secretary avery: okay, the planning commission is back in session. if i could remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or other electronic devices. commissioners, you are on item number 15a and b, 54-62 peralta street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the project at 54-62 peralta that street is to construct four dwelling units. the project requires a variance from the parking requirements special use district and the planning code to allow five parking spaces where seven are required. the planning code section says off street parking requirements. 54-56 peralta street will provide a three off street parking spaces, and they will

provide off street parking spaces. the 60-62 peralta building will provide no off street parking, while the others will provide five off street parking spaces that will be accessible from the adjacent building. two parking spaces will be reserved for the units and the adjacent 60-62 peralta avenue. and the discretionary review applications, the requestor expressed concerns, including building scale information due to the removal of a retaining wall. inadequate landscaping and lack of cooperation from the developer. the d.r. requestor suggested building mass reductions and density of development, provide off street parking for all vehicles in compliance with the planning code. proper communication with the developer and owner to require public works and public hearing of the proposed changes to the

public right-of-way adjacent property. the project sponsor respond with the following changes, reflected in the designs submitted to you. reduce the with of the building by 4 feet, minimize the amount of excavation by eliminating the car left, provide a three-foot rear set back at the northeast corner of the building to allow additional light and air to the adjacent building at 48 peralta street. provide a set back on a side property line of the d.r. requestor's property of approximately 19 feet, and hence the sidewalk lighting for better security, and at a landscaping at the front and rear of the property. the project is within the building envelope and complies with the building height, and provides the required rear yard. the project open space is

consistent with the residential design guidelines, which would expose the upper stories. the project is generally comply with the mass and scale properties, which contains a mixed pattern of development. all of four units are family housing by providing three- bedroom units and want to be a bedroom unit. the department feels that concerns have been adequately addressed and there are no extraordinary circumstances. therefore, it is the recommendation that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you. president olague: thank you. d.r. requestor? and we have two. >>. afternoon, commissioners. my name is bob, and i am the owner of the property that directly adjoins the proposed

project. i am also a representative of the northeast for all sites rock club -- block club. it would all the members please raise your hand? our objections to this project are not based on the simple development of these two problem lots but on their noncompliant over development, which will essentially transfer problems and hazards to our neighborhood in perpetuity. we have a video of some of this potential hazards, which you may have seen on the internet. i have it here if you would like to see it again. from a broad perspective, we have issues with both the process and the plan. in regards to the process, we're not trying to pick a fight with planning staff, but we are seriously concerned about what appears to be irregularities.

we are disappointed with the planning staff's apparent disregard for required pre planning documentation, as well as the vernal heights special use district code, section 242. this is based on the east slope building guidelines, which were created, "to retain the spirit of the neighborhood and to establish criteria for new housing design that will ensure as much as possible the continued existence of the east slope character. furthermore, we are concerned with what appears to be a rubber stamping of the developer's plans and his justification for over developing these problem lots. regardless of feasibility or compliance. a prime example of this is the

proposed parking scheme. on march 11, 2010, the planning staff request that the developer submit additional specific information about the parking pellet system -- pallet system. the developer submitted details for the system. this diagram that we have on the projector clearly shows that the car will be driven on in one direction only and must be backed off the pallet. ok, next page, please? essentially, that means only two of the four vehicles could be facilitated by this pallet. you cannot drive ford off the

pallet. we had to point this out to staff after the plans were submitted. subsequently, the developer has revised the parking scheme, stripped it of specifics. they indicate now five cars would be facilitated by such a system. commissioners, please take a close look at the current drawing. not only are the three cars and from not in spaces to minimum code, but the cars cannot be accessed because the doors cannot be opened for anyone to get in them. commissioners, a parking variance has been based on this faulty design. how can this get by staff? are bigger issue, of course, is

the plan itself. -- are bigger issue, of course, is the plan itself. the developer wanted to put buildings on the lots that complied with section 242, and they could do so. two single-family homes, one on each lot, would be consistent with the mass and the bulk face that has an average of 1170 square feet, not the nearly 3300 square feet as proposed. such a plan would also respect the slope of the hill, which is another important component of the special use district guidelines. this type of plan, given the non hazardous parking scheme, would virtually eliminate our objections to this project. president olague: thank you. and we will ask for the second d.r. requestor.

i believe that issue, the same person. we will start the clock again. thank you. >> however, the developer does not want to comply with the formal heights guidelines and the staff is signing off. commissioners, these are exceptional and extraordinary buildings. unfortunately, they are exceptionally noncompliant and it will bring extraordinary problems and hazards to our neighborhood. we urge you to take discretionary review. thank you very much. president olague: is that all the time you wanted to use? >> that is all i want it. president olague: okay, we will open it up to supporters of the d.r., those in support. sure, that is fine, would never order. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is terry mills. i am a member of the vernal heights design review board. i don't know exactly how the planning staff analyze this project, but i know that section 242 of the planning code requires the project be in compliance with the east slope building guidelines. the design review board cannot support the project precisely because of the extraordinary circumstances that it does not comply with the east slope building guidelines and is not compatible with context and character of the neighborhood. the issue of the parking variance is are concerned because the intent of section 242 is to limit the balkan mass of new construction. particulate on steeply sloping lots. -- particularly on a steeply sloping lots. a modification of the plan will reduce the need for a parking variance.

there have been no other parking variances in our neighborhood for new construction in the last several years. only for renovations, where the existing building made it impractical to construct more garage space. that means that everybody else who builds in our neighborhood manages to comply with section 242. the argument they should have a variance because the code is out of date is frivolous. the commission would not consider this argument for other cases. it would amount to spot the zoning on peralta avenue, since all nearby properties have to comply with the parking regulations. this property is not on a transit corridor. there is one bus six blocks down the hill. that is not a transit corridor. in summary, the east slope design review board believes a reduction in the size and scale of the buildings will be a

solution that results most of the issues in the case. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, thank you. my name is joan. i live on an unpaved section, and on paved block after block above the site. i am here because i understand this developer is claiming this site is close to transit. i am somebody who takes public transit. i don't have a car. i want to tell you what that involves from that building site. it is not six blocks, by my count, it is only five blocks to the 9, san bruno.

three of them passed down very scary stairways and under a freeway which is a seasonal homeless encampment. the other, by the most conservative count, is three blocks to the outbound 27 at bryant and chavez, and four blocks to the inbound. this frequently misses runs. practically, but what is more significant, is the number of blocks is not the point. the fact is that either way you go, one of those blocks is vertical. practically vertical, very steep hill. i walk it. i carry my groceries as a substitute to going to the gym, but i can only do that because i am partly retired in don't have to be at work at strip times,

because it is nearly impossible. i never met any of my neighbors on this bus. people think i am crazy, because i think i am the only person in the neighborhood in our section up the hill who regularly takes transit and does not have a car. when i had kids, i absolutely had to have a car. mike two tenants have cars. they have jobs. my daughter moved out of a very cheap living situation because she had to get to school and she does not have a car. she chooses to live without a car. she does not choose to live at our end of for all heights, but a cliff. it is very important you understand the transit situation of this project, which is asking for a parking variance. thanks. president olague: thank you. is there any additional support

for d.r.? >> hi, my name is carl. i am 73 years old. i live on this block. there are even older residents on our block. at least two are past 80 years of age. we cannot tolerate an even steeper sidewalk. it is already a steep sidewalk, which will be even steeper by this project. some residents would become housebound. we live in a beautiful city with great weather and wonderful views. so much could be taken away from our residents by this mean- spirited and solve this project, whose greatest wild. this massive project in no way it fits into a block of small

two-bedroom homes. please don't let this happen. as they are trying to sneak this project through with inadequate parking spaces, they broke in their letter to the planning commission, dated february 17, page 2, that the municipal bus stop is one block away. i live on this block, and the nearest bus stop is at least four blocks away. so please do not believe anything they promise. you may be misled. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name as max. i have lived at 44 peralta avenue since 1970. i love my neighborhood. in the 1970's and early 1980's, we had a block club. we had pot luck and barbeques as

well as discussions of minor problems, car break-ins, things of that sort. it was a great time, but age. much finished our parties. but my other neighbors, but opposed the proposed buildings as being of a scale neighborhood. i confess to being confused as to why we are here. the east slope review board has twice identified the proposed meetings as out of compliance with the guidelines. i have gone to both meetings. i was impressed with the attendance and attention and knowledge of my neighbors who sit on the board. it is a good board, it is an honest board. what are its recommendations being ignored? -- why are its recommendations being ignored? all homes are two-story homes in the neighborhood. the proposed buildings are too large. i support only single story structures on the site. thank you. president olague: thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is lucy gomez, and i live at 48. avenue, right next to the lot. my problem is this. it is like a bomb dropped on us. they put up a retaining wall. ok. but when they did that, they put it halfway. when you put it halfway, there were not thinking about that lot. 1927, that was put up by city planning, and forget the purpose. but they went down to the campfire. then it stopped building. everything has been fined.

it is 19 feet, 8 inches. i have a four-door sedan. it can only go one way. they come down, they don't even stop. not only that, when it put up the retaining wall, they put up a sign. it is only one way to go down. then coming down, being between. and have shire, people come down so fast, it could get into an accident. you have a complex, most people have to come out. there is the distance from their cars. they cannot park a truck or minivan of any kind.

that has to be a regular car. how many families are going to live there, for pete's sake? impossible. incredible. i cannot believe it. yes, they show nice pictures, but that does not mean it will be safe. but the cars on that platform to come out, how many people have to take time to get on that platform and come out? the have to look out for the cars coming. -- they have to look out for the cars coming. you should all take a look and ride out there to see what we're up against. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. are there additional speakers? if he could line up, it makes it faster. -- if you could the lineup, it makes it faster. many speakers in support of the d.r. requestor, thank you. secretary avery: speak into the microphone. pull that up? >> how was that?

thank you, linda. my name is rochelle, and add live directly across the street from the proposed development. i have been there 12.5 years, and we jokingly call it peralta creakeek because the water runs down the street, which is quite steep. i live on parole and creek, and one of not -- i live on peralta creek, and one of my concerns is getting down into the subterranean garage. cars will have no choice but to back up blindly from below grade, across the sidewalk, and into a narrow single traffic lane, which divides the road by a wall. the proposed driveway location,

if you have had the chance to see a spray-painted on the wall, it shows the driveway in reference to the sidewalk and street. the steepness across the slope will necessitate accelerating to get up the ramp. all you see it when you back up that steep slope at the top of my house across the street, you'll not be able to see pedestrians. imagine 5 foot lucy gomez, you just met her. we have other neighbors with brand new babies who walk through our neighborhood. we have babies in strollers, two neighbors in their 80's. there will not be up to see these people when they're backing up this steep slope out of this subterranean garage. couple with that the hazard of oncoming vehicles. everybody flies down westbound on peralta as they're heading down to cedars -- but they're heading down to cesar chavez. i see them every day.

imagine a car accelerating blindly of this slump, across the sidewalk, into oncoming traffic, backwards. it is an inappropriate hazard to this neighborhood. the parking should be on grade level, like all other parking in the neighborhood, especially those few who are lucky enough to have a garage. we have discussed this creative parking with the designer and owner, and they're not willing to scale back the size of the developed not, the size of the building, and their financial gain. instead, they want a noncompliant below grade parking garage, which does not meet the guidelines of our special use district. it is a recipe for disaster for all of the neighbors, the pedestrians. the real problem is the buildings are out of scale with

the two-story single-family fabric. thank you so much for your time. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is joan varney. along with bob, i own the property adjacent to this development. we moved there in 1989 and bought the property. i am a gardener by trade. one of the first things we started to do was clean up the neighborhood. there are a number of city islands that we turned into planted areas, pulled ivey off the walls. one of the things we also took on were of the lot behind our property because they were overgrown, the grass was tall. there were parked cars, motor oil, homeless in there, and also using it as a thoroughfare to go down to cesar chavez.

a couple years ago, eight, 10 years ago, there was a fire in the grassy area. they got it out. one of the city people came by and thanked us for keeping that trimmed down, which i have been doing since 1989 about once a month. i bring in my string trimmer and i keep the grass down. if i had my druthers, we would on this property. we tried three times to purchase it, twice from the previous owner, once from the current owner, but they're not interested. it is owned by these individuals, and they have the right to develop it. the fact is that these buildings are totally out of scale. six out of 10 of the properties on that block are 925 square feet. they are tiny. these two developments, one is 2400 square feet, the other is

3300 square feet. but i think many of the problems we have brought up in the discretionary packet we turn again, these would disappear. it would definitely be minimized if these projects were two single-family dwellings, just like the rest of the block. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. >> hi, good afternoon. i will try to be brief. my name is mike, and i live on the corner of a campfire and peralta, below the proposed development. i wanted to point out the inconsistency and size, and also the inconsistency with the slope of the hill and the other adjacent properties a. so, i just want to point out

this is peralta street, and this is the uphill house, lucy's house. 54 is caller then lucy's house. -- 54 is taller than lucy's house. and this is the western side of the downhill unit. so this happens to be actually potentially the view from my front window. but just to put that in scale, i have done my best estimate. this is the patio of 1869 have shire street, and is nearly 40 feet to the top of the proposed unit at0