out that mr. sanchez was -- is a sleazy lawyer who was getting them into a contract to spend something like $2500 to negotiate the mortgage that they've been -- the refinance they've been trying to do with no guarantee of success. um, fortunately, they were savvy enough and -- >> thank goodness. >> also my contractor talked to me, and i'm a lawyer, and i said you cancel now! but it seems to me that my feeling is that maybe freddie mac is trying to raise its figures and look like it really is helping lots of people who need help by putting through mortgages, by refinancing mortgages like ours. and in the meantime, people like my contractor who really should be being helped by the

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject variants is pretty straightforward. -- variance is pretty straightforward. the properties are located within a single-family zoning district within the bernal heights special use district. the properties are configured in such a way that both buildings straddle property lines. this is an exceptional circumstance that does not apply to most properties in the city. it is not something we would want to further. it is against any municipal code requirement. we would want all buildings to be on their own properties. the first property, 260 mullen avenue, is 26 feet deep. based on records we have, the building was constructed in 1929. 264 is the triangular plot, roughly 906 square feet. the building there was constructed in approximately 1906, based on our records. both contain single-family dwellings. unfortunately, they do cross onto each other's lot, not a condition we want to maintain. the applicant submitted the request to change the law lines. it is not creation of a new l

mr. sanchez? >> i think the commission has highlighted the current issues and requirements of mcd's. the legislation was developed in 2005. it may be time to revisit the location requirements. this is a discretionary review. the commission has a broad amount of discretion and authority to approve or deny or make amendments to the application. that is what happened with the case in the sunset, that this commission found it was appropriate and acceptable. the board of appeals disagreed and denied on those grounds, because they took no account their discretionary authority what they saw as the impact on the neighborhood to deny their application. president olague: is it not primary and secondary schools? so it does it include some youth facilities. >> it is primary and secondary educational schools, as well as community centers, recreation centers primarily devoted to use. -- to youth. president olague: yeah, i don't know of any around there, at work across the street, actually. i'd like to thank supervisor kim's office. they have been extremely helpful and facilitating these conversati

mr. sanchez. >> i would like to begin with some background on the subject property. the property is located within the zoning district. the building permanence and -- of building permits were firele. during that time, two discretionary reviews were filed. there was a resolution that met with a project sponsor on a live operator and -- non-. they unanimously approved a project. the board of supervisors upheld the subdivision of the properties so would argue the subdivision. the board of supervisors upheld that on october 5. the permit was issued in on october 7. the building permits were appealed to this board on october 21, scheduled for hearing on january 12. a few days before the appeal, the appeal was filed on january 7. the board of survivors heard the matter on march 22 and unanimously upheld the appeal, so we have had unanimous of holding -- upholding of the project end of the permits that are before you -- and on the permits that are before you. i would like to point out that no variances were sought. it was determined of variants was not required, and that wa

mr. sanchez. >> i would like to begin with some background of the project. this is within the union street neighborhood commercial districts. this began in early 2010. the application sought to remove this and closure. goothey affirm it would requiren application. the building application and was revised to note it was application of the sun room. the permit was issued on the 22nd. the plans were not modified, but it was clearly indicated to the project sponsor what's needed to be done, and the sun room was to be removed and replaced rather than simply removed. the department immediately responded. it came to our attention but work was still continuing, and i think the scene near building instructor can confirm this. nobel day permit have been issued -- no building permit have been issued of the time. a building permit was submitted on june 4. this ought to legalize the work of the permit and also is subject to neighborhood notification. the notice was issued on july 26. this is normally a 30-day notice. however, it came to the attention that a permit owner

mr. sanchez. >> i would like to put on the overhead and an aerial photo that might help show the subject property. this long building is the permit holder's property. the adjacent building is the appellant's property. commissioner fung: excuse me. victor, can you grow -- blow that up a little bit? thank you. that is good. thank you. >> this would be the -- my finger is huge. this would be the permit holder's property. this is the appellant's property. you can see there is quite a recess already between the buildings. the rear of building walls are a southern-facing exposures. i would not think this would have a great addition to shut up, especially considering the shadows in the photo. the existing building already extends in such a nature. that already casts a shadow on the appellate of property. i do not think there would be net new addition of shadowed by the project. -- of shadow by the project. commissioner fung: those shadows look like it is early afternoon already. thank you for your ipad. vice president garcia: do you charge the city when you use your ipad to help us out? >> the

mr. sanchez had made some comment about the fact that appeared to him, or maybe he had some other evidence beyond the fact that appeared to him, that a business decision was made, and the decision was that the operators of ike's had decided maybe it would be better off paying the fine and continuing to operate. there seemed to be a little lack of some sort of cooperation, and my interpretation of it was that the seriousness of this and working as well as they could with the department. but the other side of that, according to the papers, 20-40 people worked at this operation. there is ongoing concern for them. at one time, the ultimate landlord had agreed the process to go forward, then changed his mind. my feeling was that to shut down at a viable business until an alternative is found would probably be a serious financial burden, certainly on the operators of ike's as well as the people who work there. i am definitely for a reduction. i guess the discussion, at least from my point of view, is how much to reduce that, bearing in mind we can only reduce it to a figure of $100 today. i don'

mr. sanchez, on the following day, the 24th. and then the applicant got a hold of me on the 25th. he came in and met the commanding officer and myself, captain mahoney. and we did have a brief conversation in regards to his business plan. and what our main concern is, is the security plan. just to bring some issues and concerns that engle side has, number one, there's a family school located at mission street which provides care or education for children between four months and five years, which is approximately 371 feet away. there's a planned parenthood located at 1650 mission. i'm sorry, valencia, which provides services to both youth and teens, which is approximately 1,056 feet away. and then there's another, the co-op dispensary located on 29th street, which is approximately 1,500 feet away. and also the expressed concerns of some of the area residents in regards to the opposition which you guys already were -- they were loitering, bringing people in, so on and so forth. so having said that, if the planning commission does decide to approve this application, i'm respectfully