Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2008 PC e-packet ~~\\ SAN CoO ,~\II~,; ~f'~ ~~~! ..~~ 'Q."f"'k o " ,,-"" " , ,,() ~., ,"~:""1,l\"" E-< .'! " 'I '~I!\"il h \ CIl -',JI,'.',,,I, "-"'-""'("') CJ ~~: 0 _.~._...,.~. .~.~;/ 04~~~ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE March 20, 2008 7:30 PM WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or bye-mail at web- [email protected]. Mary Giusti Chairperson Wallace M. Moore Commissioner Eugene Sim Commissioner Stacey Oborne Commissioner Marc C. Teglia Vice-Chairperson John Prouty Commissioner William Zemke Commissioner Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Steve Carlson Michael Lappen Senior Planner Acting Economic Development Coordinator Gerry Beaudin Associate Planner Chad rick Smalley Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar Clerk Please Turn Cellular Phones And Paaers Off. Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 829-3800, five working days before the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE March 20, 2008 Time 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Burns & McDonnell Engineering/applicant Shell Oil Products/owner 135 N. Access Rd P07-0135: UP07-0024 & DR07-0080 (Continue off-calendar) Use Permit and Design review allowing an 8 foot tall fence within the minimum require front setback situated at 135 North Access Road, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32,20.73,20.81 and 20.85. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Javier & Elvira Valencia/applicant Javier & Elvira Valencia/owner 648 Commercial Ave. PUD07-0001 Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction of a new single-family house on a 7,000 square-foot lot located at 648 Commercial Avenue, with a 9'4" front yard setback within the R-3-L Multiple Family Residential Zone District (R-3-L) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.20 & 20.84. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Planning Commission Agenda - Cont'd March 20, 2008 Page 3 of 3 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT su~~ - Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting April 3, 2008, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. SK/bla Staff Reports can now be accessed online at: http://www.ssf.netJdepts/comms/plannina/aaenda minutes.asp or via http;/Iweblink.ssf.net S:\AgeV\.oI~,,\Pl~V\.V\.LV\.g cOVl<VI<L""LoV\.\200S'\03-:L7-oS' RPC AgeV\.oI~.oIoc Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: March 20, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit and Design Review allowing an 8 foot tall fence within the minimum required front setback, situated at 135 North Access Road (APN 015-173-140), in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.73.020(a) and Chapters 20.32, 20.81 & 20.85. Owner: Shell Oil Products Applicant: Bums & McDonnell Engineering Case No.: P07-0135 [UP 07-0024 & DR 07-0080] Env. Doc.: Categorical Exemption Section 15303(e) RECOMMENDA TION: That the Planning Commission continue the matter off-calendar. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at their meeting of February 7,2008. At the meeting the Commission directed the applicant to revise the landscape plan to include trees and more shrubs and continued the review to the Commission meeting of February 21, 2008. The applicant requested additional time to meet with City staff to discuss Shell's security concerns and the landscaping requirements. The matter was continued to the Commission meeting of March 20,2008. City staff has met with the owner. The applicant requests an additional few weeks to explore the site constraints and landscape opportunities. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the matter off-calendar. Attachment: Applicant's Letter Page 1 of 1 Carlson, Steve From: Mozafar, Roshy [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8: 11 AM To: Carlson, Steve Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Shell - 135 N. Acces Road Site Steve, Please continue the Planning Commission Meeting item regarding Shell Facility at 135 N. Access Road for 45-60 days. Tentative meeting date would be the second meeting in May. Thanks, Roshy Mozafar, PE Burns and McDonnell Engineering Co. 393 East Grand Avenue, Suite J South San Francisco, Ca 94080 P 650-871-2926 ext 224 F 650-871-2653 C 650-888-1864 3/14/2008 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: March 20, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 648 Commercial Avenue - Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction of a new single-family house on a 7,000 square-foot lot located at 648 Commercial A venue, with a 9' 4" front yard setback within the R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zone District (R-3-L) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.20 & 20.84. Applican t/Owner/C on tracto r: Case Nos.: Javier Valencia P03-0004 & PUD07-0001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Planned Unit Development (PUD) application P03-0004: PUD07-0001 based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: Site Description 648 Commercial A venue is located on the north side of Commercial Avenue, mid-block between Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. The site area is 7,000 square feet, and the site slopes from north to south. There is an existing single-family house located in the northeast comer of the property, fronting Second Lane. The northwest comer of the property has an existing garage/storage building. Proiect Description A Planned Unit Development (PUD) would regulate the entire site but is triggered by the construction of a new three-story single-family house fronting the south property line (facing Commercial Avenue). The new house includes five bedrooms, five bathrooms, an indoor swimming pool, and a three car garage. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the City in March of2003. A building permit was issued for the project in February of2006. Setback Error The location and size of the new house facing Commercial A venue came into question in late August, 2007 when the owner came to the city with questions about his driveway approach. Closer investigation revealed an error in the plans that resulted in a substandard front yard setback. Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 2 of 8 The location of the property line was incorrectly identified by the owner's previous building designer. The originally approved plans were drawn showing the property line and the back of sidewalk at the same location. The incorrect property line location does not account for the 5 feet of public right-of-way between the back of sidewalk and the property line (see Attachment #2 - Subdivision Map). The result of this error is a project with a steel frame built 9 feet, 4-inches from the front property line. The originally approved design further encroached into the front yard setback at the second story, where a bay window is proposed to bow out - reducing the front yard setback to 6 feet, 7- inches. Additional Square Footae:e [Setback issue is discussed more fully in the attached October 12, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report - refer to Attachment #4] During the construction process, the owner/contractor incorporated the additional five linear feet of setback error into each of the three floors of the house. This resulted in approximately 200 additional square feet of floor area per floor. Prior to the addition of the floor area, the development on the site met the General Plan requirement for a maximum floor area ratio of 1.25 - 8,750 square feet of floor area is permitted for the 7,000-square-foot site. Incorporating the additional floor area into the design during the construction process resulted in the development on the site exceeding the allowable floor area by 592 square feet. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Option The applicant was advised that they could pursue approval of a PUD permit as a way to allow formal Planning Commission consideration of the setback deviation. Per Chapter 20.84 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the required Findings for a PUD focus on "physical suitability for the type and intensity of land use being proposed", "development quality", and on the fact that a project does not adversely affect the safety, health or welfare of persons working or residing in the area. While not strongly encouraged on small infill projects, the PUD process has been utilized in a few small lot developments including most recently the "Habitat for Humanity" project at 440 Commercial A venue. In this instance, the PUD was used to allow adjustments in standard lot sizes and allow reduced side yard setbacks. Since the PUD is a viable planning tool, staffs objective is to determine whether the required Findings of approval can be supported for the subject application. Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page ~~ of 8 October 18th. 2007 Plannin2: Commission Meetin2: On October 18,2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject PUD application. At that time, the Planning Commission stated their disappointed with the predicament before them. The Commission was clear in its direction to the applicant to produce accurate plans and clear options that remove the required square footage from the 'new' house (see Attachment #3 - Oct. 18th, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachment #5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from Oct. 18th, 2007). Between October 18th. 2007 and March 20th. 2008 Since October, staff has met with or been in communication with the applicant and/or new project architect on several occasions. Principle among the discussions has been a reiteration of the Planning Commission's direction to provide clear, accurate plans: as-builts; their proposal with revisions to address square footage overage; and a version that attempted to remove the majority of the square footage overage from the front of the main house, including the portion encroaching into the front yard setback. The applicant was very reluctant to provide an option removing the square footage from the front 'new' building, due to concerns with the cost implications of removing the steel framing that encroaches into the front yard setback. After many meetings and phone calls, staff received the attached plan set in early March. DISCUSSION: Nei2:hborhood Context The current minimum front yard setback requirement for projects in the R-3 Zone District, including the subject site, is 15 feet, with an allowance of up to 24-inches for architectural elements such as eaves, canopies, and cornices. Staff measured the front yard setbacks on the 500, 600, and 700 blocks of Commercial Avenue to determine the existing neighborhood setback pattern (see Attachment #6 - Aerial Photos for 500,600 & 700 Block of Commercial Ave.). Staff looked at both building wall setback and other encroaching elements, such as stairs and balconies. Generally speaking the 500, 600 and 700 blocks of Commercial Avenue have an eclectic front yard setback pattern as well as a diverse range of housing types and building massmg. The front yard setbacks in the 500 block (between Magnolia Ave. and Spruce Ave.) range from 8 to 15 feet for the buildings, with some stairways encroaching as close as 3 feet to the front property line. The 700 block (between Eucalyptus Ave. and Orange Ave.) sees more typical front yard setbacks on the north side of the street (15 feet on average) but on the south side of the street the front yard setbacks vary somewhat more (buildings are as close as 12 feet and 6- inches). Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial A venue Page 1. of 8 The 600 block of Commercial A venue, between Orange A venue and Magnolia A venue, has the most variable front yard setback pattern as shown on the attached aerial photos (see Attachment #6). On the south side, there are building setbacks as shallow as 10 feet and 6-inches. The largest front yard setback on the south side of the block is 16 feet. On the north side, the shortest front yard building setback is 10 feet, 6-inches, and encroaching elements are as close as 3 feet, 6-inches. Stakeholder Issues Neighbor Staff has received letters (see Attachment #7) and calls from the adjacent property owner at 654 Commercial A venue. As staff understands, the primary planning related concerns are: 1. the size and legality of an accessory structure at the rear of the property; 2. the amount (size of the buildings) of development on the property and the substandard front yard setback (neighborhood compatibility); 3. work that occurred after the City issued a stop work order (letters dated February 28, 2008 attached); and 4. the location of the 'neighbor' fence between the properties as an issue. 1. Size and Legality of Accessory Building - City records confirm that Code Enforcement efforts have been taken during the past two years to address Code compliance issues related to the accessory garage/storage building at the rear of the site. Specifically, the City Building Official and a Code Enforcement Officer have required the removal of all electrical, plumbing, and heat from the garage/storage structure. The location and size (legality) of the structure have also been reviewed by the Building and Planning Division. Based on City records, the current location of the structure is legal non-conforming, the size of the structure has not been increased in recent years (the structure has been rehabilitated), and the use of the structure is non-habitable storage/garage. A condition of approval has been drafted to ensure that the prior to re-issuance of a building permit for the new structure, a walk-through inspection of the existing garage/storage building will be completed. 2. Additional Square Footage and Setback - The additional square-footage and front yard setback encroachment are the topic of the subject application for a Planned Unit Development, which is discussed in detail throughout this report. 3 . Work Occurring After Stop Work Order - While not specifically identified, the neighbor provided the Building Official with pictures of the new structure without a tile roof at the issuance of stop work order, and a more current photo that shows a tile roof installed. While the owner/contractor completed more work than the Building Official would have approved if asked directly, the Building Official acknowledges that the owner/contractor was given permission to weatherproof the structure. Installing the tile roof is determined to be a weatherproofing activity. Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 5 of8 4. Location of Fence Between Properties - The fence location is a neighbor issue and not subject to review by the City. Owner Staff understands that the owner is concerned about the cost associated with the delays and the possible costs associated with moving the steel framing supporting the house (which would resolve the setback issue). The owner also firmly believes that the City is responsible for the error, despite the fact that his designer incorrectly presented information on the plan, and that as the contractor he was aware that by adding 5 feet to the overall length of the foundation the size of the house would be 600 square feet larger than the square footage permitted by the approved plans. City The City's concern is focused on the Zoning and General Plan requirements for the area (setbacks and floor area), which directly relate to urban form, architectural design, neighborhood compatibility and PUD Findings Current Plans The current plans (see attachment #8 - Current Project Plans) were received by the Planning Division on March 4,2008. These plans include the originally approved design, the current (as- built) plans, the applicant's proposed design ('Applicant's Option'), and a conceptual 'City's Option'. Please note that staff has drafted conditions of approval related to: the front yard landscaping (requiring evergreen trees and larger trees to be planted); the walkway/stairs proposed on the left (west) property line; and elevations (window and design changes) not included in the plans. The discussion below will focus on the' Applicant's Option' and the' City's Option' . Applicant's Option The Applicant's Option maximizes the floor area ratio (FAR) for the site resulting in 8,750 square feet of development. The front yard setback would increase to 9 feet, 4-inches from the current setback, which is 6 feet, 7-inches. This scenario allows the applicant to keep the projecting steel frame, but removes the bowed bay window that encroached an additional 3 feet, 6-inches into the setback. A letter from the applicant's civil engineer is attached for your review as well as cost estimates assembled by the applicant/owner/contractor (see Attachment #9- Applicant's Engineer). The option also includes some minor changes to window locations. A condition of approval has been drafted to require City review of all building changes, prior to the re-issuance of a building permit. As discussed in detail later in this report, staff believes that the required findings can be made for a PUD, and Findings of Approval have been drafted and attached to the staff report. However, at Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial A venue Page 6 of 8 the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant also produced a 'City Option', where the steel frame is removed. City's Option The design of City's Option was provided by the applicant's architect in concept form. The front yard setback meets current Code requirement of 15 feet, and the square footage is slightly under the maximum floor area allowed for the site. The design is conceptual, and would need further refinement, should this become the preferred option. To provide the Commission with as much information as possible, the applicant and staff contacted separate engineers to obtain opinions on the structural implications for removing the steel framing (see Attachments #9 and #10), as well as cost estimates. Structural Implications In summary, the engineering reports do not entirely concur. The City is confident that the house will be structurally sound should the steel frame be removed from the front of the house since with no large bay window to support, there is no structural issue with removing the steel frame. The result would be a standard three-story wood framed house on a concrete foundation, using conventional construction techniques. Cost Estimates to Remove the Steel Frame The applicant has submitted a cost estimate of approximately $100,000 to remove the steel framing from the front of the house. Staff believes that the applicant has over-estimated, by adding costs that are not directly related to removing the steel. The applicant's estimate to remove the steel is closer to $50,000. The City's consultant approximates the cost at approximately $35,000 to remove the structural steel. Neie:hborhood Impact, Setbacks, and Required pun Findine:s As noted above, the existing setback pattern in the neighborhood is varied. The 500, 600, and 700 blocks of Commercial A venue have a mix of single- family houses and multi-family/multi- unit buildings. While the subject building is single-family house, it is consistent in terms of massing and scale to the multi-family buildings around it. Attachment #11 includes are a number of aerial photos showing the subject site (including the setbacks and coverage of neighboring sites). The pictures are added to support the field measurements completed by staff and discussed above in the report. The three required findings for a PUD are discussed below: I. Physical Suitability of the Site - The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land uses being proposed. The site is zoned for Multi-Family Residential (R- 3-L) and would therefore accommodate up to four units. The applicant is proposing a second residential dwelling unit on the site. Further, as noted in the staff report, the massing, architecture and front yard setbacks in the 500, 600 and 700 blocks of Commercial A venue Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 70f8 include a large amount of variation. The proposed building would be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. 2. Exceptions from General Development Standards - Front Yard Setback - The 9-foot, 4-inch front yard setback encroachment can be supported based on the following: a. The project is of a superior quality which offsets any adverse impacts of the requested exception from the general development standards, and b. The exception will not be unreasonably detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. The front yard will be enhanced with a narrow driveway opening (maximizing on-street parking) and enhanced landscaping. Two IS-gallon trees are proposed in the front yard of the project. To support this finding, a condition of approval is included that requires 36" box size trees be planted, rather than the IS-gallon trees that are proposed and that the trees be an evergreen species that is approved by the Chief Planner. The larger trees will have an immediate impact on the street and provide a natural transition between the public and private realm. As you can see from Attachment # 12 - Site Photos, as conditioned, the reduced front yard setback creates no adverse impact to light or views on the adjacent buildings. The third floor of the project is setback and will include balconies, similar to those found on the second story. With respect to architecture, the elements proposed for the front elevation of the house will add to the diverse architectural styles found in the neighborhood. The large bay windows facing Commercial Avenue will add more 'eyes on the street' and the balconies are a common element on Commercial Avenue buildings. The City's Design Review Board was generally supportive. 3. General Plan Conformity - Section 20.84.110 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the circumstances under which the Planning Commission may approve a Planned Unit Development application. This application meets those criteria. In addition, the Planning Commission must also find that the PUD application is consistent with the General Plan. The floor area reductions proposed by the applicant result in a project that does not exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) identified in the General Plan. Therefore, the project, as modified in the conditions of approval, is consistent with the General Plan (see below). GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND ZONING: The General Plan designation for the subject site is "Downtown Medium Density Residential" which permits a full range of housing types. The zoning for the site is Multiple Family Staff Report P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial A venue Page 80f8 Residential (R-3). Aside from the front yard setback, the house is consistent with the Zoning Code Regulations. Both the Applicant's Option and the City's Option result in a floor area ratio that is consistent with the allowable FAR for the property. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed development has been determined to be categorically exempt under the provisions of Section 15303 - Class 3 - (a): New construction or conversion of small structures - up to three single-family residences. No further environmental consideration is required by the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that he Planning Commission approve the subject PUD at this location based on the' Applicant's Option' proposed in the attached plans based on the attached findings, including that the front yard setback proposed for the new house can be found to be consistent with the development pattern of the abutting and adjacent houses in the section of Commercial A venue. Should the Planning Commission not agree with the required Findings put forward by staff, the 'City's Option' can be approved without a PUD application. TMS/ghb Attachments: I. Draft Findings of Approval 2. Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Subdivision Map - Relevant to 648 Commercial Avenue Site 4. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting - October 18, 2007 5. Meeting Minutes - Planning Commission - October 18, 2007 6. Aerial Photos - Front Yard Setback Context for 500, 600, and 700 blocks of Commercial Avenue 7. Letters (two) from Neighbor (Neighbor's Attorney) - dated February 28, 2008 8. Current Project Plans (received March 4, 2008) Project Pictures 9. Applicant's Engineer - Structural Opinion and Cost Est. 10. City's Consultant - Structural Opinion 11. Aerial Photos of the Site 12. Site Photos Attachment #1 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 COMMERICIAL A VENUE (As recommended by City Staff March 20, 2008) As required by the "Planned Unit Development Procedures" (SSFMC Chapter 20.84) the following findings are made in support of approving a Planned Unit Development at 648 Commercial Avenue, including a reduced front yard setback, in the R-3 Multiple Family Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.84, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to the plans prepared by Baukunst Architecture with a date of March 4, 2008; Planning Commission staff report, dated March 20,2008; and Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2008: 1. Physical Suitability of the Site - The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land uses being proposed. The site is zoned for Multi-Family Residential (R-3-L) and would therefore accommodate up to four units. The applicant is proposing a second residential dwelling unit on the site. Further, as noted in the staff report, the massing, architecture and front yard setbacks in the 500, 600 and 700 blocks of Commercial A venue include a large amount of variation. The proposed building would be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. 2. Exceptions from General Development Standards - Front Yard Setback - The 9-foot, 4- inch front yard setback encroachment can be supported based on the following: a. The project is of a superior quality which offsets any adverse impacts of the requested exception from the general development standards, and b. The exception will not be unreasonably detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. The front yard will be enhanced with a narrow driveway opening (maximizing on-street parking) and enhanced landscaping. Two IS-gallon trees are proposed in the front yard of the project. To support this finding, a condition of approval is included that requires 36" box size trees be planted, rather than the IS-gallon trees that are proposed and that the trees be an evergreen species that is approved by the Chief Planner. The larger trees will have an immediate impact on the street and provide a natural transition between the public and private realm. As you can see from Attachment #12 - Site Photos, as conditioned, the reduced front yard setback creates no adverse impact to light or views on the adjacent buildings. The third floor of the project is setback and will include balconies, similar to those found on the second story. Findings P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial A venue Page 20f2 With respect to architecture, the elements proposed for the front elevation of the house will add to the diverse architectural styles found in the neighborhood. The large bay windows facing Commercial Avenue will add more 'eyes on the street' and the balconies are a common element on Commercial Avenue buildings. The City's Design Review Board was generally supportive. 3. General Plan Conformity - The floor area reductions proposed by the applicant result in a project that does not exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) identified in the General Plan. Therefore, the project, as modified by the conditions of approval, is consistent with the General Plan. * Attachment #2 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 COMMERICIAL A VENUE (As recommended by City Staff March 20, 2007) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: I. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division's standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-family Residential Projects. 2. The project shall be completed substantially as indicated in the plans prepared by Baukunst Architecture, dated March 4, 2008 and as modified with the following conditions. 3. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall provide new construction plans for the project, to be plan checked by the City. The plans must be compliant with current Code, as well as the conditions of approval attached to the project. 4. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the accessory building will be inspected by staff to confirm that it does not include habitable floor area. All reference to "music room" must be removed from the plans. 5. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the plans must be revised to show 36" box size trees for the two trees propose in the front yard. The proposed trees must be evergreen and species shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. 6. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the front yard hardscaping (concrete and flat work) must be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. A walkway leading to the proposed stairs on the left (west) side of the property begin/end connects the stairs to the sidewalk in the current plan. Staff will ensure that the proposed pedestrian walkway does not result in unnecessary concrete in the front yard, and that there is sufficient landscape in the front yard. 7. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, complete revised elevations for the project will be submitted. All design and window modifications shall be identified by the project architect. The modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. At the discretion of the Chief Planner, the design modifications may be subject to review by the City's Design Review Board and Planning Commission 8. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, a walk-through inspection of the accessory building shall be completed by the Building Official to confirm that the building is a garage and storage area. 9. Prior to final inspection, the required modifications to the other on-site structures (i.e. the reduction of floor area associated with the storage area) shall be completed and inspected as part of the overall project. The final design of the structure shall be included in the Conditions of Approval P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 20f2 building permit plan check submittal that is required prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for this project. 10. Any redevelopment of the site after the new three story house fronting Commercial A venue is complete must comply with City regulations that are current at the time of the future application. Planning Division contact Gerry Beaudin, Acting Senior Planner, (650) 877-8353 Attachment #3 - Subdivision Map - Relevant to 648 Commercial Avenue Site -l./.- _ T'.'-.<. - ~ '~f '~'."''U/l.6'f.95~ / '> ;'. ~ (,~ 1\:"+; -,,:,'/j'IM -1-'';4 , ~, }'\' ~< ""F.L; Y8.~ " sw' ';,-j ': I\;:j eir "",I: IU ii, '1--, II III',,!, 11t,,,,,I~/ I .., /.l. If -,./ , " -i1~) (;1/387, ;- ~-~-~I II I'Vi' ~It' . t Jr. .111/ [~~ fOi( ~~ ~I'. ~ ! S';..-,.. --,r.36., ~ ~ <. -Jl.-.33' Z" , Y 2.7.5 I ~ "\. i . ,~II'" I ~ ~ ~' r'~;L'I;" _.~ -460..." ~.?!' ~!\J", 'liJ y 2.~1 ~'<i", , ~ "i ~~ )'" ~. '" . II. YZ. 3 ~~~ 'I Q;:~1" ~ II .~~ "> v 0/ ().ollj 43 " ~ L:2.. ...0 =, ~ r-.... _ r , Yl-f~",,)- 100 ia'26~'~l-<f ; ~i,' " .,. II ~ I ~ ~ ;~'<(YI..~1 ~ ,~ .I, ~;I I....::; ~ ";;1''''" '" " YO'~,' '-) 'r II II~ II ' ~ ~ ...., i- co' II O.7~ <0 ~ ~ II ~ '" "'''' " -...i..J ~, YOt4 ~ '" '" "II, ~<~ II~ ", II~ ...... ~I . . Yo., ~ o~'j'<::: o~oo' o t:& lIim2a.;o~ "Q ,~U_",,,~ i..n ,n 248~ t. ~ IV ;~~, I:':~"'~' "~'s~,"" ~. IV') I_~II. II~Ji.: It::' , 1J../8'" I - ,I., -Jt36'. ; ~" ;,~.' ':~~rl :~~i~(-pz- ; i,~ 1 .I.;~ :3::0...0'OPZ5:/4 ,~ qr'",," , '~ d RES Ii ., I '1 ~?:;~~~,;~.~,: ' i' i ! I. '.... r lto- " I'f} 't-.J ,. I (), ,~ i i;:' f~ ill.l f:t: !, '-> " ~I~'" n.;it\.i~ t\.J'" - I...; ...; W.:" itl~ ' ('0 '~ . :f'~r\'\:;':.~' ,.-. ~ ~ ..~ ~N J=i~ 100' t\,J 47 ., l' :,;;;~;.~.... ".II-,'i"~ - '!;;:';"""'~';'-" :, ~~".:.- .. ,;' ,..,~.~'.. ..._r';'~:. .. ',,~'''' -i':~' . -.. r:.; "-' .- " 1kf.H.6fo'61.o ; ~ 4.3.0S .' Be .t. 3 C;'!4tJ./S, 6" oS A\.i '," MH.Zi .98~.o / HIM 6Q?t? / I':L.56.8 E~N o ~ >- I >- . s ~B A ED ! '" !;: ~ ZS' '", ffiZD 16691 "l /TC'5 RES 46 .... '" 45 44 100' 42 41 40 '" '< 39 ,I." ~ ""I .~ 38 /00 ......48 "<~ t .., RE5 "< 16'701 ~ ~ . t <l - "l >- ZS 22 6"Sa"_ ZS' '1;7 I OJ '165/1 ' 6'49 RES ~ 67/ '" '" '" 37 ",. ~ ':f , .... .... '" RE5 ,'" "['G74 I 16681 ? GlZ, "l '2'5-.', 16651 RES (;(;.3 1'''116591'1657116551 RES /Yes RES 647 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ' "6 RE5 1G56j 1&541 '40 b64 .. "l' ,,~ . N~ ,....J .b{;Z o o '.. ..", r;:' "';r GGo. G5B filil , G5(, 642 i:! . >- '" ~ ~ ,.. '"' ~ >- .. '1 .. >- ~ . '" >- t :; " ';' .. ,.. " .. :, ,.. ~\TE ~ r >- >. .. .. , " , - TOP .fY:ZZ- TOP ~5:04 S ~C (.) N L3 " ----- .. ., .. ... 1069 G(il 1065 GG!> 10.1 b53 b5It'I'G48/ '('" 1059 657 655 36 35 34 33 32 3/ 30 29 28 27 26 66& R:.5 lli:~ '48 RES 'ffiJ fiG [LH R,J 4 bb4 (;:So .~~.. ..,~ ~=E:I' ~ "'H ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ >- )- >- >- 3" 3>-. >- ~ >- r COM M E RC I A L .. ~ 20 \. !:IT!! RE5 ., 50 G73 ~ 16691 R!:.5 RES '/9 RE~ [QZ4J .-::: :, .. >- , [ffi] IfcJ 23 /8 ~ '>= .~.' 1'" ''t., '>="'" }: ..... ''-):'''' S~. 5.' 45 ;""~ ) '/YE~ ~, ,LI' r~ .,; I 29 I" 6#, I ~ I ! ,.. 4d ~ ........"..; .~:"':"'~:-'''''~:' ~ ';0' " Z~.. ,';0,IP'","4P' EmJ..l~ ~~: I 'r~~!ir' :S>i ~r1. C!m.. z51 261'17 .128 ,J.. 1,5, I &S? " I I I ., I~ I ~ I' ~ I '40 I~o )o'/?~ zp'I']o:. /<11 _ .. -r--l I-:' I K .S 'I b" SQ", 472' "5 24 GGt! (;G4 ~ '" ,.. , 5c o :" "' ,.. 50 ;; '. 12.5 ',,"-:315 '66~' I (;61 'Rfo5 I '",( I I ----.,---- '--j , /7 1/6 ,/ I .. RES 1if5' ' ,~ ~ I,I,~.~ I. ~ f L~,~ ,"i> , ~ -:. j 0 : =l ~>- It,$I,. ~37.5" >- .19" I II I I " I 1 I I' 1 Gp7 I 653 I 649 I I I. I I I l' ;", I ..I I L I "c", .2 1 1 II. I /5: /4 1/3 112 ' II I '",J I RE~ I ReJ "f.eS I RES I R. 16~1 1..'/6541 I ffi;@,,1 lED I (B : ~" ,I. ?"::h~;, fl., II: .:'1, ~ ,I , I "''0 , 3.9,1" I>~ .+.Z8.\"c'ZZ_ >- 17. ',~.~!J : i .~ ~ ).!J 6'B s. A I L 'R-O' A D .1 \, '-~'_..,_u._,____~~_...: u_ _~_~~=~~~~;,:,.: ,', ~~,:~~;"~;'~}-;_...____~~: P., R. R.',. ," .,..,,'j. ~,'.".., t:~i!"f"'-':':''''~:'~'~~~~~:~'W~~t~4,';!!~'~ Attachment #4 - Staff Report - Planning Commission - October 18, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report I DATE: October 18, 2007 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 648 Commercial Avenue - Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction ofa new single-family house on a 7,000 square-foot lot located at 648 Commercial Avenue, with a 9'4" front yard setback within the R-3 Multiple Family Zone District (R-3) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.20 & 20.84. Owner/Contractor: Javier Valencia Architect: Mark Bucciarelli Case Nos.: P03-0004 & PUD07-0001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Planned Unit Development (PUD) application P03-0004: PUD07-0001 based on the attached draft Findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: The owner/contractor of the new house being constructed at 648 Commercial A venue has been issued a stop work order for his project. This occurred after City staff investigated concerns voiced by a neighbor. During the initial investigation staff discovered that the previous project architect incorrectly identified the location of the front property line as located at the edge of the sidewalk rather than five feet inward. The result is a structure that is too close to the property line. As the investigation continued, staff met with the owner and asked direct questions about where the additional five feet of development was on the property. Eventually it was determined that during construction of the house the owner/contractor added the additional five linear feet to the entire three-story structure, resulting in a house that is approximately 600 square feet larger than originally approved and that is too close to the property line. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process has been put forward as a planning tool that the Planning Commission can consider using to approve the house as it has been constructed or subject to modification. Staffs objective with this application is to address the concerns of neighbors, the owner, and the City. ~ ii The neighbors are concerned about the amount of development on the property as well as the substandard front yard setback. The owner is concern about the cost associated with the delays Planned Unit Development P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 2 of 5 and the possible costs associated with moving the steel framing supporting the house. The owner also firmly believes that the City is responsible for the error, despite the fact that his designer incorrectly presented information on the plan. Letters from the applicant, which discuss the cost associated with any changes to the steel framing that has been completed on the front of the house, have been attached to the staff report. Additionally, attached is a packet of information provided by a neighbor, Ms. Rita Fontana. The applicant has proposed several changes and staff is recommending additional changes that could allow the project to meet the required Findings for a Planned Unit Development application. DISCUSSION: Site Description 648 Commercial Avenue is located on the north side of the street, mid-block between Orange A venue and Magnolia A venue. The site area is 7,000 square feet, and the site slopes from north to south. There is an existing single-family house located in the northeast comer of the property, fronting Second Lane. The northwest comer of the property has an existing garage/storage building. Proiect Description The current application is for a new three-story single-family house fronting the southern property line (facing Commercial Avenue). The new house includes five bedrooms, five bathrooms, an indoor swimming pool, and a three car garage. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the City in March of2003. A building permit was issued for the project in February of 2006. Setback Error The location and size of the new house facing Commercial A venue came into question in late August, 2007 when a neighbor questioned the size of the structure. Closer investigation revealed an error in the plans that resulted in a substandard front yard setback. The property line location was incorrectly identified. The originally approved plans were drawn showing the property line and the back of sidewalk at the same location. This does not account for the 5'8" public right-of-way distance between the back of sidewalk and the property line. The result of this error is a project with steel frame built 9'4" from the front property line. The front yard setback is further reduced on the second story, where a bay window is proposed, which bows out and reduces the front yard setback to 6'7" on the second story. Additional Square Footage During the construction process, the owner incorporated the additional five linear feet to each of the three floors of the house. This resulted in approximately 200 additional square feet of floor area per floor or approximately 600 square feet of total floor area. Planned Unit Development P03-0004: PUD07-000I 648 Commercial A venue Page 3 of 5 Prior to the addition of the floor area, the site and project met the General Plan requirement for a maximwn floor area ratio of 1.25 - 8,750 square feet of floor area is pennitted for the entire 7,000-square-foot site. By incorporating the additional floor area into the design during the construction process, the site now exceeds the allowable floor area by 592 square feet. During meetings with staff, the owner/contractor was advised that the floor area must be revised to comply with the maximum allowable FAR identified in the City's General Plan, since General Plan consistency is a required Finding for a PUD application. Staff Direction to the Owner/Contractor At that time, staff also strongly recommended that the applicant reduce the floor area of the new house particularly at the Commercial A venue elevation, since it was not approved floor area for the subject structure, and since the reduction in floor area could help reduce the visual impact of the substandard front yard setback, in relation to the neighboring houses. These elements are important to substantiate the 'neighborhood compatibility' Finding required for a PUD. Inadequate Plans & Infonnation The current project architect, who is not the original designer, was not able to provide complete revised floor plans or revised elevations in time for the public hearing. Therefore, the plans attached to the staff report offer a conceptual look at the portions of the house that are closest to Commercial Avenue. Staff is concerned by the fact that we have still not been made aware of where in the house the additional five linear feet (approximately 200 square feet) were included. Further, during staffs investigation of the project, a nwnber of differences in the window sizes and locations have also been identified. This infonnation has not been presented at this time for reVIew. Planning Division Condition of Approval #3, 4, & 5 have been included to ensure that staff has complete "as-built" plans as well as the required changes addressed below, prior to the work re- starting on this project. RECOMMENDED CHANGES: The revised plans, dated October 11,2007 indicate that the majority of the floor area reduction will be completed at the rear of the property, essentially reducing the size of the storage building by removing the entire second story and a portion of the first story storage area The floor area reduction proposed meets the maximwn floor area ratio set out in the General Plan, but in staffs opinion the new structure has not been modified in a manner that significantly reduces the visual impact of the substandard front yard setback. Landscape & Design Modifications Recommended by Staff City staff have reviewed the plans and detennined that, at a minimwn, the following design Planned Unit Development P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial A venue Page 4 of 5 modifications, included as Planning Division Conditions of Approval #6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 must be completed in order to make the required Findings for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The required Findings state that the proposed building must be physically suitable for the site and compatible with surrounding structures. Front Yard Landscape/Curb Cut The current project architect has provided a conceptual landscape plan, however staff recommends that prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project the applicant must submit a revised final landscape plan and site plan. The landscape plan must show the planting species, size, and the irrigation plan. The plan for the front yard must also be modified to include a curb-cut that is no wider than 20- feet. The plan will be reviewed and, if satisfactory, approved by the Chief Planner. The landscape plan should be completed with the goal of minimizing the visual impact of the substandard front yard setback. The site plan, including the driveway location, width, and function, must meet all City standards and regulations. Building Design Modifications To minimize the visual impact of the substandard setback in relation to neighboring structures, the applicant shall revise the drawings so that the bay window shown on the front elevation on the second story does not project past the steel framing. This will result in a 9' 4" front yard setback, rather than a 6' 7" front yard setback that is proposed with the bowed bay window that is proposed. This modification will make the front projection on the house more consistent with projecting elements (i.e. decks) on neighboring structures. It will also minimize the impact of the substandard setback without requiring any modification to the steel structure, which would be costly. Similarly, staff recommends that the balconies proposed on the front elevation of the second story be reduced to a depth of not more than 24-inches from the south wall of the house. A roof element could be incorporated where the balconies are proposed, which will further minimize the visual impact of the substandard front yard setback. To ensure that the size of the house is physically suitable for the site, and to minimize the impact of the additional square footage added to the house during construction, staff recommends that the applicant setback the front wall of the third floor by a minimum of three feet, resulting in a reduction in the depth of the master bedroom, a clerestory open space, and bedroom #5. The master bedroom would maintain a minimum depth of 14'4" and bedroom #5 would maintain a minimum depth of 9' 1 0". Since the roof is already constructed, staff will work with the applicant to incorporate smaller roof elements where the depth of the rooms is reduced. The roof support posts can be left in place, which will not required the owner/contractor to modify the existing roof structure. This change would also not alter the steel structure. Subject to the three design changes proposed above and a revised front yard landscape plan, and in conjunction with the changes proposed by the applicant, staff has drafted the attached findings in support of the proposed PUD for the Planning Commission's consideration. Planned Unit Development P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 5 of 5 General Plan Consistency & Zonin! The General Plan designation for the subject site is "Downtown Medium Density Residential" which permits a full range of housing types. The zoning for the site is Multiple Family Residential (R-3). Aside from the front yard setback, the house is consistent with the Zoning Code Regulations. After the floor area reductions proposed with this application are implemented, the site will be at the maximum allowable FAR for the property. Staff supports the PUD at this location because, after the design modifications recommended by staff and by the applicant are incorporated, the front yard setback proposed for the new house can be found to be consistent with the development pattern of the abutting and adjacent houses in the section of Commercial Avenue. ENVIRONMENT AL DETERMINATION: The proposed development has been determined to be categorically exempt under the provisions of Section 15303 - Class 3 - (a): New construction or conversion of small structures - up to three single-family residences. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application P03-0004: PUD07-000I for a Planned Unit Development at 648 Commercial A venue based on the attached draft Findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. g~\ Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner TMS/ghb Attachments: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Letters from the Applicant - dated September 11, 2007 & September 19, 2007 Letter from Rita Fontana- dated October 11,2007 [Planning Commission Only] Plans, dated October 11, 2007 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 COMMERICIAL A VENUE (As recommended by City Staff October 18, 2007) As required by the "Planned Unit Development Procedures" (SSFMC Chapter 20.84) the following findings are made in support of approving a Planned Unit Development at 648 Commercial Avenue, including a reduced front yard setback, in the R-3 Multiple Family Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.84 subject to making the findings of approval and, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to the plans prepared by Baukunst Architecture with a date of October 11, 2007; Planning Commission staff report, dated October 18,2007; and Planning Commission meeting of October 18,2007: 1. Physical Suitability of the Site - The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land uses being proposed. The applicant is proposing a second residential dwelling unit on a site that is zoned for multi-family. Further, as the project has been conditioned, including all of the design modifications discussed in the staff report, would be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. 2. Exceptions from General Development Standards - The 5'8" front yard setback encroachment can be supported based on the following: a. A PUD that is of a superior quality which offsets any adverse impacts of the requested exception from the general development standards, and b. The exception will not be unreasonably detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. The front yard will be enhanced with a landscape plan that is to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. In addition, design modifications proposed by the applicant and by staff will minimize the impact of the reduced front yard setback on surrounding properties. 3. General Plan Conformity - Section 20.84.110 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the circumstances under which the Planning Commission may approve a Planned Unit Development application. This application meets those criteria; however, the Planning Commission must find that the PUD project is consistent with the General Plan. The floor area reductions proposed by the applicant result in a project that does not exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) identified in the General Plan. Therefore, the project, as modified in the conditions of approval, is consistent with the General Plan. * * DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 COMMERICIAL AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff October 18, 2007) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division's standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-family Residential Projects. 2. The project shall be completed substantially as indicated in the plans prepared by Baukunst Architecture, dated October 11, 2007 and as modified with the following conditions. 3. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall provide new construction plans, including floor plans for staffs review. The recommendations and conditions put forward in the staff report are based on the current incomplete plans. If there are substantial changes or new issues arise with the "as-built" revised plans, this application shall be re-submitted to the Planning Commission for further review prior to any additional work on the project. 4. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall provide new construction plans for the project, to be plan checked by the City. The plans must be compliant with current Code, as well as the conditions of approval attached to the project. Complete floor plans must be submitted as part of this application. The overall floor area ratio (FAR) for the site must not exceed 1.25. S. Prior to final inspection, the required modifications to the other on-site structures (i.e. the reduction of floor area associated with the storage area) shall be completed and inspected as part of the overall project. The final design of the structure shall be included in the building permit plan check submittal that is required prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. Prior to the re-issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall provide a revised front yard site plan and landscape plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. The plan must include plant species, plant size, plant location, irrigation system, hardscape location and materials, and a dimensioned curb-cut width. The plans shall be completed by a design professional and shall be completed in compliance with Zoning Ordinance regulations and with the intent of reducing the overall impact of the building's reduced front yard setback. 7. To minimize the impact of the substandard setback, the applicant shall revise the drawings so the bay window shown on front elevation on the second story does not project past the steel framing, resulting in a 9'4" front yard setback, rather than a 6'7" front yard setback. 8. To minimize the impact of the additional square footage added to the house during construction and to minimize the visual impact of the substandard front yard setback, the applicant shall reduce the depth of the second story balconies so that they are not deeper Conditions of Approval P03-0004: PUD07-0001 648 Commercial Avenue Page 2 of 2 than 24-inches from the front (south) wall of the house. 9. To minimize the impact of the additional square footage added to the house during construction and to minimize the visual impact of the substandard front yard setback, the applicant shall setback the front wall of the third floor by a minimum of three feet, resulting in a reduction in the depth of: the master bedroom, a clerestory open space, and bedroom number. The master bedroom could maintain a 14'4" depth and bedroom number 5 could maintain a 9' 10" depth. For structural purposes the roof and its support posts may be left in place and balconies or roof element can be included on the front elevation. 1 O. All design modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. At the discretion of the Chief Planner, the design modifications may be subject to review by the City's Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Planning Division contact Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner, (650) 877-8353 B. Police Department conditions of approval are as follows: Comment at Plan Check Police Department contact, Lieutenant E. Alan Normandy or Sergeant Jon Kallas (650) 877-8927 C. Building Division conditions of approval are as follows: Comment at Plan Check Building Division contact Jim Kirkman, 650/829-6670 D. Fire Department conditions of approval are as follows: Comment at Plan Check Fire Prevention contact, David Scardigli, 650/829-6645 E. Engineering Division conditions of approval are as follows: Comment at Plan Check Engineering Division contact, Sam Bautista, 650/829-6652 September 11, 2007 RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2007 City of South San Francisco: PLANNING fJEP"I'. I moved to South San Francisco in my childhood in 1964. It is the city to where I grew up in. When I got married and began searching for a home to purchase, I knew that I wanted to build a future with my family in South San Francisco. My wife and I purchased a home on the 600 block of Commercial A venue. The house was quite the "fixer-upper", but I saw the potential that the property possessed. Since the day I was given the keys to my home, I have had the dream of building a house for my family to grow m. Although I am working on building the home of my dreams, I have been encountering a few bumps along the way. My first encounter with a problem was in the planning process. I hired an architect on referral, who left the plans incomplete while they were in the final revision process, and abandoned the project. It took four revisions, but with the help of Barry Mammini, I was able to fmalize the blue prints. We later came to fmd that the architect was not registered under the A.I.A. During the excavation stage of the project in 2006, fIre department members, Chief Dick Dennin and Tom Kearny, requested a red tag on my project for improper shoring. City inspection officials, Jim Kirkman and Barry Mammini, inspected the premises and found the excavation process to be up to code. The inspection officials decided there was no need to red tag the project. Dick Dennin then proceeded to call OSHA to complete an additional inspection on the premises. OSHA came on the grounds and red tagged the project, requesting shoring engineering plans and soil reports. The project remained red tagged for approximately a week and a half while reports were being reviewed. The red tag was released, as plans proved up to code. The process, however, became a setback both, fmancially and with time. I carried on with my construction, and when we reached approximately 90% of completion of framing, I decided to request an extension in the measurement of my driveway. I made my way to the City Planning Department, where Mr. Carlson of the Planning Department informed me that I was in violation of my set-backs at the front of the house, and that the plans were incorrect.. My wife and I met with three city officials, Ms. Susy Kalkins, Mr. Barry Mammini, and Mr. Jim Kirkman, in regards to the violation. The home has been built in accordance with the blueprints that have been inspected and approved by the City of South San Francisco. However, the officials clarifIed that the plans were, in deed, in violation of South San Francisco building codes. In order for me to comply with city codes, it would be a large fmancial impact for me, with a cost of approximately$200,000. This expense would mean that I would not be able to continue on with my project. Since the discover of this violation, I have hired architect Mark Bucciarelli who was referred to me by Barry Mammini. Our hope is that Mr. Bucciarelli can assist us in collaborating with the City of South San Francisco to work towards making a resolution for both parties. My request to the City of South San Francisco is that they take my situation into close consideration, and take a look at my end of the spectrum. I hope that you can understand the burden this matter is causing my family and me. Because, despite of the bumps on the road, I would still like to continue building a dream home for my family in South San Francisco. Sincerely Yours, September 19, 2007 fQi'.'1- '."..... . "" ;-"'p~.., ~A ~"; l'~, -, ,... ..;~~ .,.: --. ~r\. SEP 2 '2007'< 'lr11~ It .:. .11-'''''l1\"tl~~~t~,. , \'.;;. City of South San Francisco Planning Department Re: 648 Commercial Avenue Attn: Gerry Beaudin As per your request, I am writing to inform you of the procedure in which I came across my set backs in regards to the construction of my house. When laying the foundation of the horne, I measured 12' + between the existing building and new building at the back of the house, 5' at the sides ofthe house, and 20' off the edge of the sidewalk; just as the approved plans showed (Site plan I, Sheet A2.0). At the current stage of my construction, in order to move the building back to comply with correct measurement, it would have an impact cost of approximately $200,000. I am basing that approximation on the cost of moment of frames (structural steel), the mass amount of concrete, rebar, and wood framing. I hope that this information can be of use to you; please feel free to contact me if additional information is needed. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Javier Valencia H (650) 952-9719 C (415) 716-8422 [email protected] I j October 11, 2007 Mr. & Mrs. Serafino Fontana Rita Fontana 1711 Toledo Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 Planning Commissioners fU;"",~.;:-., ~, >. <. .,., .( " to" "l.~.. ..~ t/ /',-,:l>:t';, Re: 648 Commercial Ave, Martins Subdivision of Block 97, OCT 122001 South San Francisco, California; parcel 012-232-480; P,t... ;> '"'" 3-story house presently 5+feet over the property line on Commercial A\je~ v .'l:.':{,r ), Third Garage Door/Driveway approved though in direct line of a fire hydrant. .;'~.: ;':<'.r And Additional windows not included in earlier applications/drawings- Application scheduled to be heard October 18. 2007 Gentlepersons: My parents own the property at 654 Commercial A venue. I would like to submit a statement regarding the subject application(s), provide you with information and also relay my parents' concerns about this project and their property. We find it necessary to speak out because of our experiences to date with Mr. Valencia, and his methods of building. My parents have owned this building since the 1970's. The building is well-maintained and cared for. The structure was built by the Brosnan Brothers. These lots are 50" wide and originally they were 25 foot lots. I was told by the Planning Division that the mandatory setback from the property line is 5' on a 50' lot and 3' on a single 25' lot. Mr. Valencia has in effect ignored restrictions of this kind. One example that has affected our property directly, in recent past he built a 2-story structure attached to a one-story garage, the latter was built in the early 1950's. The wall of the 2-story structure is in line with the 1950's garage. There is no setback from the property line. The wall of this 2-story structure is less than 10" from the base of our fence and the property line. I have been unable to locate any form of permit at the city or county level, authorizing this structure to be built or even describing it. Originally, there was a storage shed behind this one-story garage and 648 also had a fence that paralleled ours. The fence on 648's property was damaged during a storm and the former owner and my father discussed the need to replace it. After Mr. Valencia moved in. He asked my father if he could cut a tree down that was on Second Lane, in the flowerbox because it dropped leaves on his car. He also wanted to pour cement there. My father said that he could cut the tree down is he would replace it with some sort of bush. Mr. Valencia agreed, but never planted anything to replace the tree. In retrospect, that tree appeared to serve as a property line marker. Second example, in connection with the most recent project, the 3-story house facing Commercial, Mr. Valencia made quite an effort, basically to intimidate my parents into believing that their fence was on his property. When asked about setbacks and property lines, Mr. Valencia said that he would continue building until someone stops him. We would hear this phrase again. We discussed hiring a surveyor. Mr. Valencia indicated that he would set that up if we would pay half. The result was that we were provided with a copy of a topography map by Domingues Associates to set points on Mr. Valencia's lot. The map that Mr. Valencia gave to me in no way addressed the property lines between our properties and was not what we had discussed and agreed to pay for half. Mr. Domingues or an employee planted a plain nail in the cement wall on our Commercial Ave side circled in orange paint and placed a wooden stake w/an orange flag, and an orange paint mark in our flower box on Second Lane. Subsequently, we contracted with a local surveyor from Millbrae who has done much work in South San Francisco. Prior to this, a formal survey had never been completed in this particular area of South San Francisco. The closest formal monument was located towards Grand A venue. Our surveyor contacted Mr. Domingues and was told in no uncertain terms that he (Domingues) would not be filing anything with the county or anyone on this matter. I went to the property the same day and the nail on the Commerical Ave side had been broken out of the cement and the orange flag on Second Lane was gone. After placing monuments on the property line, a nail with a metal washer providing license information, our surveyor told us that no part of our fence is on Mr. Valencia's property. I am waiting for finalized documents. I have contacted the Building and Planning Division on quite a few occasions regarding the subject project, from digging stage to present, as well as the less recent 2-story addition. I was exchanging emails and asking for information because my cursory knowledge seemed to conflict with the buildings I was seeing. I went to the San Mateo County Assessor's office in Redwood City as well and obtained a parcel history. The city of South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo have the following information pertaining to permits for this property: The house was initially built in 1907. 1. Permit 3024, dated 412/1947 was for some type of "alteration" 2. Permit 5352, dated 10/13/1951 was for repairs 3. Permit 6455, dated 10/6/1951 for a garage. 4. Permit 88588 dated 6/9/1988 , sought "triple {not legible}... to existing wall", The drawing showed the lower left corner of the old house. 5. Permit 94-615, dated 7120/1994 "conversion of non-doc storage room* into a legal garage" 6. Permit CBOO-611, dated 5110/2000 "siding on storage shed" 7. Permit 804-1839, dated 2/2412006 "new residential" I have included some pictures here and in the attachment. The applications and permits differed substantially from what I was seeing in stucco and wood. The garage, apparently built in 1951, is still described in the assessor's parcel history as a 300 square foot garage, stucco with a composite roof. The storage is described as being 150 feet with a rustic finish. The permits indicate that a "non-dec" storage room v"ouId be transforrned into a legal garage (7/2011994) and the siding wCluld be added to the stordge shed (5/20/20001 'rhis IS what the original horne looked like in 2006, with an open area on the first floor. rile right side of this picture shmvs a view of the top floor of the original house. r:ollowing is a picture of lhe 2story storage and part of the house and it second piuure showing lhe full house in 2006. . .:;:~:;.;...- ~ I ~-it'.~':-, .~ I --- ---- .,'~ ,'~r: if). ~: ~~I:\ "\.- I - """ '.\r!!t : : .."-",' . " . " t .. + . I 1..,., +1.. ....j. . . ... -, . '" .. . oJ .: l~~':~!:.;/I It appears to me that the structure that received the siding and an area that may have been screened in was now closed up and stuccoed was the main house. The only garage that appears to exist, in the past and present, is the one story- one car garage facing Second Lane and it was already a formal garage. What was added to the garage appears to be the two-story structure that has undergone subsequent work including the addition of windows etc. Based on the research that I've done at the City and the County level, I cannot find a pennit for this 2-story building. Pursuant to documentation in both the City and the assessor's office, this building is not original and is not in it's original condition, described as a 150 square foot storage with a rustic finish attached to a 300 square foot garage. ~": . ~~ I have become more familiar with Mr. Valencia's methods in applying for permits and building. It would appear that Mr. Valencia seems to have developed a pattern, basically banking on the opportunity that city agencies will be very busy. He adds things to the property or the building and then amends the permit applications after the fact. Spaces and setbacks on drawings submitted with applications that do not exist or are misrepresented. Apparently, the windows in the side of the new structure were not in the last approved drawings. The original architect did not provide measurements or starting points on the drawings. I mentioned this fact to the city verbally and in writing, and now you are being presented with an application to address the fact that Mr. Valencia's property is 5.5 feet over the property line on Commercial Avenue and a brand new architect, the 3rd or 4th, is now involved. I called the city on another occasion and asked about permit status and I was told, that a permit existed - yes' it's a 3-story building. I mentioned that the structure I was inquiring about was 2 stories. A permit is issued to stucco a storage unit, and the house is done and subsequently so is the 2-story structure. I look at the structure and see how close the eaves of one building are to ours and the rest of the buildings some of these appear to be true fire hazards. I understand that there is also a 50' maximum height limitation. I do not know if that limit has been reached or surpassed, I do know that this is a gargantuan building that is painfully noticeable and the design incongruous with the rest of the neighborhood. Regretfully, I must pursue this issue, though it has taken and continues to take an inordinate amount of time and effort to do so and results in substantial stress for two senior citizens who have worked hard for this property. In order to preserve as much of the a/most 5' setback on the side of the property closest to our building, I had to be a constant phone and penpal with your building division. I found no joy in bothering your staff. However, if you look carefully at the original house on Mr. Valencia's lot, the right side of that house is the property line, there is no setback at all. The end of the house is then met by a fence that has a gate opening onto 646's walkway and the fence goes on to Commercial Avenue. Since that side of the property does not affect my parents' building, it is a living example but of no concern to me. We respectfully request your review and consideration of these materials and hope that you will be able to reach a just and fair conclusion regarding enforcement of the setback and other requirements and not relocate the fire hydrant. Rita Fontana Attachments .- Mr. & Mrs. Serafino Fontana 1711 Toledo Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 November 28, 2006 Mr. Barry Mammini, Sr. Building Inspector Building Division Mr. Carlson SSF Building & Planning Divisions 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 648 Commercial Permits and 2 building projects affecting 654 Commercial Mr. Marnmini and Mr. Carlson: I made several visits to your offices in September, 2006, making inquiries and expressing o~ concerns regarding our neighbor's project at 648 Commercial, the setback from the property line and the lack of clarity and lack of specific measurements in the architect's renderings on the setback from the property line and the street. On September 8, 2006, I left the original of the attached letter with Mr. Mammini after our conversation. Several months ago, we spoke with Mr. Valencia and he said he would get a surveyor and we would split it. Mr. Valencia provided me with a topography map, setting comers so that he could divide the front of his lot from the back. Based on this, he feels that our fence is on his property line, yet for decades prior to Mr. Valencia's ownership, there was a second fence on his property and a substantial space between our fence and the fence on his property. So now he just comes on over and does what he wants. I have gone to the Div. of Public Works in Redwood City and made subsequent phone calls and nothing has been filed for Mr. Valencia's property. The surveyor that I am dealing with contacted Mr. Dominguez, the engineer that prepared Mr. Valencia's topography map, and Mr. Dominguez said that he has no intention of filing anything regarding this property. As described in the attached letter, Mr. Valencia has now taken it upon himself to start dismantling our fences, both along the property line and the fence betWeen our building and his garage, and placed his scaffolding indisputably on our property, and is now working on the building, adjacent to his garage, which I believe was haIted by your office some time last year. I would like to know if Mr. Valencia has any permit authority to now work on that extra building. I would like to know what your office can and will do in this situation regarding the setback issue and all of this and if unsuccessful, what recourse I may have, what the next level would be after your office. Rita Fontana (650)302-4360 Enclosures: (2) 9/8/2006 letter to SSF Planning! Permit & Code Enforcement Office; 11/28/2006 letter to Mr. Valencia Delivery by Certified Mail Mr. & Mrs. Serafino Fontana 1711 Toledo Avenue Burlingame, CA 940 I 0 November 28, 2006 Mr. & Mrs. Javier Valencia 648 Commercial Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Regarding: Dismantling Private Fences Without Permission or Authority, Destruction of property and Trespassing. Mr. & Mrs. Valencia Today, my parents went to their apartment building at 654 Commercial Avenue and discovered that, on your own, you had removed planks from their fence that runs lengthwise from Second Lane to Commercial A venue and you had removed planks and the security grating on their fence that runs from their building to your garage. Later on in the day, I noted that you have placed scaffolding on our property, that starts right next to our building and spans the width of the area across to your garage and the length of the garage and additional structure behind your garage, the one that you stopped constructing and which structure is 3 inches from our fence. I also noted that the stucco on the side of the garage structure, surrounding a door-like opening about 5 feet off the ground, was broken away. This opening faces our property. You removed fencing, grating and placed your scaffolding on our property without asking our permission and without notice. You had no authority to do so. My Father felt quite ill after discovering this. He asked your worker why no one contacted him. My father was told that "they knocked and were told the owner doesn't live here". I know that you are aware that my parents do not live in the apartment building and that you have all of our contact phone numbers. This work does not appear to be related to the home that you are constructing on the Commercial Avenue side of your lot, but on one of the other structures on your lot. This appears to have started after my surveyor spoke with Mr. Dominguez, the engineer who prepared the topography map for you to split and set comers on your lot, dividing your lot front to back. You need to return the fencing back to its prior condition, as you found it, including the security grating and scaffolding. It would appear that you are trespassing. Rita Fontana G) Cc: Mr. & Mrs. Valencia By Regular Mail By Posting at residence "#647" Second Lane Cc: Barry Mammini Sr. Building Inspector, Building Division, SSF Bldg & Planning Divisions /- Cc: Mr. Carlson, SSF Planning, Permit and Code Enforcement .,/ Mr. & Mrs. S. Fontana 1711 Toledo Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 September 8, 2006 SSF Planning, Permit And Code Enforcement Staff 315 Maple St. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 648 Commercial/3 story home and property line Mr. Carlson: My primary concern is that Mr. Valencia's property will be closer to our property than allowed by code, less than 5 feet of the property line. As it now sits, the uncovered re-bar is standing exactly 5 feet from our fence. Any covering or cement placed over that re-bar will reduce the mandatory distance. The garage and the house in front ofit on, Mr. Valencia's property, are both situated substantially less than I foot from the fence (see attached pictures). Additionally, there have been weighty items placed against the fence from the 648 side and the fence is now listing towards our property, so we need to look to the base of the fence for the property line. The architect's drawings of the proposed building do not provide measurements/distance from the property line or the street and appear to be subject to interpretation thereby resulting in a built-in fudge factor. A wall is a wall and measuring "S-ish feet" really is not workable. I have pictures for your review. Perhaps the remedy should begin with re-evaluation of the work completed as of this date, the drawing, and the permit and asking for clarification and a formal surveyor's review. Rita Fontana For Rose& Serafino Fontana CONCLUSION 152 TOTAL PROP. VALUE $--- I 153 LAND VALUE $ IMP. VALUE $ I :;~ PERS. PROP. CODE Conf. ...ll! PERS. PROP. VALUE ~ - 157 "0 GROSS INCOME ~ - ..!!!. G.'. DATE 0 - 159 GROSS ANNU"L INC. - 16D G".I. MUL T1PLE '" === 161 G.I. VALUE IND. '( 162 163 TEMP. V"LUE NO yO ~ .., -~ EMPLOYEE NO. t 165 "PPR"IS"L 0,1. TE "- .-!!! CIca ..ill. 0 ~ "PPRAISE FOR ~ .:$/" RESIDENTIAL UNIT APPRAlSAL'RECORD WESSORS OFFICE SAN MAtEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ,.. - Y- Ba.. Lot SI.. B... Lot V olu. I .I_t. :~::IU. ~ ~~ ..nJX ""'''' - 'A6n ~' ;....-^^ .;.. "0 ..ill . -' .' I I 'ls~r.MENT YEAR 25 - TOTA. 19. 19 19 er. ..r 'of. I ..C.N. end v.rue 5u"'ftlCltf~n . )<ot. .f 141. cat . Price ....~.I D.... Ine/lo....r NiD::I~' ~ -- . :i.. ., u., ICG'et, ~ o. . ro . V. ... o u. .r . .0 - COMPARABLE SALES 27 _ LAND ADJUSTMEN SUMMARY ..... .,.. , I VI'. a.. , c. .. 0 u.tmenta Inus o u. us 00 010 .t Il . o U. I. . .- nt.r In n ~EMARn 135 136 "l37 138 ~Ii ~ 143 1:<< '"ffi" tH! , 147 , 148 rm , 150 H* ~ :.... := .~ . :8 _ SWIMMING ~O;L ~~f.U:Jt or. I 'Uv1rtO Rftl"',l 1 :lId. I =ilt.r HOUle . S ~ - Of~:.R SALES ~I AllIounl Total SwimminG Pool s I 8Iel.. P_lt <)n~U 'AUf' "'II \J"lO: I I 31' _ CONSTRUCTION RE DRO I D.,. ......ounl I DOIeriotlon I.JI..JV {,l!l.O Jill.. ~ 1r1IU~tJ I/_h I';' 'Iff) (;,L.. _ ,L'",...... '" ~." ,,<.:"""'- 'L , I I I I :A. I-AS. 7. 1.68 ~ SV'f'?a SIDE I OF 2- :- FIELD INSPECT. DATE LAND ATTRIBUTES }?M ...!!!. ...!.!!! ~ 104 105 106 ..ill. ....!!!! ~ 110 m 112 113 114 115 116 117 1ii rn 120 121 122 123 rn 125 126 127 m 129 liD 131 132 133 ..B! ZONING WIDTH DEPTH SQ. FT. ACTUAL SQ. FT. USABLE ACRES SO J7iJ-o ~ - ~ ~d~ 7 d (J() REPRESENTATIVE N Y IRREGULAR N Y .. CUL.DE..sAC N '( CORNER N Y ALLEY N Y NONoS T. FRONT N Y COMMON GREEN N Y COMMON ReCREATION N y UNIT CONFORMITY N" y WATER FRONT N '( DOCKING RIGHTS N Y ZONING CONFORMITY N .,.'" MISLpCATED IMP. N Y HIGHEST & BEST USE N Y NUISANCE INFLUENCE N Y EXCESSive TRAFFIC N Y ELEe. N y WATER NO Y SEWER NlJ Y VIEW N y VIEW QUALITY Fo A G ARCH. A TTR"CT. F. A G LAND DEVELOPMENT F A G LOT USABILITY Info Typ :iu\l. IMPROVEMENT Und. Typ. 0.. LAND VAL. "OF BASE .:m~"~1 t::) TOPOGRAPHY Ev.n &!J A,. 0 8.1..0 ~, L.ov.p:g HIli Bs~lc.gSho'. 0 Mod. I:I SIf. I.." . GRADE CONTOUR SLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NO. .' .. SINGLE FlWlL Y N Y MUL TI,FAMIL Y .w, N Y - OWNER OCCUPIED N Y CLUSTER N Y .' DATE OF IMPS. --~~ TREND PL"NNING MARKEr DEMAND CITY SERVI.CES If /7:J ,(f-=l ~_.._.. --- 1_ 1\;,,;..... ' Att.oidO -1..0. r-n;,t..elO u..J ~v-t-- r.;a~, .' O;;;.T _n ,itr.T ADDRESS CITY lOT y L.l.J f CoQ 1M ~1l..1t c; t\ L. JJ ilL. CJi>b 31.9. . TRACT .."./ A,. t ";"',f ..r u b Bl..k. <1; ACREAGE ~t.. ~1 6lK ~.., 7 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 1I--'.t'I'IVI!A J 21.~T_A'" "-KIT.cAes. "1_ f-Xt- -~~.,. ~ -;:+:' M.'olT eo...., , IiIlld -.r...., , '0". I'iil Jii;". IV m. r>l pro..T T'n. GoI. ,)(:, I:'.~ IDI....- ..:Tn. -FUW, , Pt,; Can;; 'oII-5.t.THS IHo. ~ ,- ~kv:;, T T;.~JL.R;" / u....... I V-- T - A.~U.- I T.,. Ii' 11,.." -:Trf_ T ~ !I!~LA~, K Boll. ~ .~: B!2: . linn ~ Tolo nlJlTlr- ~l:~ .~I "PI., -~..~:~ ::, ~t;d~~'R'o,,", T ~:~. ..1.. T . . lS'o~No. ~ ~ ! 5'0'" No...... _R.I.~ U- U-"'Fon Y F nl.!. Tr PI.. O=.al ""u;; I-G~- I F":;-, W.,. I woo". . . n'tv nl.rea.. ~we, ."t~Vac. FIO<<.~ 7 19- I w.l:r:;: rvfl; "'''.81~- 'Sic. w ....;r liIoa . BUILDINC DATA 201 A.P.N. -'\ J :1 ~ "1 ~-.. -Ulit. 202 SIDE .;).. OF 5 203 FLD. INSP. DA T1: 20C EMPLOYEE NO. 20S YR. BLT. /It "..,- 206 DESIGN TYPE Ii I ^ 207 USE CODE . rz... 208 EFFECTIVe YE"R -7Q 0 209 DEPR. TABl/; ,;,... 210 FUNc. PLAN. 1'0-" CO 211 CONDITION F 0" G] 212 WORkMANSHIP FhA G 1- 213 LIVING ROOf,( -J 214 DINING ROOM 2i5 kITCHEN 2i6 FAMILY ROOM 217 M.OF BOR. 1015 218 DEN liBRARY 'j 21, SUPP. ROOMS A. . - 220 TOTAL ROOMS Q I 221 NO. OF 8ATH$ ~,Ol!- 222 CENT. HEAT ~~y'f :m:=CeNT. COOL ..~ 224 GAR. BSMT. /fre yIT 22i CARPORT "'~YO; i26 STAllS lIil2 n3L1' con J:lACTOIll:: QU"lITY CLASS i5 ,C co PATTEIlN BASE AIlEA.., l/i#i;i 1ST Fl. AREA //1 01--'\- 2ND Fl. AREA 2ND Fl. FACTOR 3RD FL. AREA 3RD FL. FACTOR ATTIC AREA A HIC F"CT!)R FIN.BSMl'.AReA 7;70 FIN. BSMT.FACTOR 50 " 8SMT. AREA :t n ~ BSMf: FACTOR .Jo" ADDITION "REA ADDITION FXCTOR ADDITIVES COST YEAR '~._ IiEA T & WC COST ~P;COST'- ------ EXT.PlBG.COST 7f4ii: APPLIANCE COST POR.OK-BAl. COST' MISC. ITEMS COST GAR. CLASS A TT. GAR. CLASS on. D.1iF" GAR. AREA ~/n - , FL T.Wk.EXC.AREA FL T.Wf<.COST FENCE COST MISC.STR.COST DOCk IMP.COST DOCK YEAR POOL COST POOL YEAR SPEC.IMPS. COST p.C. COST PERMIT DATE: PERMIT APPD. STORIES .I ~~/? 1.~'"'''l>''iO''' r.1l" I' PI:- An. rr 0.1. I It' Hdw.P-.....r I B.",,_ "'.'_L SIo.;AN. RIlI.O.... '~rt SIrveIUI. Gwrc,q ~ : It.t - _ J~ ....... .. ~~,~~ ~1r~. . : : ':rf ,- '1-; T ~. .. .- l )I:' _. .. -c;;;,DUIIIHan, n_ FaIr I Cd. T I Ava. ~lU'. 11l_ I S.R.I' P .A_. TI . E....-~..... ';r:- '~-B.(SEMEHT ., Ii' -"r. IlIT e.e~ r T uPi,. 'F/n.llift. I'" ,. AD/.rvr ~lA..-=+'ft t... rA.r un 00", iJrI;.DOom 'eo a.t .. .Porch- Ar.a r j",-" -....-~ 1"1".. h;' '... 14.111 l"" RoO' F';dn ':xte"or -11""0 A.~..;~ Fl.";, ,."..,~ h".;;"-':' Infer for Bath. T If ' I~' - 227 . ., '- '. : - - F.f l~ . ::r~~~~~ . .:r::: I- ~. rtl-.f: .-. 1= -, ." '! 230 , . ::- ':::r. 231 .. .. -. - '-. ~" 232 ..,....1-. 233 -.. 2:U 235 234 1~37 , 238 , 239 :UO 241 2-42 " I- " .- , '- ... '. ~r '. " .~ " .. ~- . . '- - - .' .-: ~:! ' -- ,- . 1-. ~ .:.. - ... - . -.. -... .. .. 243 244 :Us 24 - 247 248 249 2S0 , 251 252 253 254 2SS 2~ 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 291 \':) ":'; I U ,. OJ 'y -y ~. ~' - , '- !-. T I- , , - ~: . .. ,." ..,. ~~. ':h:I:'~ h-:r~ /,j.AI ~ef^. I- . ---... - "'.'- '," , r Sla,v " I~r A,." ,,-.;- -- T T Co.t " "::-od R .....-. n l/..f>Fi' Addil;... To, If RESIDENCE TOTAL _ ,;;;- ("'-ro';. Flot,,-"orlr ."c. f;C.T1,urt Snoe. Imn.. Area Facto IPooJ IlJo.~- u"'-T;;t..1 'I'lJT.lr '-- ....- G.7'f' AlUI. T1Pl.E RESlDEHT1AL APPRAJDJ. RECORD ASSESSORS OFFICE SAH AlATED COUNTY, CALlFORHIA Z2-HISTORlCAL COST n-LAlIlJ VALUE" COMPUTA TlOMS :OST YEAR BASIC LOT VALue $ UAOUNT S ADJUSTMENTS :i: $ rREND FACTOR " (I. REASONS) "ERCENT GOOD " 'DJUSTED COST $ ADJUSTED LOT VALUE $ (PER sa.FT.S .. PER UNIT $ 2A-MARkET APPROACH iROSr INCOME S NUMBER.OF ROOMS ~.I.M. .. $ PER ROOM . ~CATED VALUE $ INDleATEtI VALUE S . . NUMBER OF UNITS GROSSM"'" BLDG. AREA i"PiR UNIT . $ PER S~. FT. . - NDICATED VALUE S INDICATE'D VALUE $ . 0 Z5-lNCOME ANALYSIS UNITS NO. RENT AMOUNT OTHER INC. TOTAL MOIlTHLY GROSS $ .. 12 ~NUAL GROSS INCOME LESS VAC....LLOTf~ " e....ECTIVe GROSS $ $ U_EXPENSE ANAl.. YSlS ITEJot I AMOUNT ~~Q:j E~G. INSURANCE $ MANAGEMENT UTILITIES SUPPLI~ SERVICES MAINT.& REP. OTH I!R .o~ =$= 1-1= TOT.exe~NSES RESERVES S V-INCOME APPROACHES : / STRAIGHT LINE - BUILDING R~IDUAt. EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME (FROM ABOVE) LESS EXPENSES " NET INCOME TO PROPERTY LAND CHARGES (JNTR. ,,+ TAXES LAND VALUE $ .. " NET INCOME IMPUTABLE TO BLDG. CAPITALIZATION RATE, INTR. " -+ DEPR. " + TAXES IMP. VALUE z:: NET INC. $ + ROUNDED IMPROVEMENT VALUE LAND VALUE TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE $ ") .-:0:.. $ "I " $ $ $ $ ~ OVERALL CAPITALIZATION - PROPERTY RESlllUAL NET INCOMUFROM ABOVE) $ OVERALL RATE {YIELD " + TAXES "I INDIC. VALUE = NET INC. $ "., $ ROUNDED TOTAL PROPERTY VAl.UE . $ CAPITALIZATION OF AVAILABLE-FINANCING CASH DOWN " EXPECTED RETURN _" = hID.T. "; INTR. ll; PERIOD YRS. ' LOAN CONSTANT .. lot D. T. " 2nd D. T. "; INTR. "; PERIOO YRS. wii' CONST ""'T .. 2nd D. T. ' " :It" D. T. ll; INTR. ll; PERIOD YRS.- LOAN CONSTANT .. :ltd D. T . " TAX RATE S .. 2S"ASSMT.RATlO COMPOSITE CAP. RATE INDIe. VALUE = NET INC. $ T ROUNOED TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE + + = + + ~O $ S SNCA-'.'..",...,-7. i~.". ...,./ ~. 171 172 173 174 175 I 176 In 178 " " 181 "I 182 I 183 il:! 114 I 185 "I 186 ,,' 187 " 188 190 I ~ J..:i. 2300-9 101 102 103 10.4 105 106 107 10& 109 -:7 nuo _. ,PPO 110 LOT USABILITY I A Sn 111 IRREGULAR N Y 112 CUL-DE-SAC N Y 113 COIl~I!:R ,N Y 114 NON-Sf.FRONT N Y 115 WATER FRONT N Y 116 DOCKING RIGHTS ~:N Y 117 NUISANe}: INFLUENCE N Y 118 EXCESSIV~ TRAFFIC N Y 126 GRADE 127 CONTOUR 128 SLOPE TOTAL PROPERTY . 131 VACANT N y' 132 ZONING CONP'ORMITY N Y , 133 UNIT CONFORMITY H Y - I 134 MISLOCA f~ IMP. H Y 135 HIGHEST .. BEST USE N Y 136 VIEW N Y 137 VIEW QUALITY of A Gn I 13& VIEW~"':LIZI!:D - P A G : 139 ARCH;'" 'r'rRACT, 'p A ...w. : 140 COMMON GREEN H Y 141 COMMON R~C. "Off Y 142 COMMON DRm .. :, "A' Y 143 EASEMENTS ON Y 144 T!NANT PARKING P A Gn- 145 GUEST PARKING N Y ! 151 152 , 153 154 . 155 156 1 7 158 159 160 1~1 162 NEIGHBORHOOD GH B NO. SINGLE FAM~L Y MULTI EAMi Y CLUSTER COMMeRC,Al. INDUSTRIAL TREND PLANNING MARKET,~EM"'ND PUBLIC SERvICES PROl<. TO SHOPPING PROX. 10 1BA"'~ i N N N Qec '. P F ,I'. P. A 'e.IT COST APPROACH ST Item RCN" Gd, RCNLO BLOGS. MISC.STR. SITE IM.PS. POOL GAR.DET. TOTAL COST YEAR ,_ VALUE COHCLUSIQNS TOTAL PROP.VAL. $ LAND VAL. S IMP.VAL. $ EMPLOYEE NO. 1o~"5" APPRAISAL Dol TE APPROACH USED S 0 ( D. TEMP.VALUE NO. rD PERMIT DATE COMMENTS ,.. :" jI: ~ '\) , 1010_ \; ~ ~ () '--Q .e\ I?>~o ADDRESS (,f/; ~ ~ _l~~ ~/-;~ BLK ~ 13 1- tOTAL "ROPE Y " 19 TRACT 10....._ Y.., : _A,,..,.., 0.,. ..,....._.... Val... Land V.lu. Total Prol.'ortY V.lu. f90~~ U .01 "'<50 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 201 209 210 211 A --Do" .f Sal. Sol.. Prl~. _ AoI/u.hnonta(+ a, -) N 2-SALES DATA- S J-ARCHITECTURE I 9-INTERIOR WALLS - lIS-BATH PINISH ' 212 GROSS SLDC.AREA '''''I-r- Ru.tl~ ",..tro~k i )( I TIl. Plu,le : 213 NeT REH.TAJlLE AREA /41 ~ -. Con.,.,.tfon.' X Pl...... )(' WGln.coo' I 1214 FUNe. PLAN -J> A Gn Madam Pan.llna - 0.,., 'tub I 215 WORKMANsHIP -P A cO - _~Ol" Vanltl.. 216 CONDITION P A en "- 5"0..'. X 217 DEF.MAINT. H Y _. 4-"OUNDATIOH 111_"'''' '''n~ .-" c.n....t. X Sh..trock ~ 16-ICITCHEH & CABIN ETS UNITS ._ 0...., 1'10,'., Jt::.. VH..' P.lnt TV,. Ho. Av..S. F. ToI.S.F. - A~eo..Pla.ro, 101.'01 226 STUDIO- 1 BA TII. -, 5. STRU~TURAL Beam & Ru.tle Plullc 227 1 BR - 1 SA -, ~~ '<<6., - Woad F,om. .1L 228 2 BR - 1 BA - St.l F,_. ll-ELECTRICAL -:';::'-17 -APPLIAN~ES 229 < 2 BR - 2 BA Cone..'. - A.... Fix...", Jr' P A ,H~ .1BR - I BA ) }D'l-r 10'7 ., Con...Slook I eo... Fix"".. .:" Ho. BR - BA - i"I Slob ---::- - Con"ult ......... R......-ToDf BR - SA - D,...ln R&O BR - AA 12-HEAT S"....ln R&O BR - BA 6-ROOFING ~ C.F.H.A. SinaI. 0.... BR - BA T&G floo, C.A<;. ~' Doubl. 0.... SR - BA - . - "011 _ _~'n91. - Hood & Fan < 246 TOTAL T ti",.!. Shok. No, WoI., .,":W Exhou.' fan .. _ Cooopo.Ulon L EI....a.....boord .. DI.hwa..... 247 FURNISIiJ:D UNITS . Radian' 01'00'01 liED RooMs ~OOM COUNT ,NO. ,-, - - 3~1 It St.o.. R.lrlo. _.-' 7-l!ltTERIOR "ALLS I Air Cond. (C.ollna) ::=1252 DINING ROOMS -- -- Stvcco X )C 253 OTKE,! ~OOMS ( '. Ru.tlc 254 TOT.4<L ROOMS $h'-I. 13-FLooRS LR. SR. K .Ii. 11-MISe. No. 255 BATHRQ9MS -- "- Cona... Cora.I T Flre.lan I ' 256 HALF BATHS .. Conc.lllock ",,""woo" X X.I T . V. ""'t.nn" I ROOMS -- Vinyl I _ o...../llIn... ,260 LAUNDRY ROOM . pt'f An G .- - STORA~.e L1no. &:: "a.h.,.ID,..... -241 ..eO ..1'iiI -n I_VENEER TRIM Cone. -- W.,S.... : ~6~ ann" pO ..0 II ; 0- SIon. T."..o.w. ere. II! Gart..Out. 243. GYMNASIUM ....pD AD G -- B<lck So,lnkl." -., 1.c-PLUM8IHG FIXTURes ... I"...alon _ GARAGE & CARPORTS Qu.lllY /litre, - - - Cobl. T.V. ; 266 DETACH'ED :H y!i,; - - To'al Flxtu,.. -II.' 1247 lIel-OW GRADE '1'1 Y , 268 AT GRADE 'f YIS _t9-DESC. REMARKS: .- .. : 269 NUL TI.STORY Y ~. .. ,270 FINISHeD ; t41Sl Y DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Slructure 2O-MISC. STRUCTURES & GARA eSC.RIPT'.Q~ A,ea Fdn. E.". In". Floo, Plumb. Hetllt. 1211 ~ 272 1273 ; 274 i-- _ TOTAL NO. GARAGE $fALLS w/DOORS, I GARAGE HALLS wa!DOOR$ CARPORT ST ALLS OPEN AIR SPACES '... ~ Ap~,. & Do'. MIse. EXTERIOR APT. EN1'RY INTERIOR HALLS COMMON LQI}BY ELeVATOR BUlL T.INS (Quan'ity) BLitL T.INS Quail ) FIREPLACES Numbar) TENNIS COURT POOL SAUNA SECURITY S'(.HEM RES.MGR.OR OWNER ,--.. 276 ~77 271 I ~ 279 280 < , 281 I 282 , 283 , 214 , 285 , 286 217 ~RKS. : 288 DECKS ... ~ 'I~ BALCONIES c ~ 290 PATIOS ,.;.;.;. 2~! "IW CARPE'TS :ilfill yO ......... ~ ~ .. ..... tvlr. & r-./lrs. Serafino Fontana 1711 Toledo /\ ve., Burlingame, CA 94010 February IS. 2007 City or South San Francisco Planning Commission, Building Permit., ('(Ide Enf()fCement This is our property 654 Commercial Next door is 64R Comrncrcial. 'fllere is presently one original structure. a small garage J'acmg Sccond Lane shO\vn here heing repaintcll Behind this garage. built within the last 4,) years is a two story structure which can be secn in the first picture ,vhen it was still unpainted and unfinished up until about a month ago, it has been "annexed" to the origi nal garage: Y Oll can see the difference in the roof! int' in the next picture and see it in the first picture. r~asjcally next to, on the left side of, this original garage structure with t\-\'o story structure attached to the garage, i" another building that also faces Second Lane, the door is numhered #647, pictured here painted a lIght green, 'rhis is apparently a homc" It'S IwO slones, A third strul:ture, with a Clirrern penni!. wil] face Commercial, span the width of the property as .\ 3 slUry stn.lcturc, Our lot is a SO' lot My understanding is that with a 50'10l.. there is a mandatory 5' setback, If it were a 25' lot. there \vould be a 3' setback. Regardless of interpretation, the two sLOry building In this picture, that is next to my property (shown in either gray StllCCO or painted blue) is less than 10 inches fnlm the base of my fence, This titles not comply with anyimerprelalion of your codes. On the other side of Iny neIghbor's lot. which borders with 646 Commercial, the latter nO\\ for sale. the light green bmldll1g and the fence is no\v acting as the property line between those lWO lots. 'I'here is no setback from the other side of that lot as it goesfrorn Secnnd lane lo\\'ards ('ommercial. lvly understanding is that the City of South San Franci.,co stopped Mr. ValencIa while he was huilding the "two story annex" tu the onginaJ garage, If the City stopped the building, why is he continuing and preparing to rent the propeny? rhe city appears to be either unaware of what is happening here or arc ignoring it. I asked abom this structure and I was told that there is a permit ., howevcr, the permit is for the new 3-story house facing Commercial. 'rhis 2 story annex is in the background and is apparently an illegal building and rnos! probably w/out Ineeting code and se\ver rcquirernents, \/11', Valencia told me rather convincingly, that he\J had it survey done and that my fence was on his property, 'rhe people that he hired went so far as to place a plain nail ringed in orange paint on the short \vall that separates the properties facing Cornmercial: and on Second Lane placed a wooden "take w/an orange flag on it We had started discussing the property line. 1\11', Valencia provides me with a topography map for his property, to set corners within his ()wn lot. 1\:11', Valencia told me and my parents that his "surveyor" told him that we're on his property line and he "would continue building "inee he is ill the right and we're on his property", The surveyor that we hired contacted the engineer that preparedMr, Valencia's topography rnap. This engineer told my surveyor in no uncertain terms that he was not going to file anything \\'ith the county, Thereafter [ went to take a picture of the nail and it had been broken out of the cement. All that relnained was the orange paint. Second Lane In November. 2006, Mr Valencia, \vithout notice 01 authorization took thIS fence down and set up his scaffolding on Ollr properly. lie removed other planks in the fence that rllns from Second Lane to Commercial. When \ve saw this. everything was already set up. I delivered a letter to the building permit people and I was told that somcone from code enforcement was going to go there, I left a message for this person, but the call was never returned. M1'. Valencia comes and goes as he pleases, The next picture is taken from our courtyard. The next picture is laken from Second Lane, ~~"~ rvlL Valel1cia also removed planks from the fence that borders the properties, probably to gam access. Mr. Valencia has busied himself encroaching on our property and his other neighbors' properties, expanding as fast as possible with or without code compliance. He has counted on the City's confusion over all of the construction - I have personally asked about this 2 story building and was told that he had a permit - but the permit is for the 3- story building. So he is constructing two for the code enforcement of one. Therefore, I ask you now, I would like to see copies of approved permits for this structure that is attached to the original garage, that is 10 inches from the fence and does not comply with any setback provision. Does it comply with any of the housing codes pertaining to sewer, power and gas? Does the new house comply? The architect drew the plans with a bit of poetic license.. .sans actual measurements. There's a 3-car garage facing Commercial, but someone forgot about the fire hydrant, yet it was approved by someone. One of the inspectors told me to let his office worry about Mr. Valencia. Apparently, if I did so, my faith would be ill-placed. I show up, I write letters, I bring pictures. Valencia continues. Mr. & Mrs. Serafino Fontana 1711 Toledo Ave., Burlingame, CA 9401 0 March 5, 2007 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, Building Permits Code Enforcement We have paid for a licensed surveyor to examine our property. The survey work has been done. Documentation may already be on file w /the San Mateo County Division of Public Works at this point. The permit issued by the city of South San Francisco for the property facing Commercial, 648 Commercial 3-story structure, needs to be revisited and the illegal building constructed on the back side of the lot, attached to the original garage- which garage faces second lane, also needs to be addressed. The mandatory setback on the property lines is 5 feet. The existing space between the properties starts at less than five feet on commercial and is reduced to nothing as you make your way up the lot towards second lane. The garage for 648 Commercial, which faces Second Lane, as an original structure. The 2-story building attached to that garage is an illegal structure, is no where near the mandatory setback and the structure should have been removed since your building permit staff stopped construction. Work continued on this building and when the building and permits people were asked - they were under the impression that the work was being done on the 3 story structure - the proposed structure that did in fact have a permit. The 2- story building was being constructed and is being completed under a cloak of confusion. The permit for the new house, facing Commercial, is based on wishy- washy measurements, and no real property line. The existing fire hydrant will be about midway in front of one of the garage doors, The existing permit. and the proposed building need to be revisited and corrected now as both appear to encroach on the property lines and definitely the mandatory setback requirements. I am enclosing a copy of a letter drafted and not yet delivered to the Building and Planning and Permit office. I would appreciate any assistance that you can provide me. Very truly yours, Rita Fontana 650-302-4360 )>(f) (f)-I Om ,,-0 )>r c)> G)z ':IJ I\)m 00" - r I\)m 00 0-1 -....J- Qoti -Om :IJX 0- -o(f) 0-1 (f)Z mG) 0-... I1C :IJZ 00 zm -I:IJ -10 :DO mz ~(f) ~-I m:IJ ZC -I~ 0- -00 -IZ -0 00 Zz (f)o )>- Qo-l rn~ (f) P.L. -----------.-~ ------ -.----- C.L. - - -- - -- - -_.~- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- 2ND LN. (20' R.O.W) ---- -- , ' --.-- r;; c~ ,L) " , ;:::::J fRONT s; BACk I ',1 - - - - - - - - - - --, I 0.8_ _ 21N.:...JlR!;)"~ _ _ ~1!l _ J IJJ(;) :=jJJ I I ~~ ~ ~ l:=j Q ~ I'il::m Z -"...... 0 I ~ m I 9 I I I I I I I I I OJ --c- )> encZ z CZ_~ en OJO-lJJ m ~ Lm'il::m mJJI\) ~ m ~O 0 Z m -l enO Z " ilZ 0 0 C~ m Ill~ 8 c.!!J OJJ rJJ "U -iC om JJ co -en Z JJ-i z- mB (;)0 -l .6': m (f) Z I :::J 0 f!. :E Z .. ~ -I .., ~.. 8~ "'~ ~~ ,.i 2l'" <.. <,. M-I M~ ! ! I "j- rRONT SETBACk L HIN, DRIVEVAY .:;..::: _r '--------- I f - ' , ,;. .. ' 1-- r , ' i' J " ',;";", I'" ~ lA'''' ," , ,,,' ..." '. "1 I " ' , " - '~'''I' '" , I ,: ~'.l'; , : ,.; i;'." .: ;,: j."'Ci~..1 ~ L___._-' ~r ,,, "~::5~'* '... . ~ ~ ~~~i:l:,' ,-',. ,':C-F'I~ ~ ~ ~ I , : ". lir>~-'> : >J:r' I ~ ~ / ;'.:" ,~ll'" - < ;.: ~~ :,::,:,,'_:1: L',' ,. ~ 01:-' ~ "Uo )>0 0> ~~ 0 0 m~ ~ rm OOJJ ~ )>0 m :E:i> JJ 0 )>r :i> -<)> ,,< r JJm , O. 00 S::r C 000 OJ c.. cO m ~2S ~ m~ ~ ~m ~~ c ~ ~~ c m" JJ ~~ m ?< r- 'l!:1\) en' d ~8 ::IJ -~ Zs:: ~ "m OJJ JJo _0> m_ ~ G>)> JJr S1l ~~ po t 0' . r 0 0 0 0 s:: ^ z s:: G> m ::IJ m 0 )> )> ~ r ~ ~ rn !'> ~ OJe.... -<0 oOJ -10 IO m- JJ -0, cn-< m QoX c-1 (J)m mIJ 00 ~IJ _OJ -1C I- r 00 ~Z ZG) mm :Dr ci)m -0< m~ JJ- <:0 1111~ \\!,,~. --~ ',1' , ( 'I , , r ;'1 01...,. I\J "j'-'m!J ~. - ',., .;;;;' '1' ::r.r: ~, : III ~ ~fIT=-. .~r \ IlI->-ID,tI ~ RER~ 1 Ii ~;~i i Ii ail n I I I ..iJ !r ~ t->ujl I : Iii ~; ~ -'FM1 '1' ~~: ~ 0 . l ' is. 0 '.... ' !Ii I; ~~~ t;; I ~-=--:---t.:.===r : _''1 /I "..,...,iI. l'f"'T"'lIJ . <:=:> ReR~ :::. '::tJ / '" '~J' 4 ~ Hi' '" &; ...J ,< > I!. ..., ,0 II Jii I: ,itI1 II' ;~s > il d: n ~ II !iI > :>:l E ~~~ z o --f m )> r r m x ~ z G) o o z o ::j ~m en -f 1 ,,;IJ m 01 ro o :IJ < 1 m )> ]J:IJ - ml " )> men 0-1 OJ~ -< :IJ1 CD 1) )> r C )> I ^Z Cz Z -I enZ -fG) 0' ~ m )>" ]J-- ^ OJ C o o ...... r=r " t:lz !!l:IJ f(lfH o m Z o m , c Z =l N STEEL fRAME: 2 ,. ", ,/ ,. " E3 ,'-'" -..~.- .-" I I\) Z 01 "T1 r 01 o ::Ill )> ::Il m' )> en ....-,1 lJ m ::Ill lJ r )>1 Z Z, Z G) o m "1 -..- r-------, I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I d e z ~ ~I r------------- II- 21 n) c I, I Z b=--) ~ __.J ~ I i I ;' 01ii .ill lIl!/l ;.~ ~o lIlm .;, m~ fI( ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ,., " ~ l> ,. :;1 N~ ~i enm -n\!l ,0 ...m Ml5 enm -n' ,C NZ el=1 N en -n II ~ ... (J1 en -n / " " , " , '16 " ~: " 0 .... / ~ " /" ~ '" " , .... ..... ,,' .... ,. .... ,. .........'.~,. ,. ,." III ........ ,. .... ,. .... ST[[L FRAH[ 2 ~~ ~.._ ._ .u ~~--~-___n_\ 1 1 I ~o I : lIlJ I III : ~ L__ I W JJ 10 " r 10 o IJJ )> JJ 1m )> (j) ~ lJ ~ ~ J ~~ ~ c ~ ~ I......... 1J m IJJ 1) r I)> Z ,2 Z G) 10 m I~ ..- P.L. __________ C.L. 2ND LN, (20' R.O.W) - JJ -- .....L (J) ~ " r 0, o JJ )> JJ m )> (J) -I -0 m JJ -0 ~ Z Z Z G) 01 m " -- I-~a ----------- r------------- '1 "') ~ "I ~ I ib- ::,,J ;;l __:I 't ~z Ill; !{If)l o ~ o m , c Z =l I\) r-------, I , , I~' ~ i ~~ ~ I '-01\), 1 )>z I <-JJ JJO =~ d ["- ~ I~--' , --i ,,' ~ i :; -0 u:> )>Or ;-;~ )> JJ ,r I ~~ ~~ , JJ 0 1 -00 se ~ ~" r::D ~< )> r I)>)> 1 ~~ I rOI ZJJ ~ -00 I~~I ~; I~JJI JJ(J) ~3 " / Z ii , rn::o ' ~ ; ", ~/ , )> m ' <m !{l~ 'i~ ~)> (J)JJ ~~ ~ 0:' JJ (J) 'm-o I ~~ .~~~~ ~ "'" 1 m- 1 Or :~ _!. <~ ,,,)>, ~, " I(J)JJ, JJ Z ~" / m -0 OZ ~ :~~: Or ,ZZI _~"~ ", 1")>1 ~G) -- JJZ O,-'r- ~ 'J II ~-' Oz i rlZ-1 ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~..... ~--i~ -- I ~ 1ll ~ -JJr-4Z' ~ 41 , i ,. i S 0 ~", : m =='-i "(i .. ", --1- ~--~ 1 1 c!t~ I... : ~~ , rn , ~ , m L__ , r, )> ~~ 1(1; l " It rRONT SETBACK L MIN. DRIVE'JAY /" -- -." l-'r-~., ~ ..J~ *_ _,._ ~:~_ ~ ~:. --- " ", ,,/ :1,_ "_D...____.,__.._D.__.._....:.-:'_.._.,_.._c. '" ~ , ... ~~ " __________ ..Jr-__ 648 COMMERCIAL ' (SUBJECT PROPERTY) ~ ... .. "I jo -------- 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) ~~~~~~ ::!~I:lU8 :J1d l; "It _-t "0"':) ~~ O~~ ~ t ~1 u= 'j=-0 ~ 0 -! - .i Ci\ ~ ~ :'.',...':u>. ...... "....T,..",' , ~ ':> :",.~':".(m ..;. '" . '. : .:.~ . " ','. <', ;'1.,1 -r----r :,:: ": ;::';: ~""" [.....') 1 I ~'J~: . " . ,- ....~... ell lil c ~ ':l o ,~ ~ _0 + .. .... ? 1: ~ a ~ ~ ~ -:::- ... ..j. Attachment #5 - Meeting Minutes - Planning Commission - October 18,2007 Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 .. of providing all of the minimum required on-site landscaping; Use Permit and Design Review allowing an existing commercial parking facility with a total of 1,232 parking spaces in an open at-grade on-site parking lot to add new one-story parking carport canopies covering 596 parking spaces equaling an area of 91 ,044 square feet, a new one-story 1,632 square foot office building, a new 20 foot tall 140 square foot entry canopy, and new on-site and off-site landscaping, including the project frontage within a portion of US Highway 101; Type C Sign Permit allowing three flag poles 35 feet in height located at Address: 101 Terminal Court (APN 015-113-240) in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.81. 20.84 & 20.85. 2. Parc Place HOA Quality Management, LLC/applicant SSF Parc Place HOAlowner Corner N. Canal & Orange Ave P07-0090: Signs07-0033 Type "C" Sign Permit to allow a new monument sign to be installed in the common area at the corner of N. Canal and Orange Avenue for the Parc Place Subdivision in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.18 & 20.86. Motion Teglia / Second Zemke to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority vote. Chairperson Prouty - absent. PUBLIC HEARING 3. New Single Family Residence Javier & Elvira Valencia/Owner Javier & Elvira Valencia/Applicant 648 Commercial Ave. PUD07-0001 (Continued from September 20, 2007) Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction of a new single-family house on a 7,000 square-foot lot located at 648 Commercial Avenue, with a 9'4" front yard setback within the R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zone District (R-3) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.20 & 20.84. Public Hearing opened. Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation. David Silverman, representing the Valencia Family, submitted photographs into the record for the Commission to review. He noted that the Valencia home is nearing completion. All structural framing, windows, roof and sheer walls are in. He pointed out that the problem with the front setback was discovered when Mr. Valencia inquired about the size of the driveway. He stated that construction began in 2006 and several inspections were conducted. He pointed out that a year later in September 2007 the setback issue was discovered. The Valencia family wants to cooperate with the city and met with staff on October 4th and they came to an agreement on how to address the situation. He pointed out that in light of the advanced stage of the construction, staff agreed that a combination of a redesign of the front fac;ade by changing the front extension to a bay window, reducing the front balcony, and demolishing 3/4 of the building in the rear of the property that is currently a music room for the s:\MLV\.lAtes\:LO':LS"07' RPC MLV\.lAtes,oIoc p~ge ::2 of j Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 - Valencia's handicap child. He added that the architect submitted the revised plan as required and was surprised that the staff report was written without any consideration of the agreed upon resolution. Mr. Silverman continued by stating that condition of approval #9 could cause a significant safety hazard for the Valencia family because it requires the front wall of the third floor be demolished and rebuilt three feet back from its current location. He noted that tearing out the front bearing wall would compromise the seismic safety of the building and create a safety hazard for the Valencia family. He further noted that the shear walls are calculated by size and placement by the building engineer to meet safety requirements. He also stated that reconstruction of the wall and setting it back three feet does not make sense from a design standpoint. He pointed out that the roof overhang would block out light to the third floor and present an awkward appearance to the street. He added that the last minute change is overly aggressive and fails to take into account the seismic safety and engineering aspects with respect to the sheer walls. He felt that if staff would have consulted with the applicant or architect they could have been informed of the technical and engineering problems that would have caused. He pointed out that staff acknowledges that the condition of approval is proposed for visual impacts only and not to satisfy the FAR requirement. Mr. Silverman also submitted additional photographs of the neighborhood that have little or no front setback. He questioned condition of approval #7 which proposes elimination of the front bay window. Mr. Sullivan felt that the area of the bay windows can be met by the demolition of the rear building and the depth can be reduced by three feet as discussed with staff. He emphasized that staff has done a good job despite the difficult situation. He concluded that the Valencia family is prepared to move forward with modifications to the proposed conditions of approval. He added there currently is a stop work notice and asked that it be removed because they would like to weatherproof the building. He asked that all the members in the public who were in favor of the project stand up and be recognized. Mark Bucarelli, new project architect, noted that the residence has been overbuilt in terms of setbacks and FAR. He added that the total footprint area of the three structures on the site is within the 65% lot coverage threshold and that the setback error occurs on A2.0 of the original construction document package that was approved by Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions. He pointed out that the preparer assumed that the back of sidewalk along Commercial was also the front property line and the survey produced by Carlos Dominguez clearly shows the property line five feet in from the back of sidewalk. He added that Mr. Valencia, while acting as his own contractor, unknowingly used the erroneous print setback and the 12 foot 6 inch setback from the existing residence on the site as his working points. He noted that it was not the Valencia's intention to add approximately 600 extra square feet and build too close to the right of way. He pointed out that they want to comply with the requirements pertinent to the construction. Mr. Bucarelli noted that the initial friction between the City and the Valencia's has been over the substantial level of completion versus a set of City approved documents that has a gross error and have been informed by their counsel that there is case law supporting the owners right to complete the work as is. He pointed out that they have also been advised to pursue an area reduction solution with planning because of the timing issues. He pointed out that over 75% of the music /storage room attached to the garage would be removed and additional square footage would be taken out of the street facing second floor rooms of the house under construction. He added that the second floor will be pulled back to the line of the third floor. He noted that it would be cost prohibitive to move the two steel frame lines and the Building and Planning Divisions suggested that the partitioning be placed relative to the steel frame lines. Mr. Bucarelli added that all areas applied to the FAR would add up to 8,750 square feet which is exactly the maximum entitled area for a 7,000 square foot lot with R-3-L zoning and understands that a PUD cannot move forward if the FAR exceeds the maximum for the lot. He pointed out that the bow effect on the front elevation is being maintained per the Design Review Boards suggestion, however, the staff report states that not enough of an effort has been made to reduce 94 ft from the main residence and therefore he is proposing that the second floor fa~ade be pushed back to the line of steel frame. He also noted that the staff report calls for the third floor to be pushed back a minimum of three feet and cutting the balconies back by two feet which would make the house more suitable for the site. He added that the reduction will make a small master bedroom. He further noted that it would be difficult to move the third floor wall because it is a bearing wall and there are two sheer walls framing into it, and by reducing the length of these the lateral resisting system will be impacted. He added that a three feet roof overhang would darken the two front rooms. s:\MLV\.utes\:LO':LS"07' RPC MLV\.utes,oIoc p~ge 3 of .') Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 .. Commissioner Teglia was initially concerned with how the aesthetics of the home would be impacted by pushing back the front. He pointed out that the Commission needs to see this and the architect needs to produce the intended drawings with two options which would be staff's option and the applicant's option. Mr. Bucarelli noted that he asked if something similar should be produced and was not asked to do so. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that they discussed the materials needed for the Planning Commission to review and staff recommended a full set of plans needed to be submitted. He added that due to time constraints the decision was made to go through with the plans that were submitted, but it was made clear that the Commission expects complete plans with any application. Commissioner Teglia stated that he was sympathetic to the applicant's situation but needs to see complete plans. He pOinted out that he was under the impression that both sides had negotiated an understanding and sees that this is not the case. He added that the request to weatherproof the house can be allowed, but it is difficult. Associate Planner Beaudin clarified that the stop work order has been issued for substantial construction work but the applicant has received permission to weatherproof the home pending a decision by the Commission. Mr. Bucarelli concluded that the issue is mainly on the third floor and asked if the Commission decides to go with Planning's recommendation the floor area reduction occur at the back building (storage/music) Commissioner Sim concurred with Commissioner Teglia and noted that the Commission needs to look at the entire project and to do so they need to see a visual representation of the elements that the applicant is trying to have approved. Rita Fontana noted that the item was agendized as a Planned Unit Development and the language is misleading because it sounds like there is no structure on lot. She pointed out that the home exceeds the density requirements. She noted that the there were no prior notices for hearings for the project when building permit B04-1839 was issued and notices were not sent for the Design Review Board's review of the project in 2003. She pOinted out that the setback error is said to have been discovered in 2007 but she had made several visits to the Building Division and sent correspondence discussing the setback issue in 2006. She further noted that Mr. Valencia has a State contractor's license and a City business license and should be capable of reading blue prints and noting deficiencies, and regardless of staff's recommended changes, the site is overbuilt. She appreciated that Mr. Valencia was willing to reduce the size of the music room in the back but there was no permit for that building and she was unable to find one other than the original permit indicating a square footage of 150. She added that her father's property is affected by this project. Betty Reyes, Anita Arellano, Hector Huerta and Joseph Oates spoke in favor of the project. Their comments were: · The new construction is a beautiful building. · It is better to have a structure on the lot rather than it being empty. · The home is a display of what the future holds. · The approved permits and foundation are for the current floor plan of the house. Brenda Valencia noted that her parents own the home and added that the plans presented may not be correct but they are not familiar with the process and that can be intimidating to some residents. She pointed out that her father has been putting his heart and soul into the home and she feels that the foundation of her home is being taken down. Dianne Nide spoke against the project and noted that it is blocking light and air from entering her apartment. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Honan asked what the house would consist of once it is complete in terms of number of bedrooms. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that the house consists of 5 bedrooms,S bathrooms, an indoor pool and a 3 car garage. Commissioner Honan questioned if the components of the home will remain if the owner complies with staff's recommendation. Associate Planner Beaudin replied affirmatively and noted that the third floor rooms would be reduced in size but would still be functional. Commissioner Honan asked if the Design Review Board (DRB) approved this in 2003 with the additional 600 square s:\MLV\.utes\:LO':LS"07' RPC MLV\.utes,oIoc p~ge 4 of ) Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 ... feet. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that the DRB did not approve the additional square footage. He pointed out that the added square footage and design changes have not been reviewed by the City. He clarified that the aesthetics and design of the home were reviewed and approved by the DRB but the existing size, window locations and some of the smaller details have been changed. Associate Planner Beaudin pointed out that 600 square feet were added to the home without any additional review, and staff is not clear as to where this square footage was added to the f1oorplan. He added that staff does not have "as built" plans for the home at this time. Commissioner Sim pointed out that a topographic survey is usually required of certain projects and asked if a horizontal topographic survey prepared by a licensed surveyor is required for all residential projects as part of the application. He noted that the additional is 600 square feet, which Planning Staff does not have specific information about, should be identified by the Building Inspector who has a checklist to go through during the construction process. He pointed out that the building inspector checks to see if the project has been executed according to the building permitted drawings. He questioned if this is done in South San Francisco in order to catch this type of issue. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that a topographic survey is not required for every residential project and if there are questions it is within the City Engineers purview to require a survey for a residential project. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck added that it is not a requirement to have a registered surveyor lay out the site and added that if it is a typical single family home on a flat lot they would not require it. He pointed out that they are currently considering it, but it will add a substantial cost to a homeowner for improvements such as adding a room or building a new house. Commissioner Sim pointed out that with this project the Commission is working backwards and are trying to find a fair resolution to the matter and it would have been beneficial to have a survey. Commissioner Teglia noted that a surveyor does not really need to be out on the site and a tape measure can be used from the edge of the sidewalk to know where the foundation should go. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck stated that there are subdivision plans that show where the property line is in relationship to the sidewalk, but this would not reflect any changes after the subdivision map was finalized. He agreed that a tape measure could be used from the center of the road and get within 6 inches of the property line. Commissioner Teglia noted that this has been an issue before and wondered why a survey was not a requirement. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff stated that these are natural questions for the Commission to want answers to, but the issue before the Commission is the PUD application and if the findings can be supported. He added that the Commission is within its purview to questions, but suggested that the focus return to the application before the Commission rather than the how the mistakes or construction occurred. Commissioner Sim felt that it is relevant to the overall context to be fair and look at both sides of the story. Commissioner Teglia noted his frustration by having the Commission look at the project, and his frustration with the fact that the Valencia family and Mr. Fontana have to go through this process. He pointed out that the Fontana's have been writing letters since 2006. He recalled Park Way, the Giorgi Building and Fairfield having the same issues and was concerned with the job being done right. He added that if foundations are poured and are 5 feet off, it should be noticeable. He is discontent with things not being caught before they are built and with the fact that the Planning Commission has to make a decision that is difficult. He noted that this is a problem that he is tired of. He pointed out that Mr. Valencia needs to seriously consider his consultants and needs to work with staff to give the Commission some simple drawings of the options. He added that the Commission is fair, follows the law and wants to be respectful of property rights, but that the Commission cannot make any decisions on the item at this point. Chief Building Official Kirkman explained that the Building Division has been to the site to inspect the foundation eight times because it was done in segments due to the terrain and depth of the footings. He further explained that the rear of the structure was measured off of the existing building and the inspector used the information on the plans to confirm the front yard setback. He added that the Division usually measures from the front to the back of the entire foundation, but because of the terrain, this did not occur. He pointed out that Mr. Valencia was aware the building was 5 feet larger during the construction when those that were doing the framing brought it to his attention. He further added that Mr. Valencia did not inform him directly, but did informed one of his inspectors and this came to light when he inquired about the driveway approach with the Planning Division. He stated that when the setback was identified as incorrect, the Building Division measured from the center of the S:\MLvc"-tes\:LO':LS"07' RPC MLvc,,-tes,oIoc P~ge5of .'} Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 - street to determine the property line and it was determined it was not sitting in the right spot. He continued by stating that the building is not sitting in the right location because pulling from the minimum setback at front and rear of property does not necessarily leave the approved building dimensions. Commissioner Teglia asked when the Building Division found out about the problem. Chief Building Official Kirkman stated that this was done just recently and the earlier mentioned letters from the Fontana's were with regard to the rear structure and an enclosed porch. He added that the Building Division did make site inspections and require the applicant to provide a survey verifying that he was on his property relative to those improvements. He further added that there were encroachment issues with scaffolding on the neighbors property because he could not access his house to apply stucco but the building is entirely set on the applicant's property. As far as the storage room, the Building Division directed the applicant to remove the electrical and plumbing so it could be used as storage. He pointed out that aerial photographs from 1964 show a structure behind the existing single story garage. Commissioner Teglia questioned if the correct setback is in front of the house at this moment. Chief Building Official Kirkman stated that it is not per the Planning Division's requirements. Commission Teglia noted that this problem has occurred on Park Way and with the Giorgi Brothers building and the Commission has been putting the City on notice to fix the problem and hire the experts. He added that as a resident he wants to hear from City Manager Barry Nagel, to see what he plans to do about this problem. Chief Building Official Kirkman stated that the City Engineer is implementing some procedural measures because they need to check setbacks, easements and other items. He clarified that the building inspector is there to ensure that what is on the plans is correct because the building code allows a building to be built on property line. He added that the Engineering Division has not made site inspections in the past but is now changing this because of the recent problems. Commissioner Teglia reiterated that he would like to hear from City Manager Nagel about whether or not if there is enough staff, experts and if the proper systems are in place to know where the property lines are. Chief Building Official Kirkman clarified that when the plans were submitted in 2003 the setbacks were shown correctly and during the plan check process the property line information changed on the drawings. Commissioner Honan found it difficult to understand how the owner, who must know how to apply to the City for the proper permits, did not go back to the City when he noticed the additional square feet. She was bothered that the owner could do this because it meant that other residents could also do this. She noted the Planning Division is taking this through as a Planned Unit Development and found it difficult to approve it as such even with staff's recommended changes. She added that is wrong and needs to be corrected. She pOinted out that the house was designed beautifully, but for the City's safety and all citizens everyone has to be treated equally. She stated that she could not support the application and noted her frustration because the Commission is being put in the "bad guy" position. Commissioner Sim stated that a professional licensed contractor in the State would know what the rules and regulations are. He concurred with Commissioner Honan with regards to setting a precedent. He was concerned with the neighbor's views being blocked and has seen how the building projects out. He added that the applicant needs to show adjacent context in the application. He also noted his frustration with the current situation. Commissioner Moore noted that there is frustration on all sides. He pointed out that the Commission sets standards and most of the time concurrence is reached, but in this situation there are different points of view. He pointed out that the house is huge and if he were the owner, he would be worried about economical impacts if the house were to be sold in the future. He pointed out that things should be done the right way and at this point there is confusion throughout and the Commission is not happy. He urged the applicant to work with the City. Commissioner Zemke shared the Commission's frustration and felt that they do not have the level of detail necessary to make a decision on the project. He was concerned about whether or not a PUD is the right approach to take. He added that the building has a good design and felt that the projection of it out on the street changes the character of the neighborhood and really need to see some visual representation of what it will look like to meet staff's and owner's concerns. Commissioner Teglia concurred and noted that he is still open to helping the Valencia's because it is not clear where the problem occurred. He added that the Commission directs Mr. Valencia, Planning, Building and S:\MLvcutes\:Lo':LS"07' RPC MLvcutes,oIoc p~ge b of .3 Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 .. Engineering staff to meet and try to reach a solution. He also suggested that the architect provide the plans that the Commission needs. He pointed out that a solution needs to found to build the home as legally and easily as possible. Motion Teglia I Second Moore To continue the item to a date set by the Chief Planner and directing staff to work with the applicant to find a mutual solution. On the question: Commissioner Honan asked if 400 square feet were being removed from the storage area and 200 square feet would be removed from the house. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that there will be approximately 200 square feet that will come off the front of the second story of the house. Commissioner Honan asked if the entire 600 square feet could come off the house since it was not approved there. Associate Planner Beaudin pointed out that this is the conversation that has occurred during the meetings with the applicant. Staff's concern is that the home got bigger and that the impact of the reduced front yard setback is on Commercial Avenue and the front of the house is where square footage modifications should be made. He pOinted out that there are implications, such as the steel framing and that they are trying to work out a solution that will not cost the applicant a significant amount of money, but at the same time are trying to meet the City's needs in terms of design. He added that staff's intent was to get as much of the square footage removed from the front of the new home as possible. Commissioner Honan reiterated that 600 square feet should be removed from the house. Vice Chairperson Giusti noted that the shed is attached to the garage. Associate Planner Beaudin clarified that the reason why the square footage was taken from the storage room is due to the total site square footage which is considered for FAR General Plan consistency. He pointed out that the applicant feels they have met the maximum floor area set in the General Plan with what they have done, but this is contrary to staff's direction to remove the floor area based on physical suitability concerns for the building related to the Planned Unit Development required findings. Commissioner Honan clarified that the applicant is allowed a certain amount of square footage for the lot and to achieve this they have taken it off of the storage area. She was not satisfied with this solution and felt that the square footage should come off the house and stay the way it was approved. She stated that when the item returns to the Commission she would like to see the 600 square feet removed from the house. Roll call: Ayes: Commssioner Honan*, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti Noes: Abstain: Absent: Chairperson Prouty None * During roll call - Commissioner Honan requested the Design Review action from 2003. Approved by roll call vote. 4. Luminous Day Spa Alice Kwong/Owner Dee Scharff/Applicant 204 Grand Ave P07-0107: UP07-0018 Use Permit to allow Massage Therapy at Luminous Day Spa at 204 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 10.16, 20.26 & 20.81 s:\MLvcc<tes\:LO':LS"07' RPC MLvcc<tes,oIoc p~ge 7' of j Attachment #6 - Aerial Photos - Front Yard Setback Context for 500, 600, and 700 blocks of Commercial Avenue .~ 1IIJa- -- .. ~ ~~ ~ - '9I}Oli~ A ---. i q~~j , I" 6.. . ~ '""- I ~ , ~~ ""I .~ - 11'. '- 4 .. f' CJ1 0 0 OJ 0 C1 " 0 --t, () 0 3 3 CD .., C1 -- Q) I )> < CD . . . ~."",i " , t . '. , ';... ,... , I. l , r ~I ~ - ~~ ...... t . ., 0) o o OJ o () " o -h . lkt ~. I ~ ~ 00: (f) c g: CD (") ,...-+ o o 3 3 CD ., () -- Q) . ~ ,lit ~ (f) ~ CD )> < CD .t. ,. ." . .. , --...J o o OJ o () 7' o --h J 4 - t1 ?~ . () o 3 3 CD ., () -- Q) )> < CD . .. - - Attachment #7 - Letters (Two) from Neighbor (Neighbor's Attorney) r' George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Dario de Ghetaldi Jerry E. Nastari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels . MAR D 3 2008 COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTA\ULl:.P. ." ,'., . Attorneys at Law f luANNING DElE'!'" ~ I, t. ..,..,." '1I!U""lI!', !if\ !';' 'f',j !iJ ~"i :iJ.,' f" ,.-.ft"__/.W.......;~\_ it lr'I.f'A,_,;~ ,700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MIllBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666- FAX (650) 871-4144 www.coreylaw.com Hon. Edward W. Pliska (1935-2006) Xenophon Tragoutsis (Ret) February ,28, 2008 Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official, Economic & Community Development, Building Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94030 Re: 648 Commercial Avenue Dear Mr. Kirkman: This letter refers to violation on a Stop Work Order on the property at 648 Commercial Avenue. There have been numerous violations as work has been ongoing since that notice. The owner of the adjoining property, Mr. Fontana, had photos taken on September 21 st iast year, February 15th and February 18th respectively in 2008. Copies of those photos are enclosed showing the roof work and we are satisfied Mr. Valencia fully intends to continue roofing the area, when much of the three story to be covered is in contention. . We request your early attention to the matter. Sincerely, , George R. Corey GRC: ap cc: Clients ./ ,.;." ~ George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Dario de Ghetaldi Jerry E. Nastari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP Attorneys at Law 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 . FAX (650) 871-4144 www.coreylaw.com Hon. Edward W. Pliska (1935-2006) Xenophon Tragoutsis (Ret.) February 28, 2008 Mr. and Mrs. J avier Valencia 648 Commercial Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 648 Commercial Avenue Dear Mr. and Mrs. Valencia: You requested that Rita and Serafino Fontana, who are represented by this office, provide to you the "things that would satisfy them" about your recent construction. The answer is fairly simple, but your action to accomplish that goal is rather complex. The Fontana's want their own property to be unencumbered by your construction and the adverse impact that construction has had on the Fontana property. Most particularly the loss of air, light and space between the buildings is essential. More specifically, two years ago the one story garage in the back was changed into a two story building 'and added to by significant square footage. Not only did the second story cut off air and light to a portion of the Fontana building, but the new construction brought the entire newer area of that garage (which is now an apartment living space) fully into the set-back area required by city code and thereby places it closer to the Fontana building, where their tenants are impacted by your new two story wall. No pemlits of any kind exist for these additions. Quite simply, that entire second story of the former garage and any area/ which encroaches into the 5 foot set-back must be removed so that the Fontana property is not effected by that encroachment. As with every other request in this Mr. and Mrs. Javier Valencia February 28, 2008 Page 2 letter, it must be done to city code with specific plans that are verifiable by city staff. Needless to say, the Fontana's were and are concerned about Mr. Valencia's earlier effort to indicate he was within the city code by placing a nail in the sidewalk with orange paint around it. As it later turned out that was an erroneous spot for the boundary line mark. The Fontana's were put to the expense of paying Engineer Louis Arata for a survey to prove they are within their own property and that your building encroaches more than four feet into the five foot set back. It clearly shows the Fontana fence you claimed was on your property is in fact completely within their own property line (three pages of that survey are enclosed). The main building for which you acquired a permit has exceeded the permit square footage by approximately six hundred feet. That was accomplished by once again encroaching into the five foot set-back area giving you approximately two hundred square feet per floor. Unfortunately, that six hundred square feet is up against the property line of the Fontana's and darkens their property along the entire length of that encroachment. Accordingly, you should remove the offending six hundred feet inasmuch as we can think of no other solution to restore the air and light previously enjoyed on the Fontana property. Finally, all work must be properly documented with licensed professionals so we and the City have an understanding of exactly what is to be allowed on the property. A reading of the City Staff Report dated October 18th last year, verifies numerous violations by your construction to date. It doesn't help that you have continued to violate the Stop Work Order and we are sending photos of recent work (after the Stop Work Notice) to the City Building Department. You are urged to follow the City ordinances, which are there to protect law abiding citizens like the Fontana's. It is not the Fontana's desire or intention to create problems for you, but rather to protect their own rights, which have been badly imposed on by your Mr. and Mrs. Javier Valencia February 28, 2008 Page 3 recent construction. We are hopeful you will be able to obtain the necessary professional assistance to make your property more legal. Very truly yours, George R. Corey GRC: ap cc: Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Clients \ ./ ;. T~O rS E""~o At 0 t {.,.. I!tJ C l 1- 0""" .' - Llf\4E. /' / 1~1t .~ Fe~c~ )(. (rN~J ~ ( v c u i't; lv'rCr-c... '. A l- ~ ( "./ / / /...:$-/~17/Af ItJr \) i ~.......,::l!'-'=':.'r"'''''':~''--'''''"':1'''''''.':'' :#-6+-5 - f N e:1 G l-t l). 0 ~.S ~ I-pG- · SecT J C r-J - ,. ..- #. -. - _.. ~.-_. ~.._.._-, ~-_..- ...- '.-. -... ~ ---.- .. -- ~#, .-....-.- - -- x 6.05 ' ... ... ,"',..'U_" ..,-, '-':" --:---A- 'V..~--\ 'j_u,:,:,.__'" -. .- 70' R/W / SCALE: 1" = 10' ".j 9 C< 97 .. ""_OU,S,ATT _0 A~ATA ~ 'CIvi-ngineer & Surveyor ",' 1 La Cruz Avenue Millbrae, CA, 94030 . I 6.27' --i I TTTj 1 1 1---., 1 .. 1 1 1 1 1 W 1 ~ 1 If 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 LLl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .I 'I 1 1 1 6.19'~ I I I .., 4 ~ BLDG. LOT 27 .; 20' R/W SECOND, AVENUE N74"27'OO"W I 50,P15' I' I --10.74' CLR. I I """7 __ 5.13' ---I ~ I . I I I""""""JII"'II'I"'~ ~ I I I '" .,-- 4.77' , . I FNC. OVER ~ ~- ~ 1.17' '" '" I BLDG. 5.13' ~ '-- ~ FNC. OV,ER1 ~'I'I' I' /1 1 1.11 --: c. 074' " 1 I . CLR. 1 1 I 1 1 1 . 1 o 8, o . ;"::0' 1"1 ~ 1 LOT 28 Lo ~I - 1 Z 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 --~ I I ,FNC. OVER , I' II' , ",,, I 1""'" "",11- - 0.12' I I 6.04'--, --- -- l-- 4.88' I FACES OF-- /' WEST FACE OF WALL TO I WALL -- LOT LINE AT LOT CORNER 50.~15' / __ __ 0.27' N74"27'00"W F CONC. WALL AVENUE BLDG. ;., o c:i ~ LLl b o ;., 1"1 Lo ~ z ~ LOT 29 LOT 30 I) , 6.05' --, 1- '7'--~ 0.59' , , FNC. OVER FENCE ~ . , LOT UNE ,............. / COMMERCIAL 70' R/W SUtRVEY OF LOTS. 28 & 29/ MARTIN'S SUBDIVISION OF SLDCK. 97 654 COMMERCIAL AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Scale: 1"=20' - Feb. 21, 2008 LOUIS A TTILlO ARATA Civil Engineer & ;;urveyor 1 La Cruz, Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030 DRWG. NO. A-4996-2 Attachment #8 - Project Plans t,!",.,,, "'J t"^ ", f\3> ~.. '0-;.$ 3: > -;0 = j .-l:- r---> .,'" c::> c::::> 00 " ..~ C"lClC'lC"lClClCl :;urt:1nl-Jl. r < ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~REri~~~~i~~~ ,. " 0 '" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~oc-->>~~rr-----arroc aoa~~nnncoZ~Z~~coo^,^, z~~~~~~~oo~~~~~zaonz ~~~~~~~~~^'~B~QQ3::~R z 00 n ~ ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~~~~3 ~~~~~i~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~!;j~ a o ,. .. ~ (.1~00(1lV)Vl t::lonntJ:j I~ .. g ~~~~^'~^'^'^'^'^'^'^'~^'^' ~~~a:r"Q~n~~~~qt::l~ ~ r~" 8~~~g~~~~~~C~6 -l ,^,<n r1r1~f'Tlf'Tlr1I"1f"'1I"1f'Tlr1"'r1r1 xxrEHJr zz;xrrXl> x ~~a~~B~~~~E~Q~ ~~~~ ~~~~g~~ ~ < r (Tl-<Zr ~~"tl a ~~ ~ ~ "'r - '='~ ~ ~ "ll"'U"lJ "ll"tl"'U-,;J -U"'tl"'tl <:~d -l;o~r rb:l ",. ~.. J:-r\ rnO ~JJ '].(j) Z~ QQ o 0) \J o ~~ ".. tdClClClC1(;1CH.1Cl t:l'J>^,r'J>fT1~~l> r'J>:t>;ozrcVl < t:"nb:l fT1< [;1 Cl'J>~(Il>;o1>f'Tl "'<z Cll>Z '"t!- I"1r_ ~~ l:jn~ :~ ~~t:l ~6 ~~ ~ 0 ~ ^' '" (.1"''''(.1''''''VJ~ ~ ~r~~~~:I:'" '" ~"'''' -,.r "'z- ''_OJ ,.,~- z,.z ",,,,,,, ,.,~ ^'~ Z "''''VJ''' "'0'" l::I::I:CJOiOX Mf'TlO1l>C a 1~g~~~~ ... a \:It::I Z ,""1 1"1 C\ t::ll"lt::l-l 1"11"'1.....1"'1 ^,-l"'n ,,~ 0"'0 ::Ut;^' ,,'" ~^' (Il"'VI"'(,1 f"'lorzo I"1r)>I"'1C -Vlr-l nt::l:;r:"z ~~~~~ f'Tl~~(.? ""I 0'" ~~ ;lO;l!J;;o;:u;:u ~~~~~ <CI:J: ~ZOo -l-"""'U ...,-If,,., ;l[J ~~ r ~z ~ C1 '" ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~z a ~~~e!: :;0 X-l-lZ;U :;u MOO r'1 ~~:u ~ ;j '" r '" ,., r,., ,., ,., '" ~ ~ D c: ,. ~ ~ ~ " -U-l"l:l"1:l""t/ r 'J>:uo>r ~ ~g~~~ Z M 0 C"l Clt:lil 1::1 ~ ~~~ r: :~~ (;;~f'1 " ~M ",z ~S z g )>-- Cf)!:!J 0< 11m ~ CX>~ '" ~ o~ "'" !;J ,,?j (\) ~:-f 'ii iij,., ~~ t::l~ ~ e '" OJ 00 """0 Z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 m ~ JJ ,. ]; 0 )> ~~ " r ~~ ~ '" ~ "'.. JJ "',. g ~~ 0 ~!' 0 ,., ~ t::It::It:lt::1t::1t;1t::1t::1t::ft::lt:l ~~<~"'~DZ~rij; , t:lt::It::lt:l~t::I ~:t:MMtI=' Cl~r nnnnnnnnon n nnnnn ~ocooxrrrr ~ ~M~> ~~r C~aCl B 8~ td tda1t1='tdb:ltdtIl cOJ:rrr~ ;;Q-l ;O;;~U:::r '" '" t::It::It:lt::It::It::It::lt::lt::ft::lt::lt::lt::lt::lt:lt:lt:lt::l ~~-~Dooa---a~Of'1nO;;Q ~S~:~~~~~~~~i~~~~~ ::U~~i~ : ~a~~~~~~f'1 ~~~ ~ ~z ~d6 ~ ~ ~ Z !6 nnnnnnnnnnDnnnnnnn ~~~~~~~FE~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~:;u~~~:~~~~~~~ ofT'l CfT'l Cl -Z-l-l-l l> ~~ -I~ ~~~~~ 2 ~ '" Cr~""~ CJ :UrcZc ~ p~~E~ "'< 0 VIr", '" ::x:rx ~ ;Jg~ ~ ,. ~ ~ r ,., b;fa1b:ltdWtutd cOl"1rrcc --l'J>oc.....> r-t3:n(")r~ ~~ ~^~t:I " '" '" '" ~ c: ~ i! " " z '" ~ oooCJooa DOOO 'U"O'I"'Orr ""~"""T'J "'Or [;1"T'J "T'JeQ ~~~~~~~gz ,.,.,. pVl~ ~~~~'J>1l>~l> zr""1t::H:::rn'tJ:j o ~L an ~ ~ 0000 ~("n ~'J>>'J>;tJo~~>'J>~~~ ~~~~~~~E~8;a~ ~~~~~~~~:~B~ ~~~~~~~~~~s~ ~~~M t;;f'1zrgc.; ~ g ~~ ~ 1>::tI '='1> ^' r ~2 ,., 0,. "'r< ~g ~ c.;~~~~r LL ~~g :r:r:J::t:.:I:.Z:I::J: R ~,. XI o,,::r.-lt::lt::::lt:1 <.... z ~ "" " p '''OJ "1 r LL zZZ I "I "I "I '" 0,. 0 "'0 ,.,. 0,. -z ~"'''' c: ~~ "'''' ~~ ~ ~~ "'c:- '" OJ OJ "'r~ 0 ~~ 00 0 -,.", 0'" O~ "" ,." '" "'-~ 'f.. "'0 0- ,.,OJ ~:o L Z~ "~ ~p ~ r ~ '" 0 '" " ,., 0 ij 0 I f\ 0 '" :J:3::J::J::J:3:.Z3:::J:3::J::J::J::J: F~t:Og~zI;]~2n~ " 00 o "" r ,.,,, ,., "'0 ,.'" ~ ~~ ,.,,,, 0 ~~ ZZZ M ~ x < 'l00 ,., ,., -~~ <~ x Z -I'" Z_,. l>- i! OD ~~~ ~ ",'I' n", Or ~~ z,. ~.. "r 6 ~M "" ",r e,. ~M '" ~o ~'" ~ ,., 00000000000 <"1Jnn~<<<<cz ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~fT'l~~~~~~ Cl ~~ ~~<<s~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~I"'l ZM ~ ~~ ~ ^' ~~ ,,~ _0 z~ "'0 ~'" 1>-- M~ ",: r ~ C ----l-l-l-l-l-l-t-l-l-l-t-t-l-t-l-l-l-l-l-t ~ ~ ~~~<~~"'U~~D~~r~p~R~td~ C -I-l-l-l-l-l-l-t-i-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-.l-l-l --I Z CJ-<OI'"'l:UOOCClOX:I:CfT1M;QOOOa r ~ E~~~!6~~::~Slf!~~:~pg f1 ~ ~r~~~:::~~~ ~~~~~~~~ .~ ~ ~ Fz~~~~E t::I M M~~~;U~ ~ ;;u xrf"l x t:"l -I ~ P ~~~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 1"'1 ~" fT'l < Z ~ I"l Ct1 f'1 0 ~ ^' ~ ;;Q ~ '" ..,p 1/4"12" rn OE1 dO ~ @] y 0 ~~ -- -It- " OJ 0 ~,., ~ c:c: " " ,. 0 ,., 15M ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ r ~ 0 c: a; x .. ~ z~ ~ ~ z " g z~ !~ c: ;!i iJi ~ 0 ~ < ,., '" ~~ r !ti ~ ,. e ~ z ~ c: 0 ~ ~z " z g ,. ~ 0 z " ~ "i <<c<:<:c c<:<<<<<<< ~-l~~~X1 "tJ~xrt::lo' ~" <<< -,.,,., ~~~ "'''''''VI V1C~~ VlCo1V1(1l(,01~Ct1(,1V1'''0(1l''' -I~-l-iVl"'D"O"'tlCJtdt::lI ;lOor t:It::1 ,." C'l r", 0 - 'Z:I>- l>XC-l ~~~ ",r ~n:J ~'" ,.,~ :~ s. z~ 8 G> ~ 1>1 W W W Cf) -< ~ " '''OJ '" ~ "',., "'" "" ~ ~ ,., ",., " "X ",., "r ~ "H ,., ,.,~ "'0 ,.,,. ,.,,. ,., ,.,,., ,.,~ ~~ ~- ~ ~" ~- ~ r ~ 0 ~ ~E 0 00 OZ 0'" rn ~ z Z" Zn zR z ,," " ,., ,,'" "c: ,,~ c: r 0 .. ~~ " ,., i!;M ,,:< ,,0 .. 0 < n< OOj n? Q " " g ",. I':l ~~ "1 "1 ~~ -,.. r z ~p ,. 0 0 z 0 0 e- Cf) g 0 nz oz or n c: oc: nc ~~ c: c: ~ c:x c:.. ~ ~ "'.. "''' "',., "'!;J (,1~ " ,. " ,.. c: =~ g~ ;""'0 0'" -Jij < ~ o JJ )> ~ Z G) 00'''VI(,01Vl(,1(.?(IlVl~VlVl'''VI(,1''' l> I "'<CC-I-l-l-l t""If"lO "llcrf'1-i 2MXCt1~;QOf"'l>f'1r1CMXl>-iO ~~~~~5~P~~~~5~~~~ ~~~~~~f'1 ~~~ E~~~! ~ r r ~~ ~ ~ z ~ ~f':- f'1 ~~ ,.,. ~~ ~~ :J: "':;o~ l>-fT1~ ?< ~ll~ :I:-<-<-I :-11>1>-< "'",,. lIt::::lt::l~ W VI VI'=' U1fTlfT'lVl ~ ~,., ~tdtd-l ~-l11 ~~ ~: ;Q ~ 8 ~tn f'1..... ~ t:l o-l~ ,," , "r 00 ..~ "" <- ,.,~ "'~ l;" ,., " ?;t!! L' ,.0 n . "''' ze ~-< "," ~~ OJ OJ ,.,~ ~ ~ ,. N o Z Z " " , w , r .. ~ ,. ~ r o " "'''''' e..", c:",e -< L In'" 00 "'X~ ,... z,.,o "'0 "0" "'-.. ~~~ a~E; B~~ ~ ~ '" .. o ~ )> rn rn JJ m < ~ o z Cf) ""U C o ""U JJ o ""U o en )> r 11 o JJ (J) ~ (X) o o ~ ~ m JJ o - )> r n ~3 co,. z" OJ,, "", "'0 ~ < ..g ~~ ~z ~d ~: ,., "'" c:,., "''' <,., ,.,Z ~g ~~ "'~ ~:::; ..r ,.", ~~ 0'" "':l .. ~ Z '" ~ ,., 1: z o m X x.. ,.,. xx rr <~ Zn "'0 ,.< "", ",,, "l; ,,'" N " "'", :~ ~ o " '" " ~ lJ r )> Z Z Z G) o )> ~ lJ Vl < JJ '=< C'l 0 r 0 D n Co.- :t> Z -; m D z ~ 0 (;) -t t:J r'1 Z ~ 0 D -; C'l )> - t:J JJ td m -< lJ Vi 0 -; :t> -t ^! z 0 D ;U JJ -; I -< (;) C '1) is .. Z ~ N I <11:::<:<<< ~~~~~~ M:I:",VlO:u ,=,-I-In< ,.0 '" ~ ~-l ~ '" - f'1;:2 ~ ..,,, ,. ,.'" z .. ~ ~ <<<<<<<<:11:: ~~~~~~~~5 ~:~~; ~ ~ on -<fT1 r l> ~~ ffl~ ~ ~ ~(,01 ~~ -l ?J -l;:Q ~ i ~ " A /; !;J <<< ,.,,.,,., "''''''' -~-< ,,-- ~..o co,. -rr Z,., " ,., ::; ~~ ~:b~.:b ~ljii~eee~ ,.,....yJJ ..w,~~a.i.JI.- . :c.~.=t: o~:l:' ~:r."'''' (") ~ ~ ~ ~~ i: - :: ~ ~ g~:. :1. ~ : t ~p :i "'- ~ r. :J> I>-~ ; 't. -t ~ ~~: 1 ---\ ~-t el811' ~ ~ ~~?~! -g ;g~P8~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ : -:l J c::. ..,z, ".. ~ CTJ O~ ~ ~ (::',~~ 11 ",r t ~"1.):9 ~~ ~ ~ i g ~~ -:). ~ ...'" l:. '" '" ~'il ~ ~~S .... "z ... o~ $;~ ~ ,. '" 'J"1J"'UI'1"'tl("1(1l rr1 ;~~~t;;~~~ ci J~~~~~g~ ; ~t::lt::1 t::l Zz > ;~~~~:~~ 11E~~:~~ ~ '~'R~e;r ~~ g :::;~n~ E:2: I j~~~~ ~~ ~ .t~~~~:~ ~ -8(,1 ~ '"0 gz 8 lZC~r-...JClZ J,v~"'lf~,n ~ ~;:: ~~ ~ ~t::l: E1~ ~ ~!- ("1 ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~:'R ,,~ ~S~ "e e'" ~" ~~ ~'" ,., x ,., ~ " r ,. ~ ~~ "X " O~ "0 00 ",0 "'", "" , " n ,. "'il; ",,,, ,.= "", ~~ .. .. ~ o ,. ~ .. o ~ ,., ti ~ '" ~ ':l ~ .. " ~ r ,. ,., z x ~ ~ ~ '" ii1 ii1 ~ ~ " :< '" .. ~ ,. c: " " c: I>- ~ " i< " " Z 0 ;; I>- " r ,. z ~ o " ~ L ,. < Iii '" ,., r ~ < ~ '" ]; VALENCIA RESIDENCE i"" P'@) ISSUED FOR )> ~ lll};i! I 0 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. .IIHf~ BAUKUNST . ~ i[lll1 ~ 0 ~ 1] 56 Felrlllwn Avtlnue, Daly City. CA 9-4015 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA iil · i T: 650.455.1207 F: 650.755,1093 1 1 E: [email protected]:orn W:bauk.unstarc:hlIecl\.Jfe.c:om ~L " '" .fTln~X c; ';"3: ,., 111 - ,., J>o '" ~ ~g-3;~~ '" gc g) ~f ~~~ g) ~i ~ .. '" ,., Ui ,. C::i Ul-...Jn '" "'z '" c: ~ ~ fUtll;: .., ~. ~ ~ <+T\lO;""';;Q :l: "'I" ~ ~ ~~ F OJ " '" '" ~'< r-' 0 "'0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ no " "'0 0 r ~ n ~ If ~g ~ n 0 " 3 O. wru 0 0 \DO (f) -t>. 0'00 m (/) (/)(/) r C '1 '1'1 ~ ~ -i -i-i 0 J>J> -i ^^ ~ J> I'll'l )> , ZZ )> /0 DO :D I'l CC :D t:J -i-i m -< C )> n DO -i '1'1 0-< en 0 0 /OCl Z 1'lJ> 11 (/)/0 o-<J> )> t:::ICl I'll'l Z JJ n" I'l m (/) C-j )> Zo t:::I/O (f) I'l- /0" n 03: Zc (/)(/) -jo-< /On C nto -i, >--<t:J OCl Z- -i ru to '1 0 Z (/) J> , -i t:::I -i (/) 0 J> I'l 0 , 3: /0 (/) I'l Z to -i -< to , t:J Cl ----~~ ru >-' \D >-' .- Ul Ul \D " 0 ---.J W I'l '-/ 3: J> 0-< Z /0 I'l (/) 0-< t:::I I'l Z n I'l -t>. ru ru 00 -t>. -t>. " 00 ---.J >-' I'l '-/ Cl J> /0 J> Cl I'l " (/) -j 0 " to 3: C 0-< C , (/) t:J 0-< 0-< n Z Cl 0' >-' o \D 0' ru ---.J .- ru ru 00 00 0' Ul " Z "1J JJ o "1J o en m o )> :D m )> ~ )> -1 JJ X en ,., -'- ---'---- -j ru >-' to '1 -i ru >-' to '1 0 Z (/) J> , 0 Z (/) J> , -i t:J -j (/) 0 -i t:J -i (/) 0 J> fTl 0 J> I'l 0 , 3: /0 , 3: /0 (/) fTl (/) I'l Z Z to -i to -i -< -< to to , , t:J t:::I Cl Cl ~_._-------------. --~--------, ru >-' \D ru >-' \D >-' >-' Ul .- >-' Ul Ul \D " Ul \D "- 0 ---.J W I'l -0 0 ---.J W I'l m '-/ '-/ 3: JJ 3: X J> 0 J> 0-< >--< en Z Z /0 -0 /0 -I I'l 0 I'l (/) (/) Z 0-< en 0-< t:J t:J G) I'l I'l Z m Z - n n fTl 0 1'1 )> ~---. )> - - -------I en -t>. ru ru :D 0' -t>. ru I 00 -t>. -t>. " \D Ul -t>. " CD 00 ---.J I'l m 0' Ul >-' I'l Ul wru 0 '-/ '-/ C Ul UlO )> \D .-00 m Cl Cl J> J> - (/) (/)(/) r /0 /0 r '1 '1'1 J> ~ J> -I ~ Cl Cl -i -i-i I'l )> I'l 0 J>J> " " -i ^^ (/) -I (/) )> J> I'll'l )> -i -j , Zz 0 JJ D JJ " to " to /0 DO :D 3: C 3: C m Cc C 0-< X C >--< I'l m , , )> t:J -i-j (/) t:J (/) t:::I C )> 0-< 0-< - >--< >--< n DO n Z n Z -i '1'1 Cl en Cl ~ 0-< en ----- 11 ---~- 0 /OCl ~ Z fTlJ> 0' >-' >-' ru 0' ru ru ru (/)/0 .- \D \D ru " ..---- -t>. 0 >-' W " O-<J> >-' ru >-' Z )> 0' -t>. >-' 0 Z t:JCl ru 0 00 ---.J >-' .- '-/ W ru -t>. '-/ Sil'l /0 -0 /0 JJ ~" I'l -0 I'l X (/) (/) ! 0-< >--< e(/) t:::I r t:J - z-i I'l I'l t:J0 Z 0 z en I'l/O n n /0 I'l )> I'l 11 " n C C ..---- 0 z Z z en z3: t:::I t:::I (/)C I'l -::J I'l m -i(/) /0 /0 /00-< en m en n n nto 0 0 )> ;:j, z 0 z (/) (/) 0t:J -i -0 -j -1. z0 /0 /0 e -I C ~ n n -i 0 -i --- 0-< 0-< 0 0 Z Z z --- - --- '1 00 W W ru en Ul \D W W ru J> ---.J W .- ru -j Ul W 0' W W -j /0 Ul 0' 0 00 0 \D 0 \D >-' 0 0 -t>. m \D >-' 0 Ul .- -j -t>. -t>. -i 3: J> m (/) J> J> (/) , '1 , X '1 (/) (/) 0-< )> 0 3: to < to 0-< N -< -1. fTl -< fTl /0 t:J '1 01 '1 ,- '1 ,- D --- J> 0 D /0 0 /0 ;;0 -- -- /0 fTl (/) 0-< t:J I'l Z n fTl C Z t:J fTl ;;0 n o z (/) -i ;;0 C n -i D Z -t>. Ul (/) '1 C Z t:J fTl /0 00 w w ru ---.J w 0 ru -i 0 0' Ul 00 0 Ul Ul \D >-' -i (/) J> '1 , (/) to -< '1 , 0 0 ;;0 ..---- o -1 ~ en o -0 -1 o Z (f) m m )> -1. m --- )>110 -oJJJJ -00- :D~G) OOZ <JJ)> m r OeD = - -0 en-oJJ mro --I )> c- enzm IZO mz-l mG)o --{: )> )>Qo-l 9CD~ Or-l G))> O^ .m Z '1 J> /0 t~ ~ .. " M ~l~\if~ ~ ~,~ ~ i~ ~ ',{ ~ ~ .~ ~\ I .~l!l! ~~ il,'. '~~ ~g~~:>;~ , i _ l'J 'lI 'I 'G Iii -, '. d '" h ~) t t. ~dl(P~)!!tf m ni ql . {, \11 lJ' .~ ~ ;~ ? ~ ~ Q al: _~'--,;~\J\" ~p tv"'" ~ ~)(J\ I;) WI' \II~, II: p,,, k) '.q d :s;. t"'" ~ ~l 1~;~;i~~-'1 1 ;t (/I !il', q,-~ {}t!{; ,-'jl ~ ~ "~ ~~'~ tt '!i 1~ \:) ;~ ~ ~ ~~~~.~~~8 t \' (' (' " (' (' ;~ X{)'t:trr (;1 CI", C = ._ '," '" ,1> W :1' :U llH _n :" z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4l-':F5)''j;~i :t:" rll1l pIt !!J <' f":xl~Zh l~ Pl ".I~ pm ;{ ('; '!t b n H~(~ ~ ~ ';f ~'1~ (' &i S; ~\ ~ If!", D l:)' r () ~.S.. k- fll '1 l~. "t. ')' ~, --.11- ([1 t1" 1'.., f. ffJi , '1j ~ o <::..... M n >--3 -t'; -< .- z r-"Ii@ Ili!l.i i hi.p ~ AU ii11zl ~ li!~11 W 5B Fairlawn Avenue, DalyCity,CA 94015 ~ ;!{Q. E T',650.455.1207 F:650.755.1093 1 2' ii E: bauklXlSt2OOQ@Yahoo,com W:baukunstarchitectura.com ISSUED FOR DATE )> o ~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE ...Ji. ~ '" n >l '" r;; 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA m ~ DI DI o "'I m 1'1 ~ :II Z Gl DI .~ QJ fi o ~ C) R QJ s; t- O ~ C) fJ J>: ~ 00'96 R QJ fi o ~ <) R QJ fi ~ C) z i'i U> U> 0 0 ~ OJ !" Z ~~~~D ~ :I []I " -l 8 ~ G> ~ 1= 6 n 0 "i"-,,::e ~ if) ~ c m ~ ~ :I8~"z ...- ('J :I iii iii n 08 0 U> z " !i? HH~ ~ '1-1 'l;:tJ :::l n\ Ii! 0 0 Ol m g ~ DI 0 ~ r-r.-f~~ ~ C ~ ~ 0 "l z ~ 1;1 (;1 []I ~~tjB 3zz1 8 "'I ~ 0 Sil ~ ~ z ~ ~ ,. R~J>~ ---{I ! ~ n fi OJ U> l-J--...JO ~ 7< ~ 1'1 0 0 :I ~~ a '" B z u; 5 0 i" j!: "'Gl~ 111 ;:: Sil ~ 0 p --.J. , q 1; ;:: " i!! 8 ;'i Gl--.J--.J 8 ~ Ol ~ g ~ ~--'-O) ;:: g ~ z z Z c Z!! <D ~ ~ ~ 0 Gl iJ: ~ <J) C~ =t z ;:: UI -I " ,. ~ ~ " ,. 0 ~ ~ g g In ;ii z ~ i z c @ -I U> fi ;:: Ol L-- @~ ... ~ ~ :I ~ ~ ~ 8 pi z i 0 0 0 c U> 0 C Z ~ ;:: CJ> ;:: z -. q ~ 8 1; --1 !i1 ~ fi ,. q :I S n\ Ii! F ~ 1;1 "i ~ ," U> z In ~ u; i? z nI c ~ ;:: 1" " ;:: iJi ~ 'i1 g ~ ['J Ol 0 111 R ~ ~ ~ C 7< ;:: a <J) :-' ~ '" 0) f'7 () o < o r-- :b. < f'7 ~ o o I <0 '" o o I '-'-- '1 0 0 - :l>" r -I fTl fTl Ul I (Ill I I I I I I I I I 0 Z fTl )> 0 fTl r ' ;0 -I fTl ------- fTl < Z 0 - c )> ~ 3:: -I 0 W fTl Z fTl :u TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 648 COMMERCIAL ST., FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. " ~ 40 HUMBOLDT COURT P AQFlCA. CA 94044 (650) 359-0947 FAX (650) 355-2445 Ul I fTl ro -l ,1 DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES )>(f) (f)-I om 11-0 )>r c)> G)z -JJ I\)m CX>11 - r I\)m 00 0-1 ""'-.1- Z G) m X (f) -I Z G) P.L. - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - - ~ - -- - - - --- - ~ ----- C.L. 2ND LN. (20' R.OW) I J ~ I l " ~ lLJ < .=::J FRONT S:l BACK ,---'l'--'~ ---------l 1Jjl!J_ _ ~I~R~ ~~ _ _ ~1B _ J I:IJ(;) ~:IJ I 1~5J ~rn I ~)> 0 (;) m I:jj: m z ....--. 0 C/) m -l o ............. c Z o m JJ o o z (f) -I JJ C o -I o Z o o Z o -I o Z (f) 656 COMMERCIAL (50' WIDE) Ol~ c!!J r:IJ om -C/) z- (;)0 m Z -j )> , ~~c~ C/)Czz CZ_~ OlO-l:IJ Lm:jj:m m:IJl\)~ 00 0 -I m enO Z -lZ 0 JJC/) m C-l OJJ C _JJ , , i '"", ='~~~'~~' X I ,/ "" ~'--~--~_: ~~~../ ~llJI[~ Ol~ c!!J r:IJ om -C/) Z- (;)0 m Z -I )> , ~ ~, -lllk- L-~=~ " -< .., '-w ~ ~~ <,. --' ! \ I i r~ L______n_ u_u. _u~ ~ + FRONT SE lACK L MIN. DRIVEWAY C/) ~ -1,- I ~ I ~ ~~ L,~_ - - - - - - - ----1+1- - - -cr~ - ~~ - ~ 654 COMMERCIAL ~ , , --.--l. Ul - ~ r~ - 20'~C' w ~ ~~ +r-SIDEIJ)~t- ~ ---------cf.Ul1.: - ~~ II' ~ g~ R jl; b CURB CUT ~ ===:::3.- ~ 648 COMME RQ,AJ.... ~ _ (SUBJECT P- IOPEATY) 's;. ~'<" N I: I~ 1 ~B46 Co" MERCIAL.1 644 COMMERCIAL __ _ (25' WIDE) c) .....-.-.f _ANTING s~ ~~ : ~6 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ :~~ ~ ~&1 ~ a~ "F! '''; I "'<I;; ';~ :o~ s~ Wt'l "'\J -< ~~f'1 S fIIfTl;:::: 0< ~~ ~ i ~~~ 2~ z ;o~ ~~ ~ ~tj ~~ ~ ~ "'8 C,L.;O ~ ; ~ 8 ~- --;r--- - -~~ - ~- - - - --+--- - - - - - - - ~ -- - - - - ---~ - ~ -- ~ b (: ~ ~ ~ f/J o ~ COMMERCIAL AVE, (70' R.OW,) PLANTING STRIP I CURB CUTS SIDEW'ALK P,L. o e ~ o iii If 8 ~ 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA '''''!l@ I I I(liin 0 I i'ta! ~ !!hU I BAUKUNST (flld S 5. ''''Maw" A",,"~, OayC<ty, CA 9401' i: U('i. . T: 650.455.1207 F: 650.755.1093 , I Z.... E: baukul1St200O@yahoocom W:baukJ.Jnslarch~ectufe_com ISSUED FOR DATE )> ~ ~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE v> 656 COMMERCIAt- ~ ~ 654 COMMERCIAL ~ --..l 1:, (50' WIDE) ~ " ____ _.': .~ O' I 85 w S! zl"'l ~ ---i 'ton f1G .h. g~ :)v> ------0 -oJJ rO )>-0 Zo (f)(f) Im 00 ~(f) (f)-I )>m -0............ -Or r)> OZ )>0 Z(f) -10 cfj)> 0"1J -om -1-0 -r 0)> Zz --- ~ ............ OJ )> (f) m ~ m Z -1 -0 r )> Z --- PL ---- - -- -~ ---- -- --- -- - - - -- -- C.L. 2ND LN. (20' R.O.W) J ....---- . ~ ,'0' O. SJ lE'lJALK c 646 corv MERCIAL 644 COMMERCIAL (25' WIDE) VALENCIA RESIDENCE '''''I/@ I I IH!lu fJ Ili"lil" t!IIU l BAUKUNST liBll ~ 58 FaJ",wnA""nue, OolyCtty, CA 94010 ~ Uill ~ T: 650.455.1207 F: 650.755.1093 I ' l E: baukunst2000@yahoo_com W:beukunstarchitectUre.com en ~ :LJ . ;:::::J ::t> ~ ~ ~ ; ~ 8 fRONT S:; BACK ,--~ - - - - - - ,- - - - I lllili_ _ ~I~R~~~~ _ _ ~I9 _ J I ::IJ (;) :::j ::IJ I I~~ ~dB I :::j (;) ~ I 'It, m Z -L__ 0 I ~ m I 0 I I I I I I I I I ISSUED FOR DATE rn~ c.!!! r::IJ om -UJ z- (;)0 m Z -j )> ,- --c- UJCzZ cz_~ rnO-j::IJ '-m'lt,m m::IJl\)~ 00 0 -j m UJO Z -jZ 0 ~~ m -j~-= CO .JJ.~ mo 6 / x' I " , ,/' '''', y'--------' ~:J~. , I """'-1...>.1Z2'~'1.'OU~ , rn~ c.!!l r::IJ om -UJ z- (;)0 m Z -j )> ,- '" '" - " z z C\ .. ~ ~ ; r? ~l v> - - "" -'Q ~d I ~~ . ~~ .-- r- " ~z '"" "v> _n c" ~~ ! :- I ! r~- L______u_______~ ~ '" '" " " FRONT SE- lACK L MIN. DRIVEWAY -------.b ~ -- - n - - - - - :.::.:~: :~~ ~:M[ ~ - 'on ~_ f~ 2C'= PLANTING STRIP ~ :::.::=::I. ~-~"1':l 8 648 COMMERaAl (SUBJECT PROPERlY) "i ~~ : i ~ ~"fij~ ~g~~ ~g 8~ ~ C ~,~~~~ ~j; :~ ~ ~ Bit l!l~ ~ ~~ ;(1< ~ _, ;;~ nB ~ ~~ t::l~ ~ ;u~ ~~ ~ ~~ G~ ~g :: ;ti~ ~~ ~ g ~~ ~ 8 C.L. ~ z ~ 0 ....\. --------'-""-1'---- - --- - - - - - ~ - - - ---- - -- - -_.~ - - - --"'---- - -- - ~ - - ~ ~ oi '" Cl (: ,,~ -0 ~ ru ~ run z" "z .,,:) b~ 0< ~~ COMMERCIAL AVE. (70' R.o.w,) PLANTING STRIP I CURB CUTS SIDE\lALK PL 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA z o -I m )> r r m X (f) -I Z G) o o z o -I o CD I z)> (f) (f) I 11m m ~, ml rz 0-1 <-0 mr JJ)> I1Z m o CD -< CD )> C /\ C Z (f) -I ~ )> JJ ^ CD C o o )> :D m r r )> )> -----m (f)x m- m(f) )>-1 oZ 6G) ---)> JJ m )> (f) __~_~_~n___~__1 !"--, / i '''-'' ,/ ='~~;="' x I " , ,/ '''-, ~m'_~'u~----_:'c, ~~~~,~ JI ~ "===== 0=======, =========== ~ '- ..--.--L-- : ''''', EL~ ~ /" / , , G I-~-~-~-~-- I ~ ~~_-nr-__n: I 'I I 0 I I 'L) ,. "'-= =v ;;1 __:=I :t I -1. ' (f) -11 ,., r 01 o JJ -0 r )>; Z ~--------l I I I I I I I I I 1 I I o n o C 2 ~ o 2 ~~ '{1~ m I I,\,o I ~5! : '{1~ I "' I :g I fJ L__ I I i i (L Oi!i ,:" ~m ~~ ~~ II~ <<>2 ~=1 "'~ ." ~ :'i r '" < <;J n D ~ -< D :; " ~ lJ ---1l " /1 " / " / " / " / " / -~,.,. /, / " / " / " / " / " / " ------v' '- .~, ~ ~ U- JII[== -. - ~ ===1 =='1c---.n ~ ==t ~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE ~ ::J -= = '=--=-'7f 'oc=oc=:c=:c=oc=::::>- ~ I: ~ /~ ~ U ~ ~ '"''- /1' ~ '\\ /~ __"""", '~,:: fltU_t \\ .-:;;..--:>-/ ....,'-<:0....' Yb"=,,=.,=..=,,=,,d-lV / / L_~_~___~___~ 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) -Q'~7 /" )> ...Ji.. . ~ 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) ,~ <10 '1-- , ~ 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA I\) Z 0, 11 r 01 o JJ -0 j;: Z b ,. " l? 5! '" ffl g "' ." ----------$-- 'J~ *~ ?: m c '" "' ." (j " 8 ;:: o ;;;j!i :;" ~~ ~~ ~~ 1I~ ~2 <0=1 ,,~ "' ." J. ~~ ~. ~T'c'" I ---1l J v ~L M"" if .~ ='~!Ll~ =:Jr -====:r:::==~, II ~~. II II II II 'I '" = = JL ,~== \I II ._,,, \I \I \I , 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) I 1 1 ____.J DATE '''i'II@ I I an~i!l ~ Iliet[! ~ !!hii i BAUKUNST filiI! ~ 58Farr'awoAwoue,OaiyOly,CA 9401. ~! Ii ~ ~- ~::~~~;y=::~w~'baukun9lBroMecture_CTJm ISSUED FOR 8 P.L. C.L. 2ND LN, (20' R.OW) 50.00' ~-----~------j '1 I ~ , I, I 0 I I 'L) "< I ~:::.'~--.. ~ I I u ----- JJ '-" r-------i , I I -1. (f), -1 ,., r, o 0, JJ' -0 r )>' Z I '0,0 , ~~ : 'll~ I '" I :Ii , r;1 L,n I ----- I JJ --- .., o e z ~ g ~ ~:o "l: 'll~ OJ m f\) Z' o 11; r o 0' JJ -0, r )> Z, I "''''0' <>-1 ~o 'llji Gl m ----- :D '-" OJ )> (f) m ~ m Z -1 -0 );: Z 1 I I I I , I , I I I I I ----.I Offi ';:0 ~fH ~~ ",r;1 "', "e ~~ "'~ .., ;;jiJ ~iR ~a ~~ ",r;1 "', "e ~z .,=l ,,~ '" .., I i i t " ^' "' " ~ o '" "' ^' "' " o < ::J " " ~ < Q " o ~ ::J ~ o <: ~ ~~~ I ~" . -t>. o o IQ -l'- o o IQ ---,--~ 'lJ A /" /" / / /" , /" ~,.= /", /" , / , / " / " /" " / , ~, i ''', """'-'JI'C''=_'1'"'''' , / , ,,/ X I " ,/ " , " "..... ~.~--~p~----' ~~ ~~t , , " , , ~ J "' ~L -" I mrr .'" Cln - --::- ~ - l~~~ --.-1l ---u' = Jl / (I r=-=-=- ~ ~ tr " ) , / , /" ,/ '7"(- tt// ", t9 ' r ....COH'<. :--.. /. "'<.<rN'f' t . )' ~~~~_\ "l ' ., ~ " ,. ~ .., !ii -0 ^' ~ L--1 ====== ;r:::= ~;--z I'========:=========::J. '---- , , , Cl.. _ _ ~ _ _ ~ _ D__ _":'"-= ~ _ ~ _ _ ~ _ n ------0 (f)JJ ~o )>-0 00 .(f) Om '-"0 )> JJ m )> (f) )> -0 -0 r o )> Z -::J (f) o -0 -I o Z '-" ~ o --~-~-----~ '" ~ '" "' r o <: 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) '"'" ^'"' ~~ " Z-" ,,0 ~^' ,,-0 ~~ Z-o ":;l ~"' ~o ~ ti[ y~ C.L. COMMERCIAL AVE. (70' R.OW,) PLANTING STRIP I CURB CUTS SIDE\.JALK P,L. t""l'@ I I Ili~l~i I !rhH ~ BAUKUNST Iz!if) If 58Faif1awnAwnue,OalyOty,CA 94015 il5lill. ~ 1:850.455.12071":650,755.1093 ! it i E: bl!luKunst2QO()@yahoo.com W:bauKunslarchitecturecom .SSUED FOR VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA )> ~ ~ ~ .' ~ CJ1 9 ----- JJ --- CD )> (f) m ~ m Z -I -0 r )> Z ------0 (f)JJ ~o )>-0 00 .(f) Om ---0 )> JJ m )> (f) ----- o -t -< (f) o -0 -I o Z --- PL CL 2ND LN, (20' R.OW) 50,00' ~~-----~-------I -t>. o o 'Q , I "'" " '=_~'~':M ,x, I ,/ '" ~'---- ~.~"g'~:\ ./ __mrr~ --[J-~ -- --~ - ." -~- '-------1 ----" ,_ - -' ____ L:: _~ l_ /' (: " ~ .. ir-=-= ~--====-~-:::l_.~ ----- r--- -- ~- -- JJ --- -1. (f), -I 11 I, 0' o JJ' -0 r )>' Z .,. o o 'Q / (: " ~ .., ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~- ~ " M g r--------l , , , , I I I , , I I I I I I -n o c z ~ is z "'''' L l>-< ~o ~Hi Gl m -lJ ~-=o__ -u' - ~ '-~-:=-- ~~ ~-~-~-~- ~.~ I" 0 I I !L_~) ~ I ~~J 2 I I , 10,0 I ;;;~ I "j$ I en I j! I fJ L__ I I- i i t 0!iJ ;;J) ~tB ,0 ~~ ~~ !I~ <oz gJ=i ~~ n " Z -l r M Q n o c Z -l M ~ -l o i ---;1 / / / / , / ~"'~'?-',.., /, / , / , / , / , / , / , , , , , , _.0' ~-1l -u-n-~= ~<T'" _ ,,~' == ~"="'\ - ~,LL-_- N ~.;:b~""""l/ 1 "./ ./", / ", / '''.-c::=-:~:~~:=-::=:: I~-----------~ I LJ I :=:J -, JJ ~ '-" "'J) "\? I\) 'il~ z: Gl m 0 I III " I " I M " r I ~ I 0 w I M I 0' ~ I I ~ I JJ I , , L_________.J N.fu ~~ ~a ~~ ~~ IPc ~z ;D=i -.j~ en -n Jm !::Jg ~o .., ~ ~ " o ~ =r:::=: _ ~ _ _ l_~ _ _____ _ _ _ ~,!J~__ _ ~ 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) '--- -1:0 --------~ 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) ~I~~ - )> ~~ ~ z, :~ D~ -l" n-l ~~ ~-< IJ , ~ i .., " " ,: t 'P CL COMMERCIAL AVE, (70' R.O,W,) _J J-1, ==c==' ~I~ ro" e_ :;;;;;::;;1! ---II r PLANTING STRIP I CURB CUTS SIorWALK PL =1 =- rJf l 1-- -If - ---~-=-=-ll:-=-:- ;~~-=-0-=~=-=-=~-- 648 COMMERCIAL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) )> ~ (j) ~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE ~ 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA '''''!I@ I I ~Ii.hi 0 I i;t.~ ~ hhU ~ BAUKUNST ;~gili W 5BFalrlawnAverlue,DaYC~ty,CA 94015 ~! Ri ~ ~:: ~:~~5~~:~;y:~o7;=~09:VbaUkunstarCI"tecture=m ;SSUE::D r-OR 8 CD -< o m (f) G) Z m JJ o 11 JJ m o o JJ o ---- ~ --B II II II II ", L; cr W1~O .0 . ~ ~ ,- ~-~ ---8 , ---8 7 ~,-l' ~ ~ ~ 1&'-6' 6'-6,;1~'. ~~~- _~_-rB - ----G r------------ I I I I 11 I II I II I :: /([ ~ /;-----<\ II I II I II +_ II, I n::'-/ II I II I II 1 ---8 (0) D 54'-]' CsJ G -=~ I I ~ GGV C:0 0 -1.0 (f)JJ -1- 11G) rz 0)> Or JJr -0-< r)> )>-0 Z-o JJ o < m o 7 ~~~~r;'~-~ L-G D, )lhEVYl ", . ! ,~~ / / ~: 11 0 I '\8 ~~~~ / ,/ '~ 0 ' I ~ ~-~/ ~,lL:;J - - I-L---e : ~--:{ -- ~ _ I -:- ,I f1<~ I - I' ..~ \ __ ~;--===t-~-~- ~L ___! ?_==i ~ ~~ t~ /__.-' ~ " " .", I " ~ --- " " ~!!{ \ / ; "'- " ' , ' ~. \ /; '1 ,~=-=U \ / ---r- ---B I " ;1; I \ I ~ I 1\ ~ ) / \ ~ / 1 \ / 1 \ 1 \ / \ 1 \ / \ 1 \ ,. '!--~~--G l --~- ~ ii " a l' ~ " -~,- J'-(t' 7'-0' .,,--------;" ~---, G @ <3 @ e G G @ o 0 1\)0 JJ ZJJ G) 0- G) - 11- Z rZ 2'-9' ------,," )> 0)> -.,--G r Or " r JJ~ ~==~ -< )> -0)> r -0 r-o I ],~ -~ i 0 II .-.., -0 )>-0 JJ ZJJ 0 0 ~~ ~d:1L~, ' < < ~ m m ' ~ ' ~,;c----Q 0 0 5(1'-",' -~- ,- G @ <3 @ e GG @ 0 )> I\.) . ~ ~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA i""l'@ I lll!hi f lllili i BAUKUNSTI lilft! If 58FairtawnAvenue,Da!yOty,CA94015 i ~ ill. ~ T,65Q455.1207 F:650.755.1093 ! 11 ~ E: baukunst2000r.ilyahoocom W,b3ukUnstarchitectUre,com DATE ISSUED FOr~ ~"' g ~ II i II II r\)r\)m m ozx ;Z) 0 (f) X (f) (f) 11-1 -I I1rz ~ Z OG) 10'-:5- (;) 011 ......;:::::::: -'] JJJJ ~:::~ 11 -0)> r:::::::~ _ JJ r~ ~ f" ! )> II )>m II J ~ II Zo I m I I 0 I I I L___ J ~as ~.~ ~~ .~ ~p !:;~ ~~ ~~ r\)OJm W)>X o (f)- ~m(f) (f)~-I I1mZ zG) -Ill I1JJ r)> O~ Om JJO -0 r )> Z r\) -1. m -1.(f)X -1. -1- '-J 11 ~ (f) r- Il0Z 0(;) J)Il -oJJ r)> )>~ zm o ~---, : / I " ': }/ I !! ~ " ~ H ~ u II ~ ' " " II " " II " " " .~ ~ :i' 'T-rr-j , I J J ~ ~ l~~-== ~~ ~ - ~~ ~ . ~ . <~ - . ~,. t~:~~~.~,~~ 2\'-,' I _ -1 --~----j;--~-------, . ,--- ~ /' I I l'iI' ! . " " II~I~ : '" / ~ I',,' , "- / -/> i "x" , ' , , /", ~ I,', i ,,/ '''-, 1/ '" ':5'-8' , .~ II " " II " " I , , I , " II " U \~ J , \1 r-~', , , >I \ ~ . , ! I , , I , i l u.._ ee'-J' , ---,.- ..,~'- I I .I, I I --'~---------------r ~ Ij/ n ~ II ii /1 ii i ;,Y ii ~ II" ,T =-~c )~,!! ,i,i I " <::::" ii I ii '<-, " II ~ I" -,::,- Jj : ; I ii '-:--1= L-- / i!~ ' -I-'~ =:J s. I ".,. ii' ~ ~ ~t !.' ~ 12'-6' ~ 5'--(l' ':5 -9' 5' 8" <4'- . " -8' 1~ I < I~~~ b !! ---------- = ;r-- ~ ii / ;;:"4'---1 l===-__~ ~-;;:',:;;::-~ --Ii ~ ~ '\ Ii ~ JL r------~ ,~ ! ! ~ .fL ~ \\!! E ~ " i! ~ " ~ \'; !! ,\~ II 'i'l :: i'- '[ ,:; ~ :::J = c 1..f Ii , "- "- "- "- "- "- ", ~/// "- 1: XO // '" / g "- / "- / "- / "- / "- / "- / "- / "- II; " / / / / / / , I 2'-9' 7'-5' ....1...-..-.....-." ,. 1)- -----------'.... I I 4~ = = -----uJ = ------1L- L~ ~ ~ ~- c::~___~ ;~ :J S ( =r i ~L' ~ 11 Q " 7'-3" " o [c:f----,-== , ,~Jl. -:::::- ~"_U' ,~,'~,L . == ~ r-- 0 -- I c..=;'----- ~ . 7 ~ F, TI'l T lJ [] 1 1 ~ , ~ iSSUED FOR )> N . ~ m VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOI CA l""i'@ I 111'laJ f !Ilili i . BAUKUNST ~ lint! w 5BF."'.'~^,.nu.,D.'yO\y,CA 94015 ! . h ~ ~; :~k:S~~~~7:~~~:bau~nstard1rt~ra_rom g )> -0 -0 r o )> z -j (f) o -0 -I o Z ~1T--- 1\)0))> , " , " I .. 1110"10' 1\))>-0 II] " ())(f)-o -t ~ -1.mr " " (f)~O , II , I " 11m)> " , II , ZZ I " " , ~ -1-1 l~~. 11Cf) II 22'-3' r-o I ~ " " , " II O:D ' ~ I - , ~ 00 , , I ! , JJ-o I , -00 , I rCf) , , )>m I zo , Ul__~ 5'-{I' " '--------, -1.-1.)> <D(f)\) -1.-1-0 Ol1r (f)ro 110)> Oz JJ-j -o(f) r-o )>JJ Zo -0 o Cf) m o -1.1\))> <DZ-o 1\)0-0 -1. r (f)110 I1r)> Oz 0-1 JJ - -o(f) r-o )>JJ Zo -0 o (f) m o ~ 7 ~ " I i5 ~~ L------r-i'l I [=;::.....- 5'~' 7, ~-D' ---".--~ -/} ~ ~~ a~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ '" / ''', / 'x' ,/ ',,- ,/' '''-, , , I --,.- =~- , h :J ~ [~~---== - ;-'~-~'."_.' '~C"-ll' ~. l::c ;:::-::=-_ __ " ;~ !. ~ ,..,< I' 'B ,[ r ;~ = ---- i~ n ~< ~ ~ ~ ',~ --u---~ IF, n~J, rl ( !~II {-I ~!! - ~,..isf.,- ~ ~ ,,':l~~~--"':"-/1-: --,:::0:-- -~i1 " ~'" .' .~, - r :: " 'tJ / I ~ ~ '. ~~.. ' ~ " '1" / i . - i! .lX""! . ~ ; // ~"" V ~ /1' "~ ;~--~ i~ ii"A i j ~ ii i i ~ ,,~ '7' ij~ ~ ,1~ i i P ~" ~ ~ i I ~ _ :: ffl ~~ I! ~ ~ ,,' =-~ ii ."W.,. ii ~.L.::.~=~ ::,'~" ~, . :::J [ ~ --'.- [==-=-- - ;:-- ~ -T l.===-_ ~= a, l ~ R I-----~-:---- t I j JL LJ l[ , -====== -==== - ~ ~JT ~ " , ~ . ~ ::J = '7 ~ ,~ iI~/ ............ ,~/ LLf =~ ~ i' ~ I' I' , , , , / ~ - ',-1./ o /1f'", ~ _< /// IO'~' '-", l l -( "---, ==t , / / I ~', '!~-~, , '" ! -~ ~ ~ 7 n~ ~~ I ~ ~~"~ M , ~ ~~ s" .. 001-< ~C1 -fZ -fill' co MI"l - r- ~~ " > ~ . , ~ ~ , , , , , , ""xj/// // 'I, / ~, / , / , / , / , / , / , / , J, ~ ~r / / / / / / ------------"r ::::J = c:; '\. /1 < ~ ~ .,~'- ~ ~ = o '~ < ~~ . .~ n I I )> I\.) . ~ )> . ~ ~ B ~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA ISSUED FOR DATE o -I ~ (j) o -0 -I o Z !! ~ I\) CD 0 " 1110'-10' c~ 1\))>- " (X)(f)~ r~l ~ -1.m - " " (f)~(f) II Ilm-O ! I i i ~ zJJ :: l -10 ' _I W 11-0 I , 1 II rO L " " o(f) I Om , ~ , ]]0 I I , , -0 II " " r I II )> " Z U -1.-1.0 (X) (f)- (J)-1~ 0111 - (f)r(f) 110-0 0]] ]]0 -0-0 rO )>(f) zm o -1.1\.)0 <oz- ~o~ (f)11(f) I1r-o OJJ 00 JJ-o -00 r(f) )>m ZO ~ H ~ iO H II I I Jl. I I 'i , ' [===~- == J,., ",'::: "-0' ~~--------=----"""""""" ' ~r- · I I i'J!!' I, I I \j~ ,', ~j, ----0 u ~ ~. ~ d~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ i 21'-" ~ ~ ~ f'---------J;---m- . ~ / '''-, ,/ '''-, /' :x: i /' '''-. : / ',,- j/' ",,- 58'-9" r~~-L-L-- = ~ ~ ii r7i! "- II [~I! 3,-bi.,- ~,-o,il= "L=L'~ (I ~ , t m _ i ~ ,:' = ~r Ii ii I ---,c --'- = = = )> tv . ~ () , ~ 't , g ~ LI~ _ _ _ _ ---=:; ==- I. ~ _ -J.. ~ =:J~'-8' [ L 16'-U" ~ . ~ ~ ~ ! " ,___ I I I I I I I I I I I r- ..J I I I I [=-===-.- ,:- =~ [==-- ~= . ~ : Jl r-------- r " " " " " " " "" 1 // " / " xo // ." / ~" / " / " / " / " / " / " / " ~ .~ JL ~ LS lr I -' I / / / / / / = ~ = --.fL- __ ~~-~ ] ~ l~~-== ;-.r-~-~, N' ,~"'-U' ~~ l,- - ~ c= ] ~;; r:---~ ~~ !! !I ~~ =-~---- J~ ~~ ~-< ~ 1"U .. Lf = --11-- ~ [' ~ ,,~. I I ISSUED FOR DAlE le'-6' /1 .'~) ~~/ I' " ,lI~, ''-, / iJ~ i 'x' ~: ~ ./",-,,~~!. ~ / '-, I ./ " (' " Ii !! " 7!!~ II ;;) ~"rl~i!~ ~~ ~. !, ~~ ~ i i 'Q ~ j i w. ;; " ~~ i ~ ~~, ~~ ~r , -, ~~ g~ ~ I ~i ;;< I . ~>!_:{ ~ , . 00 <~ ~ L i -~ VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA :=1 = , -l //'< // ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~~l'" ~ ~ ~ = '~ ~ ~ u ( IL.-.- '''''U@ I !(lgiU 0 11'loA! !llnl i . BAUKUNST I fil~11 Ii' 58 FSirlawn Avenue, Da'Y. City,CA 94015 ~ Sill ~ T: 650.455.1207 F: 600755109'3 J 2' i E: baukun512000@yahoo_com W.baukunslarchrtecture.com 0 0 .5- ;;: -<II-- <1.; ..- ;;: IS I m a ~:;: IE; E' lJ ~ ~ ':t F ,P r 0 . ". ~. j; ~ < ~ ~ r ij PRtPERTY UN( ~ PRrPrRT'l' UN( ---q------------- "1'-" 1 \ \ I \ I \ --\--r:-~t:L~- -- --\~ --- \ ,- ~ I .!. \' I .-. ---- ~~~~~I _ +3::= Ii ~~~ ~~ ~ e ~pa ~ ~ ~g~ 3 .= ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l4'-10' Q) (11 ~ o o $: $: m J) o )> r f"RGlT SETBIlClC - ~ ~ ~ -~ -I JJ )> Z (f) < m JJ (f) m o JJ o (f) (f) (f) m o -I o Z -I I JJ o C G) I o m Z -1 m JJ o 11 (f) -I m ~ ~i )' ~~ 'j I --::z Ii ~~ \ \ \ \ 110'-0- ~ ~,... ~ to'-a' ~, ~ '-, '. '-<II-- .J~ "f fJS7 Eb~ b~ . E'. <'b ,i f~ .". '. ~i ~TY LINE C' ~~ ~ ----- ,-,-- J - --- It'-O' ~ 10'-0' l , ~-o -:D -10 I-o )>0 O(f) c-m )>0 011 m JJ (f) Q) Zo c~ m(X) -1 Z LO ~ -I ~~ )>(j) ""0 $: (f)-1 J)m (f) OJ) -JJ 0 Z m ""0_ ~m m)> ~J;:j ~r m r m < )> -1 o Z \ I , \ ~\ \ r tig J" ~~ ~. \ ~ \ . \ ~--~ D\- D\. R II ~ ~ L/ 11'\ L), D! D DI ~- \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ ,- I I I I I ----t - I 7! -=rv i I I I I I \ -~ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I -----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q) ~ Q) o o $: $: m JJ o )> r , I \ \ \ \ 1\ ~" !l~ ,0 R~ d ~ "'-- '1 ; ~ a~ ~n g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I )> -0 -0 r o )> Z -::J (f) o -0 -I o Z e ~ ~ c ~ . PRtFERTY UN[ I\) ~ 15 r; z m )> W . ~ i""ii@ IUUIH JIlilf ~ B i!liz~ ' liU,ls ~ 58Fl!ir1awnAvenue,DatyCily,CA 94015 J !!ii. e 1:650.455.1207 F:650,755.1093 ! 1! E: [email protected] W baukl6lSt8rchileclure,COIn ISSUED FOR DATE VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ ':! ':I B ~ ~-o -JJ -10 I-o )>0 DC/) c-m )>0 011 mJJ Zo -IZ ~-1 :l>(j) (f)-I (f)JJ Zm G)m d m r m ~ -1 o Z QoO (f)~ C _ OJ(f) c-o mO ~Z -10 Om "1J 0-1 JJC OJ)> )>r -00 -o"1J JJ-1 0- <0 )>z r ~ w . ~ () .. ~ ~ g Ii P~OPtRTT LINE Q) 01 ~ o o 5': 5': m :IJ o )> r Q) ~ Q) o o 5': 5': m lJ o )> r ~~ ~> ~~ g< ~~ ; g ~ J ---- D~ D \) = _u// i5~ D: D' D! ~~ ~~ ~g ~I ~ '-- 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ PFlCPEIlTY LINE ----------- 0 0 ~ s: p'~ ~ '0 s: eq m f :JJ ,...; p, c' . '~~ E 0 ~ . ,. 'i> ~ ~ ~ ~ . r i , l I I \ \ ~ PRllPERTYLINE --0----------- , - , . 10'-tO' I I ~ I - ~< I -y-- I _ _ _ _ _ _ fRONTSETtlACK -I JJ )> Z (f) < m JJ (f) m o JJ o (f) (f) (f) m o -I o Z -I I JJ o C G) I o m Z -I m JJ o 11 (f) -I m - \ . I I I \ \ I I I I ~ \ ! I I I 110'-0" I e ~ ~ ti ~ l ~ c-, 10'-0' I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ Ie I ~ I I I -------t (: ,___~_____ . _fr, ---- tV ti! ~~ U ~ e I . ! ISSUED FOR DATE VALENCIA RESIDENCE 648 COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~ '-,' \ \ ~ I I ~II \ \ n \ \ \ \ \ I ~ \ ~ ~ ,- & ~ ~'-O' ------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I PRCJ>E:RTY UNE I\) S ~ r;: Z m '''''ii@ lli!h! f l!h!i ~ BAUKUNST Ii Ii II ~ 58 F.,rl.~ Avenue Daly Oly CA 94015 ifl i i ~ ::k:S:~~~::'7~O: baLkunstarchneclure crrn Attachment #9 - Applicant's Structural Engineer Opinion and Cost Estimate f~Ul'\ ;CALTRA~6 sr:on Cf;'E1::L( hal1~t r'A>>. :,0. : 5::'041 ::"59:'>1;1 MaT' , 03 :2008 ~'J2: 331='('1 P 2 Mayorga & Anociatee eMl EngineeIs it~ec."l'Iit Ct,: eQy ~();I'll. C:l :l4se$ 'tltl: (l12Il~ ~se.c7 n Fetwa;y 29,2000 Bureau of Building Inspe<.1ion Department of Public Works City of Sou1h San FranCi$CO Attn: BuildinQ inspector Subject; elimination of Structural steel frCilme axis A 64S COmmerCisl St. South San Francisco, CA. Dear In9pector~ 1) The existing conditiOn on the plans is as fOllOW: The elimination of the first fivg feet from the front of the Building will eliminate the structural steel frame located on axis A. This steel frame was designed to resist not only the gravity load but th& seismIC loads (lateral) of tnls building, This $teel frame is integrated to the steel frame on axis C. The front of the building is a particular critics structural area due to the lack of shear walls and to tl'te vertical structural irregularity (soft story) present in thiS residence. So the elimination of this structural frame on axis A wiH weaken the seismic eapacity of this building, 2) The elimination cf the Stru(..iur;:iI steel frame on axis A will require an additional structural frame 01'1 the front of the hOlJSe. and a re~vaJuatlon of the stnJ<.o11Jt1i1 analysis of the remaining structure I due to the structural irregularity mentioned above, and the amplification forces deriving from it The eost impact of this change will be signiffcant; but only The General Contractor can do a gOOd estimation of the cost Impact of this change. .<;. I":r_~ ~"" : "'/? .~ rh\ ~.~ ",".'~ ~{'-/0<;;-"" .o~,,~ P.~( "'N, Cj~o;i'y~ \1 ~: r:: t - 1'('1"\ it Sergio Mayorga. P.E... ~\ :.xp. . ' J :tl/,I Civil Engineer ~~"~ I -t: /;' ~,/~-?l'~~::~ or ""\ \~t'J~/ ." ~~:..;;.~~,~;;:p Sinr..erely, ~~)~l(~U~1 ll:~~ 92~=J!)b445$ L. IVER,'10RE CONS'f RUCTI PAGE 81/01 ~ & "-8OCIate. CIvIl &tIlL ..... eaC'.orn" Ct , Il~ /IeI"1 CB 945~ Tp.I: ('7f!~ .9-C7'f7 0ctcMr 31.2007 Planning Department City 01 South San FranCISCO Attn~ To Whom It. may conc:em Subject; Movti of Shear WaNs of Third floor three fest back, 648 Commercial St, South San Francisco, CA. Dear Sir or 1\A&cUIrn:: 1) The exISting concUtlon on ~ p'~ns is as follow: W~ na.... shear welfs on the thtrd floor on the from of me building reS1ing on an Steel Frame below, This is due to the vertical structural IrregUlarity (SOft story) present In this residence, 2) The move of the shear wall of the Third fioor he feet back will require is similar structure under thoae shear wal)s, due to the structUral ilT8gul,rit), mentioned above, and the amplification forces deriving from it This frame Wilt take all th& overtumrng forces from the sr.ear wall Of"\ !tie Third floor, The cost impact or this ohange Will be signifieent; but only The General Contractor can dO 8 good &stimatlon or the cost impact of this change Sinoore/y. Sergio Mayorga, p.e, Clvli Engineer - '" , "" 7, \. /2..., ' " q~." \ ' '"T', -' ,.(".,0 .'vi' J'f-> ""/A- , I ' .' / ,~..."'" '''.';,..; \ \. ''j~. '\ . -""l ;' ~~ ~'. " () \ 1-". y,.,.I, Y , I' i;' I ,\)0 ~~:j'1"02C ~:1 I '.J,J l '--" 'Oftl ,:-.-, I rx, \ t \' , '.::r.~ ,_ \ ,~\ ~"p, - :- ~ : ~'l' ! ~."..r'\, /' ~';.'; ~,,..,, .. I ,. I', .J"'-' '" .Q- .. "'-....C '\, ,'. ..."., ("1""-,,,/1 1'/... ___~ .....\~ (' 0". \ ~ ~i J' ,~~ Estimatt; of Cost per City's option to Eliminate the Structural steel frame axis A for: 648 Commercial Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 New set of architectural plans $ 4,500.00 New set of structural plans 5,000.00 Demolition cost 30~OOO.OO ) 0,000.00 50,000.00 Construction materials Cost to construct to new set of plans Total Estimated Cost $99,500,00 Estimate of Income Loss due to Plan Discrepancy September 11 2007 through March 31 2008 Stucco (deposit lost) Scaffold Rental Expense I $1,000.00 per month (Sept. 07 through Feb.08) Temporary Fence Expense! $50.00 per month (Sept. 07 through Feb. 08) Legal Fees Architect Fees Plans Reproduction Expense Structural Engineering Fees Loss of Expected Rental Income of Current House (Jan. 08 and Feb. 08) Demolition cost of existing storage area (including amount that was spent to renovate roof, stucco and window trim) Total Income-Loss (Sept. 07 through March 31 2008) $ 1.000.00 6,000.00 300.00 9,937.00 6,225.00 132.00 600.00 4,000.00 12,000.00 $ 40,194.00 Attachment #10 - City's Consulting Engineer - Structural Opinion Page 1 of 1 Kirkman, Jim From: Michael Loomis [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27,20082:35 PM To: Doug RIDER Subject: 648 Commercial Street, South San Francisco Doug, I have reviewed the calculations for the new single-family home at 648 Commercial Street. We had discussed the impact of cutting back the front portion of the building back to the garage wall. This will result in removing a steel frame along Line A. Calcs show the line A frame taking seismic load from the first floor (as shown in the MultiStory Lateral Analysis East-West. Page 26). About 3000 Ibs worth. The amount of seismic load to that line (7% of total) is roughly equal to the amount of the building being cut off. My interpretation is that this frame could come out since the part it's supporting is coming out as well. Michael Loomis, SE 4824 Plan Check Engineer CSG Consultants [email protected] (650) 522-2518 3/412008 Attachment #11 - Aerial Photos of the Site ..,. - - .. ... I~, r,- en .,.,. . - ~ ...; ... co ~ () en 0 3 CD r-+ 3 c- .. Q) CD C1 ...., C1 , 7\ ,~ f'> · -- Q) -u .. .. ~ . Q) I ---. ~"~; It . ~I "- r-+ , ' 'I . r-+ ~\ I CD 3 ...., tilt --- :::J 3 CD ()C~(j) C. o:J"c :J 0.0 0- -- en CD c ~. Q) r-+ ., :J CD ., 0.(') r-+ c Q) r-+ (') ~(j) CD r-+ -. 0 0 r-+ :J :J CD "--" " ., ~ ~ I( \ ~. ~~ r G) -" ::J 0) CD ...... )> 0) (.Q I CD (J) ~ ,-+. CD 0) CD - - - -n ...... 0) 3 CD , m >< 00" ,-+. ::J (.Q G) 0) ...... 0) (.Q CD 0)\ ::J c.. I g , en CD I \ -- -...,. I we . "....-- -' - , ,!'-t-. -...... - --, ~ . ,., .-1' ... ._ ,~:_:-lJ - ..1 ~ _ ~... rf=.:=- I I.li / -- ,""* ~ .~ en c kO"' - CD o ...... en -- ...... CD Attachment #12 - Site Photos "~ ...., ~...\ '\', ", '~~'x ' ~ "~L:\', ". " "'-. ~~' " ?3 -=--::- - - P:=.... - --e.-- , --=--,~ . ~ - ':'l ,1 I l / I / i l j \ \ \ ~';" ~ j-- f / ,/ --- \:. I' 1-- ~"." >......'~_... ".,-.. ~... ":~" \'n' 't" /, .~, l.~;-'~ il~ ,f f";~; '" ~ - .i' , >.r. [II \. J ",~, \~ . , ..;.~.. " :t, " ,'; . ~', ".- i., ,. ;' ;0; ". J, .. .<f i. , ' 'ct :\f.!~~,(; i~-~~. :~,:;':5: ";t~ j~~:E~,' y-~._/~ :' ~:';~'~i'~:', w .::-;;- ,. '~. ", .-,' a' l' t;:J. "~ .:~ ~"" '. '\ ~ ~ () r 'l ~ . -~ "~if-- ,> '~ ,-i, , ,:r.... .~ i:!- __i! 1,..t$.,\:-= '. J. '~-"-'Zlo""" I '.o:.:!.;...;.~~.i~... . ..~ <, . , I ~ ,- /. .I fj. r), " ~' , I ; i / ct. '+-. 'Ill Q. , .- ,~ . ~ '" ' "'r'" .,.~~~~<~".,.-~ "I ,~ C'lI tr~ :- , f ~~.- :j [ .rJ 'I 'l " ~ , ,[ If ~. I, ~, J " ,# .Ii I _I, ~ .J, J, r:t j, ,I,' r ~/i l...,JJ d'l 'I '. , " r, Il I!l ~ ,.l- I I' f! , 1 ~ ~ c:: r r"1l~ f' 1 s- ~ ;'.lI. , .....,...... 0 J , , ~ l " .' LI I." II' ~.~ .' \ -~~~~~ j' ~'r..~-:~-~I =-.:~ ~-' JE-' ~~&~-~ q-_ _ If . - 'IfF:;' i i1tc.n n : 1'l, I . ) ~ " ~ __ _ _._ -.J \ .'-:. ~ , ;iifft~.< ...~:~. -=:= ,:-3. ;;.~. _~ UL_ ~ ~ "~-lE-~3 _._ <011. ',..., ..~ ,',. -0,. F'~ II. ' , ,{ , L ~ ~ r:-~ ", II . ..if. I , . ,. -::. .... 'f~'f'.\ :' i',;(:.,::~_ \ - -0 .. t ~ , > '11 -::. I 1,<: . _1.' .- ::lI ':::I ::~ '"Lr \, I' \~ '"1 ., . \' "\ '" "\ I " "" '"I ~ l~ I" ~ \~ ~ l r .. 'I ,. I '-- ~- L la" Q I ~fi (il. - ,.. I~- ~ ~ -=- r:t=: , ., , CJ i t I L , , \; I \ \ \ , ~ , \ ~ w ., \ . q I f .1 ::lI I a~ A l.'ril F f. ~ !:II 'j PI 1 l' ':f' 'iOII , "'- . 'I I III ...' J .g~~.. ~T*IJ.'. -_,;11 ' , ~rt" Pi !. ", ~ .."..,0 .... 1';':::'-1;18 ' I Ir . / :----:; .....' . , I . !';", \ J~ / . ~~-_.. H-~li \., , .~ ' . ~, .. J ':: r I.. -,. ~ ... ~ : .,~-,.,.~",,:,. '~~:;:~".(r~dN' 1_ - iI '1' ~ if... ~l " .i.. .'\" . 11 ~ ,,--_ __ _ f.l ..., I Ii f ... ..~ l '- iJ ; -f~ ~ ~~ r Mi 1 I I , I"" .. I , 1 -} }. ;: t~~\~.~.. "}"':'>'''<r:. ,... ",( J ,J ,; ., .:~ , I I @- , J J ... ';., C'7,~" .~ "\ .... .... ....... , :I. " :I: .. ... 1 l'~t '. '~"J .J:~~t_ .Jo. ~ ..., ~~ I ... ..~ - I I ~ } .. ... ~ 'J~~:-- f , ~~~~ - ' ~t~VJ_I' ~- I:' "() 11', Li -, - :: c:-=--- ~t Ir- ] 1 ..,. I 11:... ~ 1 "'- I , I ~ I I \- ,"-,C ~, ~.I! .. ~' ", I I !;o I ~ 't \, '\.