. >> that sounds reasonable i have a couple of questions for scott mr. sanchez some of the correctly items i'm trying to understand i understand 1930 van ness and also another site dealing with the card collection the problem is if it were for the public it would not be part of the teaching institution is that what it comes down to. >> the property was formerly the mercedes benz he dealership that was first used to store a large number of the cars and also had offices for the institution they subsequentially removed the offices but still have it for the storage of automobiles it's a change of use from the retail use and is a question of working with the academies to determine what they want to do do they want offices there's been discussions of a museum there's signs if you want to see the collection call a number and people do that. it's also used we understand a research library for the students and automobile design program and also the building and the 4 nine hundred van ness across washington it's used by students i understand the inspiration also on their

mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not be if constructed in 1912 and some of the facts there would be legally two units the fact there's two exterior doors the permits subject to the jurisdiction

mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not be if constructed in 1912 and some of the facts there would be legally two units the fact there's two exterior doors the permits subject to the jurisdiction request why is there no exterior connection and the allegation it's removed don't have any evidence this is a clear a single-family dwelling dwelling and we rely on dbi and the report as we final record of notice the final records are not also correct. i'll note this was advertised and what we can tell the materials submitted on the overhead as a 5 unit in the front and 2 in the rear that was need in the record. so again, i think maybe department of building inspection can shed light but the additional research and the water department records they indicate there are that more unit than a single-family home so t

mr. sanchez and mr. duffey anything further. >> thank you scott sanchez i'll brief provide context bp about the photos ofhe booth at the end of the brief on the overhead we have a day have the overhead please. all right. so this is the entire of the booth it shows the sprinklers and the side windows noted in the appellants photo and interior latin-american for the booth and the photo of the outside of the booth seeing the lights on the inside have off and some covering and the outside the boothd you can see the window to the left through which the patent took the photograph of the car sitting outside the booth you see the light this is a better one the lights on the exterior of the booth that's what the appellant is claiming it appears there's a light coming from within the booth it seemed to be covered $0.35 that's the issue raised. a that's all i wanted to present for information >> commissioners any help on the issues i think the owner knows he has an outstanding notice of violation so far the spray booth. we saying to dbi there's no permit and he's not disagreeably but what's ahead is a hearing of co

mr. sanchez. thank you >> thank you scott sanchez i'm not aware of the any facts and circumstances i think the soil samples have been 0 addressed and we're not aware of any violations on the subject permit if there are violations then it will be referred to the department i'm available for any questions. >> anything? sir? >> commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm tom with the department of building inspectors that's true dbi didn't respond to a complaint on looks like february 6th and our inspector observed some soil borges take place which is perfectly normal for one of the projects. there was only a site permit issued so the contract project sponsor is not lout to do construction you, however, allowed to take the soil samples to device a proper foundation for the building a that's what we found and we closed the case subsequent to that >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners the i have to look over to the tape to see if i got convulsed over mitigations southerner i was at planning i lost count of the how many eirs

mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez much discussion about the residential guideline and so if i can have the overhead if this is successful. so there's a several examples nicole they show a 4 story buildings next to a row of 2 story building this is not an appropriate design it doesn't it is not capable with the neighborhood but the sets back the 4 story in this location there is an existing 3 and two-story building and an immediatelyy building not to transition from the 3 to the 2 story building and what's a textbook example we have a row of 2 story building with a 3 that's set back from the proposed line i see a dashed outlining u outline of the fourth story with the 2 story buildings that's possible to set back the third floor, however, for the fourth floor it must be eliminated so the guidelines have expressing considered such examples you've considered here today, this is a textbook example when the guidelines so additional in regards to the setbacks that's been 0 made one of the issues and we can see it on sheet a .2.1 that shows the third story. but we have the setback of the third st

mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department the architect did a thorough job in detailing 9 process by which it was developed it's kind of confirming the act it's located within rh1 the single-family home zoning directed acrossful from highway 280 it's building permit was submitted last march and the preapplication process was implemented there were provisions made and we were made aware of the neighbors concerns they redesigned the project i held two meetings to discuss this and a series the recommended changes and all the issues the design team pledged the designs and all were address regarding the map of the scale and the third store not uncommon for the planning department to recommend an approval where there's neighborhoods with predominantly 2 stories so the building is actually has maximum setbacks from the front set back from the location of the front set back that's a 25 percent rear yard and doesn't encroach and this 3 story set back from the wall so 27 feet from the front property line it has a disabled roof but the rormdz were changed to be flat roofs there wer