changes to the project, up nearly slight movement of the upper floor toward the east. if our never compromises, it will be a small token of peace and love between neighbors. thank you for your attention. president peterson: is there a third appellant who is going to speak? seeing non-, we will move to the permit holder. good evening, president peterson, members of the commission. i am david silverman. i am working with the owners of the property located at 154 miraloma drive. the planning commission voted unanimously in favor of the project, and the appellant claims are spurious. the project is a single family home on a vacant lot located adjacent to the home where the residents have lived for 50 years. the zoning is rh-1, a resident single-family detached district. the proposal will have minimal impact on the neighborhood and is consistent with the existing homes located there. in addition, the project s designer has worked diligently with the planning staff to incorporate
please step forward. good evening, commissioners. my name is peter roth well. i am one of the neighbors. i live next door to their current residents, four doors away from the proposed house. i am just here to support their bid to build the house they have been planning for many years. i think they are well within their rights, and the conditions in this situation are no different than many conditions in the city where you have neighbors close by. in fact, the neighborhood has very deep lots. i think the privacy issues are being overblown here. i just want to put my 2 cents in and support the project. president peterson: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move to the rebuttal phase. do you care to use it? michael levinson. i will probably use less than a minute. i want to show you the project was completed by the architect. in the upper floor changes the type of the building. at that point, it was a beautiful building in our neighborhood. th
the entire project has been appealed to the board of supervisors. board practice in the past has been to continue an environment to wait for the environmental review to be finalized, until there is a final environmental review on the project. the board cannot review this project. i think mr. sanchez is correct that one option would be that if the appellate does not want to wait until the 22nd he can withdraw his permit. i think that if the board were to deny the permit that we would face the want-year bar problem. the one-year bar problem. the recommended process absent a withdrawal on the part of the appellant would be to continue this. otherwise, we need the board of supervisors determination on the ceqa issue. president peterson: if we deny, we cannot grant a new project? vice president goh: he has to reapply. president peterson: can we give him a permit? i am not sure i understand the question. president peterson: i mean on the foundation. vice president goh: we could
den? patrick o reardon, senior building inspector and. commissioner garcia: i think my question was satisfied. if there is indeed a need to get an emergency permit for the foundation, that is separate from any of our process. generally speaking, the way that works if there is a compromise of the structure, they would submit to us a structural engineering report showing what the emergency work for repair, mitigation of that condition, would need to be. there would need to have one of our engineering staff go and evaluate at the site based on the report. the permit would be issued based upon our engineering staff concurring with their engineer s report showing an unsafe foundation that would be grounds for possibly issuing an emergency order and a permit for the repair of the foundation. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner hwang: typically, what is the turnaround time for such a permit? if it is thought to be an emergency, we generally get our stuff out immedi