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 the argument they should have a variance because the code is out of date is frivolous.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 at 60 peralta avenue. so yesterday i took a picture. there is a lot going on here, so

bear with me. i took a picture from the pedestrian overpass on cesar chavez. this is a view looking at the whole area from the north. it is rather obscure, but this is the peak of 1559 hampshire street. pardon me. this is what i have to work with. that is my best guess as to the size. if you see there is kind of a slow on the hill here -- and that is the peak of 1569. lastly, i have done my best to keep this to scale. this is a close-up view.

down below that is the deck, a full 40 feet down. president olague: thank you. >> my name is gabriel. a few years ago, the mayor had a town meeting and took my question about muni. we have the transit. the streets are narrow. it is very steep. he put me in contact with the guys at muni. we e-mail back and forth. after a month of doing this, the answer is we are never going to have transit in our corner of the city. recently, the proposed even doing away with 27 bryant for

physical reasons. that would mean having to walk even further. i know you have seen this image of the garage. there we go. the contact parking there, there are three cars. the parking dimensions are shown in the plan submitted by the developer as 7 feet by 16 feet, 112 square feet. the compact parking requires a minimum of 127.5 square feet. the planning code minimum for a compact zone is 112.5 square feet. you can see the parking plan is unworkable. five cars will not fit in the garage. the problem here is one of overbuilding. the parking is a mechanism to keep the building in scale.

thank you. >> good afternoon. i live at 2 peralta. everybody that moves into these huge new buildings will have to make a u-turn in front of my driveway. i have seen 17 accidents since 1983 when i moved into the house from people speeding up the street and turning onto peralta. this exacerbates the problem. i am upset that all the efforts we have made, after several meetings with the developers and the owner and the architect -- it has resulted in false information being presented to you and to the planning commission. several of these things have been covered, so i will not repeat them. but is it too much for our neighborhood? we need all the green we can get in this city, in this world,

and especially in this block of peralta. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. i live at 120 haliday, corner of peralta. every morning when i walk my dog, there are illegally parked cars. these cars prevent fire trucks from reaching my home, should there be a fire. two years ago there was a fire at the corner of york. trucks were detained from getting there and the house was gutted. this is a danger to the neighborhood. if the project is scaled down to fit within the parking they can offer, it will make our neighborhoods sipper. -- safer. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is sean traffic. -- sean patrick. i have been here for 11 years, and my wife has lived on this block of peralta all her life. i would like to see this empty lot of some property built on it. i do not like empty lots in the neighborhood. i would be a supporter of a project in context with the rest of the week. i recently had work done on my property. i met with the neighborhood. i feel this has not been the case with the proposed project and the goal is to push through a project they note is not consistent with the rest of the street. they did not get the approval of the design review board, nor did they have meetings with the neighbors. the building size creates a dwarfing effect on property

surrounding it, apart from the fact that the property is not consistent with the street in design. but they are proposing is an apartment building with 11 buildings. they are trying to squeeze for families into a space for two, with vertical mast and book. as ridiculous as it sounds, they want to put all the parking in one building. the downhill lot is 3300 square feet. my one parking space will be in another building that will require me to use a pilot system -- a pallet system. this will be incredibly difficult to use. to reiterate, my mother-in-law, who lived in the neighborhood for 50 years, who commented

first on the bus zones -- she does not believe in people having as many cars as they do in the city. she is 82 and bought a car so she could drive to the bus stop. she drives three blocks to the bus stop because she cannot walk up the hills. please listen to the east slope review board. this site needs a property that is compliant with our street. i know it has been a long day. i appreciate your time. >> good afternoon. my name is michael keats and i live at 35 peralta. i am here to express my strong opposition to the overall size and scale of the proposed development. this in no way fits with the existing character of our neighborhood. section 242, bernal heights

special use district, states that the special characteristics and hillside typography of an area of older buildings on lots smaller than other low-density areas in the city -- there shall be a special use district. this is too much development for such small, precarious lots. these lots should not be over build so that the current developer can make large profits without regard for neighborhood impact. nothing really changed with the plan between june 5, 2010, when the design review board wrote the project was not complying with the spirit or the intent of the bernal heights east slope guidelines, and february 2011. in the last letter, the review board rights, "we cannot

recommend the department of city planning approve this project as proposed." in that time, the developer and owner only changed their game plan, hiring a lawyer. since then, they have presented a petition without making substantive changes to the project. their plans, presentations, renderings, reports, and letters have all tried to paper over the fact that they are trying to build too much on too small a space. it would also appear the planning department may not be using the local expertise and long experience of the design review board, as set forth in the planning code. it is instead of arguing that the property developer should push this project through, ignoring the code. bernal does have specific parking requirements, but the special use district is not a tool to provide an abundance of

parking. it keeps project in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. this is not an out of date notion. this is what the planning code has for this area so it does not get over build for the benefit of city tax revenues. this is partly why the east slope design review board came into existence in the first place. the planning department has dropped the ball by not making the developer adhere to these requirements. we are not against building on this space. owners should be allowed to build if they follow the city requirements. create a properly scaled the design. thank you very much. >> david pilpel. i do not live in the neighborhood but am familiar

please stand by. please stand by.although both st olague: -- of peralta have a mix of one and two-unit buildings, there is a retaining wall have with across peralta. it significantly affect the way the block face is viewed. if you have not been out in the area and have heard from the speakers, there really