like side setbacks, entrances on the side of these houses. we like the fact that they step out at the back of a lot. and we ask for a front set back on the top floor that people are discussing the that it would not have as much impact on the street. that is the kind of thing that we generally looked at in all of the project we see. we have said that a lot of the other technical issues, the engineering issues are not really something that arour designer of you can deal with. i am sure that the planning department doesn't even have to deal with some of these things. i would like to request that the staff for somebody record a

restriction for an easement so that the broad parking spaces are noted -- garage parking spaces are noted so the parking requirement is met in two buildings. i would not like to worry about that five years from now. thank you. president olague: is there na any -- >> reset, please? good evening, commissioners. i am an architect in the city and a member of the american institute of architects. i have unfortunately only done this case for six days, but i have endeavored to do what i was asked to do, to verify that the buildings on this site meet

the height limit. i have worked at the special use district. he asked questions of the zoning in administrator. basically, hthere is not the daa presented to adequately and per the planning the measurements of height, know what this building should or should not be. the blue line is the 30-foot height limit. 3/4 of the top floor exceed the height limit. they have a way of shifting math. you can take from the front of the building and put it at the back of the building and to be a little bit over the height limit, but you can never exceed 40 feet.

the problem with this formula, if you go from up here, all the way down, we don't know whether the parade is at that point because it is not provided. why ask if he checks of the math, he says we don't check the math. if they showed that indicate the height limit, we accept that the engineer has verified that. so how can i help my client verify that the building meets the height limit if there is not enough data to do so? how answer was, -- the answer was, we don't go into that detail. even when you hire an outside consultant, you can't, with the the data that is presented, know if the building exceeds the

height limit. it is not a matter of coming back later for a variance. in '54 and the 60, there are guardrails or around the roof. if we are already at the height limit or exceeding it, and have already taken a story and barely half that the height limit. i would suggest that it did not meet the height limit before they did so. the same is true of 54. there is not enough data to know if it is being shifted your correct. i would ask for a continuance so that more survey data can be provided, some neighbors can know if this is code compliance. president olague: are there any additional speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> in the afternoon, members of the commission. first of all, i would like to apologize for being here. i would like to let you know that my firm, we have been doing design and engineering development in this town for the last 30 years. i am a partner for the last 15 years, and you rarely see me before you. if you do see me here, is for conditional use permits for some technicality. the reason is that i have a san franciscan, i love to briefs and francisco air, i love the people. i always try to work out my issues with the neighbors. this is no different.

months and months, before we submitted to the permit, we met with the neighborhood association and with the neighbors. we used the math of the building going from property line to property line, produced in on both lots. with regards to excavation and how it was going to go off, let's be sensitive about it and we raised the level of the garage to 4 feet below the sidewalk level. and during the last planning commission hearing, we heard from you and from the neighborhood association, people really took time to look into how we can make this work. we raised the level of the

broad to 18 inches below the level of the sidewalk. the neighbors don't like it. we looked at the engineering of the building, shaved off a few inches house of that which can be able to raise the level of the ragarage. i think we have done everything humanly possible to make this work and i would like to point out to you. that they are problem lots. id on't -- i don't dispute that. if you agree, this is no different than any other garage. there is no other way, possibly,

that anything could be built. i would like to tell you a little bit about the neighbors. they had been around for so many years, the block flop as they call it. they are attached to the neighborhood, i understand that. this is the nature of a developing city. myself, my staff, a lot of the development community and has earned a living by doing this. we have a shortage of housing, and these are great lots. they can be like the neighbors that have been there for 60 years or 70 years. it's going to be hard. during the construction, it will be a lot of hardship.

this is the nature of san francisco. as far as the detail of the driveway, what i would like to show you is that we are in- filling the sidewalk. we are not cutting the retaining wall as it's presented. the portion we're cutting is not a portion of the retaining wall. by filling in behind the retaining law, we are taking it off -- i am available for any comments you may have. president olague: are their speakers in support of the project sponsor? -- are there speakers in support of the project sponsor?

>> i am the property owner of the lots. i know that vernal heights, i am trying to work out as best i can with the neighbors, but i am getting a lot of opposition from the neighbors. i know that the two condominiums from single-family dwellings, before i went to this new plan, i talked to bob becusause he was in charge of the neighbors objecting to the building. i wanted to do this so i would not have the spend a lot more money. i explained to him, [unintelligible] he said it is basically 2200

square feet, and he seemed very happy with the project. do you have any problem with the square footage, and he seemed very happy. if the city ok's this, i have no problem whatsoever. every time you go to these meetings, it is up to the city planning department. they are trying to say that the garage is unsafe. i presented a policy to them, two variances, and we put a -- i worked for muni rail.

press the button and the car will go. there are no safety problems. i will mention, these buildings are big and out of place. if you point out exhibit f and look at lucy gomez's house, sh e has a hosuuse over 2,000 square feet. look at the aerieal views, they are over 2000 square feet. and they are complaining about the project that are not any bigger. they're not. i would hope that you would review this and look favorably

on the project. president olague: are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? d.r. requestor, you have two minutes. >> commissioners, he did approach me and we had a good conversation. what i said to him was that if there are no -- everything is conforming, but there are no issues to be addressed and no safety issues, we will probably have a pretty good project. that is not what we found. there are still issues, maybe they can explain them with the safety of the parking situation and increase the drainage. i just want to point out high

additional document - -m0- my additional document. >> [inaudible] >> all the hpagepages here confm to the building heights. let's have consistency. the stepping down. that is not what we have. we have a third loevel, a second floor over the garage. that is not uniform for the neighborhood. i can understand why, it is a beautiful option, but it is not conforming as far as we are concerned. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> commissioners, as far as the

d.r. requestor stated, there is not sufficient data on the survey map that shows how height has been calculated. however, this is not a construction sat. et. this is a set that describes both. we are an engineering firm, maybe we are a few inches off. this is a new construction. the surveyor will have to go to the site and marked the corners of the building. it will have to develop enough details for us to prepare a construction set. we will not build something that is too tall and in the middle of the disk -- construction get dragged into mitigation --litig.

this is news to me. if they were telling me i had of time, -- ahead of time, let me know if you can give me more points, but he was not reachabl e. i can assure you that this building is going to be -- [chime] . president olague: the public hearing is closed. >> commissioners, i would like to respond to a couple of the issues brought up with regard to height. i understand the concerns over the survey, but we routinely rely on surveys by engineers and professionals licensed to do

that. there is nothing to indicate that there is anything incorrect that we would question the survey in any way. there is also the issue about the measurement of the height. the measurement of height, 102. the reference averaging. the height of a lot will be subject to averaging. we take that average at either side. therefore, you are not going to have an exact measurement over the 30 feet. it just won't happen that day. we take the average because it allows them to do that. there were a number of statements over and over. the guidelines are normal

guidelines . the design guidelines allow you to have an expose the upper story. -- exposed upper story. the two-story height limit, we feel that this project -- we see the intent of that. commissioner antonini: that answers a lot of questions posed. i have one other one. if you will, or mabybe corey will answer staff. there was talk that the sidewalk will be too steep. i think we have a standard as to whether they were compliant or

not. i assume that it was looked after. and what ever is done to allow the driveway to go through, i would assume it was checked to see if it was compliant. >> we actually do not regulate the sidewalk itself, because it is under the purview of the board. but we did talk to the sponsor and the proposed changes are within what they will permit. they're doing it for their guidelines, and we don't have any direct control over the sidewalk. >> that enters their concern, it will be steep. --commissioner antonini: that answers their concern, it will

be steep. we asked for a number of things, we thought that two units was to omany -- too many. we asked for single-family homes. it dealt with the mirage a situation, because -- garage situation. i am pretty happy with that. there are a few other comments that i don't know necessarily relevant. how many square feet these are doesn't really make any difference. having a family and having kids coming and going and grandchildren, it is nice to have extra space if you can as long as it conforms to the height and density and other things. the water flow issue i think is a dpi issue. or maybe dpw. i assume the grading has to be

in conformity to allow heavy rain to drain properly. there was a light issue brought up and i would encourage the project sponsor to work to make sure that the lighting is non intrusive and still provide security. i visited the site on a clear day, and it is probably scary. although it is a steep grade, this will be a good security measure. finally, i think the question of the height was pretty much answered. i guess if it is averaging as it was pointed out, as you go further up the hill, the height of the uphill structure is less -- can be higher because your grade is higher. of the two places, those are the

places that it should be a higher floor. commissioner moore: six months ago, on thisthis project handlee many challenges proposed to it. having said that, i think he presented a very good solution because we have a code compliant project. the potential problems are internal, and there are nothing that can be addressed by this commission. same thing you install in an elevator and the elevator doesn't work. the real issues have been addressed. any homeowner will try very

hard not to have the neighbors sue you. i assueme that between dpi and public works and everyone else, they will ensure that there will be no harm to the functioning of the public realm. i feel like this project has met the expectations. it is code compliant and i moved to approve it. >> second. commissioner sugaya: there was mention of stomome mechanism, people buying the property would know that the garage -- i don't know if we can put that in as a condition. >> you can put it in. to require parking for --

[talking over each other] >> just for clarification, that will automatically happen in this situation because they are providing the parking off site. they will have to document that. president olague: great. >> commissioners, you havea motion -- have a motion on the floor to take it as currently proposed. the parking situation is automatic. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. president olague: we are taking a 15-minute break. 10 minutes. >> ten minute recess.

president olague: let me get out of here.