PC 092706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Joseph Heenan, 4582 Second Street, spoke in opposition to this project and believed this project was too big for the lot and the neighborhood. He noted that his own FAR was 37 percent and believed it was possible to upgrade an older house on a small lot, and still be appropriate for the neighborhood. Theresa Aimaz, 4625 Second Street, spoke in opposition to this project and was concerned about the direction the neighborhood may take if this project were approved. She noted that she had attended the open house; she had asked duect questions and received answers that were different than the applicants' statements during the hearing regarding the proximity of the addition and building height. She noted that she and other neighbors were able to build additions within the rules, including the 40-percent FAR. Kristine Miller, 6370 Stoneridge Mall Rd., I306, spoke in support of this item Commissioner Olson disclosed that the next speaker, Cazol Olson, is his wife. Cazol Olson, 632 Abbie Street, spoke in support of this item. She noted that she did not know the applicants or their immediate neighbors personally and worked to preserve the Downtown azea. She had watched the September 19, 2006, City Council meeting and had tried to understand the situation between the two neighbors. She had attended the open house, and it was not her understanding that anyone thought the house was for sale. She noted that she had asked many questions about the structure and gazage in the back and about the neighbors' homes. She believed the plan was attractive and supported its approval. Stacey Wright, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 50 Fremont Street, San Francisco, noted that she was the attorney representing Grace Lutman. She submitted a letter from Scott Summer and pointed out a typo in the first sentence. She noted that Ms. Lutman's address was actually 4524 Second Street. She noted that paragraph 8 in the Draft Conditions of Approval stated, "The proposed driveway paving and mow strip shall be located fully on the subject property with the concrete wheel tracks sited in a manner so that vehicles using the driveway do not encroach in any manner upon the neighboring property." After reviewing the staff report and the presentations, she did not believe that had been adequately demonstrated in the staff report. She displayed a photo and noted that the wheel tracks were not centered so that they were up against Ms. Lutman's property line, which left the possibility of a large vehicle overhanging onto her property. She disagreed with Mr. Boyce's comment that a fence built by Ms. Lutman would preclude them from getting into and out of his caz; she noted that the applicant's statement could be seen as seeking to obtain a part of Ms. Lutman's property at that location. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regazding the definition of prescripfive easement, Ms. Harryman replied that an example was a path through a homeowner's property used by people to get to the beach, albeit without permission, for a number of years. It created "open and notorious" public use of the private property, and gives the beachgoers a prescriptive easement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Page 11 of 17