The project was revised we were instructed to get a 11 where two floors were one unit and two floors were another unit and we achieved that. The Square Footage is her closer , they are not 11, it is 15322208. The second floor which is the streetlevel floor was altered. So this floor was previously part of the upper unit and it is now part of the lower unit. There is a kitchen, living, and dining space in the rear portion of this level. The entry, which is on sidewalk, as part of the upper unit, it is why the upper unit has more Square Footage then the lower unit. The lower floor was altered from a onebedroom layout to a two bedroom layout with an office. Those are the changes to the project. Okay. You have 15 seconds. Fifteen seconds, all right. Good evening. What you will hear a lot about tonight his parking. We did try to cut a deal. We were unsuccessful. I am continuing to continue in that spirit. Thank you. Okay. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I dont have any speaker cards, but i believe there are some commenters. Good afternoon, my name is michelle scott. My office represents the owners of 2036 and many others on the terrace. My clients possess easement rights, which the project would lawfully disrupt. We cemented a brief yesterday on this topic. Currently, it consists of 11 buildings are 22 units and 13 substandard Parking Spaces. Parking occurs on the west side wall neighbors enjoy ingress and egress on the east side. It dead ends on the southern end for the last several decades, parking has been on a firstcome , first served basis with no assigned parking. Age Property Owner possesses two parking passes, which allowed them to access the 13 spaces. All owners and residents have followed that parking agreement since its inception. Parking space eight sits immediately in front of 45. The project seeks to remove parking space eight and parking space nine. Your time is up. It is one minute. It is a second time you hearing the this item. Sorry about that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. You will have one minute. Im jennifer, i live at 46 and 50. I have three little girls. Basically i think what was not considered in terms of this project is how large an out of character this project is. It is directly across the street from me and it looks directly into my bedroom, my living room, as well as the roof deck. When it was originally designed, supposed to be for the family that lived there and now it is the developer. It has basically been made two units, and it is still only four bedrooms. The original building is streetlevel and it is four bedrooms. It is still only four bedrooms and we are completely losing our Affordable Housing and making two lesser units, and completely changing the character of the street were my kids play. We are a strong neighborhood. It is like a culdesac where we are work all work together. Mr. Eastwood has not been working with us in terms of trying to negotiate our parking solution. He has actually asked for more rather than less, and made it difficult for us to work together. I am concerned about the privacy , im concerned about the light, they are removing western light thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I am the owner of number 20 on the street. I happened to be one of the lucky few that will not be affected. My property is sitting at a much higher street elevation and far enough from the obstruction, but three homes will suffer greatly the consequences of these propositions. Jennifer, who just spoke, stands to lose the most. The project will cause lots of loss of light and complete obliteration of her views. We are hoping this commission will be able to try and see to it that the damages to the views and the Emotional Distress can be kept at a minimum. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I may permit consultants. I want to thank everyone for the attempt to work it out. That was the way to resolve it, it didnt get resolved. This is a private street just wide enough for cars. Due to a very delicate balance, parking has been allowed on one side for 13 spaces to deal with 13 cars, to get them off the street. If the garage goes forward, most likely it will revert back to a street, no parking, so yes, one car will be taken off the street with a one car private garage, but this point, the delicate balance will blow up and nobody will be parking here. You will end up with one less car, and 13 more cars. It is a delicate balance of this street is altered. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. I am james carter. Into the mic so we get and get so we can get it on record. It is right in front of you. Can you hear me now . Thank you. My wife and i bought a house on culebra terrace in the early seventies and i am an attorney. I am the only attorney who owned property there, so whenever issues came up involving parking or other matters, people on culebra would come to me, and i would act as an ombudsman in part a consultant, and an attorney, whatever. We had an agreement when i came there that all parking would be available to anyone on the street who did not have reserve we did not have reserved spaces. We had spaces and we had cards that we handed out. That has worked for many years. The neighbors wanted to park there, and in many cases, i became involved or we wrote letters saying that the parking here is now established by historical precedent. No one can change that. Thank you, your time is up. Im sorry . Your time is up. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner fung . Question for staff. There was nothing in the brief that explained why they are extending beyond the required the required rear yard Property Line. That was part of the variance findings which typically arent included. I understand it is a variance , but not according to the conditional use. They are part of the variance findings, they are included when we issue our variance decision letter, but not necessarily it is nothing that is related to the conditional use. Mr. Teague . Just respond briefly, generally whenever we have projects come to the Planning Commission that also require a variance, the staff report does not work provide recommendations on the variance itself because we do not do stuff requirements to other variances. The project sponsor often will explain why they are proposing the portions of their project that requires the variance, and then the departments recommendation is looking at the project as a whole. I guess the question is, because we are looking at this project in its entirety. And part of this project extends over the required Property Line. The rear yard line, yes. I guess if the project sponsor would like to provide an explanation as to why they feel that they should be allowed to go with this design im willing to hear it at this point. Can somebody from i think we are talking about the rear yard, the rear setback. Yeah. The building, just to be clear, does not extend over any Property Lines. I just want to state that. Im sorry, it requires a setback. A rear yard intrusion. The project is requesting a 26 inch intrusion into the rear yard and the reasons have to do with the site layout in terms of where the front Property Line is relative to the street and the rightofway, and the usual conditions of this particular lot that for shortens a developable area for building. The adjacent building was approved to a 15foot rear yard and the project seeks to align itself to that building and it has mass, it has height. Those are the reasons. Thank you. Commissioner richards . The question for mr. Carter. Mr. Carter . So if this building had no parking and two cars, how would you handle this . I dont understand the question. Lets assume we approve the building with no garage, but people move in with two cars. Two new cars. If the building were permitted. Talk into the microphone, please. If they were permitted to have a garage, then. No garage. No garage, they would park on the street as we have historically parked. So it is firstcome first serve . Yes. If you have a plaque route that since of 13 persons authorized to park, then owners of this building would have one of those okay. And they can park each unit would get one . They would get two because you can use us to park any place sure. So what you are saying is because of what im hearing is because of the addition of the garage and the curb cut of 0 feet, it is going to reduce because there is a spot in front of the house now that you could fit a car, im sure we could fit a car somewhere in the front. If they do the curb cut, it is 10 feet. What you are saying is it curved tales from another spot, a potential spot, that it creates a substandard spot. They had if they two cars, they could but one in the garage , and one right in front of the driveway of their house. That could be the arrangement. The street is so narrow that parking takes up half of it. When a car is parked parallel to the curb, it takes up about half the street. Other cars can pull up to the left and pass it to come to a better place, but if they get their wish here, it would take out two parking his places Parking Spaces. Theres parking on that side of the street now. Yeah. I dont know what the standard length of a parking space is, some places they are in the city, they are shrinking it. Is it 18 feet . About 18 feet. So if the garage with was 10 feet, so if the garage with was 10 feet, youre not putting in a garage doors with a graduated curb cut, and if somebody pulled in the garage but still parked in front on the driveway, right in front of that garage opening or that driveway, that wouldnt work . Do you think that would work given the amount of linear feet you have . All i can suggest is that if they have a garage with a car, park in that garage. That would take away a parking place in front of the garage. Okay. You are right, it will. We would like a ruling that they cannot gain a parking place i can tell you from historical background that the owners of that building have sat in for many years about discussions about parking rights and they never complained about it because they were one of many persons of these owners now great. They want to add value. I understand that, so did the owners of the current building that is proposed to be demolished have a placard . The people that live in the little house now that we are going to demolish, do they have a card . Yes. And they had a placard . Yes, they have two placards. Because it was two units . They have two placards so permit them to park in any of the open spaces on culebra terrace. Okay. Im struggling with there two cars there now that have placards, the house goes away, two new cars show up with hopefully one placard because one goes in the garage and you still have one on the street, isnt that better than what you have now . You have one less demand for a spot. Im sorry i dont understand your question. Mr. Teague, did you want to shed light . Im looking at this as the neighborhood is gaining because you have one less demand for a parking space and you still have a parking space created in the driveway of the home that actually has a garage so they can parked parallel. We can have an agreement where the owner parks parallel to his own house in front of his own driveway. If i may work back from it go ahead. Right now you pull up culebra , on the right side there are certain number of parking places. If they get approval to build with a garage, that takes out one of the available parking places. I understand that. That demolition of the parking space i understand that. But the existing condition is that there are still two medallions for the houses being demolished. Im struggling with trying to understand whether this is a better thing or a worse thing. And im coming up with it being a better thing. We cant have public discussion like this. Im sorry. The issue here is that it is not assigned Parking Spaces. There firstcome, firstserved as i understand it. You cant have that spot that is in front of that garage be assigned to that house only. It would then assign the assigned that only two that house and it would up and the system, which is firstcome first serve. Did you want to Say Something . I did have a couple quick questions for mr. Scott who submitted the brief. A couple quick questions if you dont mind. And the brief that you submitted , you said that there are three private garages on the street and that every property gets two placards. Thats right. Are they the properties that also have the offStreet Parking and they also get two on street placards . They do. As i mentioned, the lenders, for example, they dont use the garage to park their car in because it is just challenging to gain entry into that garage so they park on the street. It is storage for them, essentially. It was also described that there is no former Homeowners Association here. There is no formal Organization Running the show here. It has been an informal agreement process. Thats correct. I wish there was. One of the items in the brief was a warning notice for being towed. But theres no identification. If i parked there and got in my car, i would not who i would not know who put it there. I happen to know that the gentleman sitting right there with the glasses on his head created those. He often times will put those on cars or verbally inform folks who are not residents that they cannot park in those spots. Obviously there is a formal easement here for the access, but theres not anything in the easement relative to the parking it has been a separate agreement , kind of a friend the agreement between Property Owners that was produced in the early to thousands. I dont know if it was further cemented in the early to thousands, what you are right, there is no express easement that was given by virtue of an executed document. As i mentioned, easements are created in a variety of ways, you know, implication, necessity , prescription, a stop, and a court order based on the totality of the circumstances. The position is there is a legally protected easement right on that issue, which all owners possess equally. And it is a legally protected right. It cant be disrupted without all owners agreeing to that disruption. Thank you. I appreciate it. Commissioner moore . Would you be so kind to help us with just the numerical accounting in response to the question that commissioner richards asks . If there is a garage, the driveway is 10 feet. Yes. It has they curb cut with the flair for the product for the car to get in. We have enough with on the street for a proper tight movement of a car into the garage where we park one car in the garage as an obligation . Will you be able to impose of the second car should have a second space and parks in the driveway itself . It is going to be very tough for the car in the garage to come out. There is a garage directly across the way by this party. You cant use her garage because the street is so narrow that if someone is parking in the space directly in front of the project sponsor, you cant get out of the garage. If the current proposed garage will probably require someone to drive over the sidewalk to get out. It is a very narrow street. They are squeezing in 13 spaces to get 13 spaces off. This will upset the balance of that. Most likely all the Parking Spaces will go away. No one is telling me this. I know how it will play out. Ones there is a car space there, it will be very difficult to maintain that. Somebody gets to drive on someone elses property to drive into their private driveway and to park into the common street. It is just going to revert back to a street. Then people will be able to use their garages, and we will have a net increase of 13 cars. So the idea is to leave it alone or youll get a bunch more cars in the street. Thank you. I want to toss this question back to mr. Teague. We apparently have the street, and i dont know when the street was established. It has a certain right of way. We also have garages on the street. For whatever reasons, these garages dont seem to be workable because of the manoeuvrability of cars does not make it possible to get cars into this garage. Why would we even consider why would the department consider entertaining the idea of the garage when we dont have the capability of turning . The first point is that i dont this isnt a public rightofway. This is a easement that was subdivided. That is one reason that it is a narrow configuration that it is and we have this self regulated parking system that we have instead of a typical public rightofway with Standard City parking. I dont know what level or degree we analysed the turning radius for pulling in here. Having said that, the width of the street is not narrower than other public streets that we see while tight, it often accommodates garages as long as they have adequate wit to do so. Im not sure if that analysis would have been necessary. Can i ask, what side of the street is the Street Parking on today . Is it on the side of this project . I think that is the reason why the house the houses across the street have a harder time because their cars are parked on the opposite side of the street. So they cant take advantage of the full width of the street to manoeuvre, whereas this property could take advantage of the full width of the street to manoeuvre into the garage. There is a larger turning radius commissioner richards . But if this house is going to be demolished, this one here has no garage. Theres still a car parked in front of it today so im struggling with what the issue is. Here we have garage, garage, garage, garage, there are at least eight buildings five of them have garages and they all get a medallion to park on the street. It feels like the people and how any of the garages are used . None of them . Zero. Okay. Commissioner fung . Part of this issue of an informal or in the opinion of some of the people that they have a pretty that have a prescriptive easement i see no reason why it goes over the setback line. If you look at the spaces that they are planning, there is no reason except for them squeezing extra footage out of it. Im not supportive of the project as it is currently constituted. I am still concerned that the project is building into an environment where is apparently proved that the garages dont work. The community has not established a pattern where your alternate with people who have garage doors and who dont, which makes it difficult on a narrow street, but there are streets and communities