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 >> the planning commission is back in session. just a reminder for everyone to turn off their cellphone is. you are on item number 22. >> good evening, members of the commission. the item before you is a request for discretionary review to

change the voting from three residential dwellings to 15 rooms of a group of dwellings. the request concerns generally revolve around the property managers and obstruction of light and air, noise of mechanical equipment, the roof deck, and affordable housing. there are approximately 75 signatures. the neighborhood association is in opposition to the proposal. the sponsor has submitted eight letters of support. i am going to provide you with a brief history of the project. should you have any questions after the testimony, i am happy to answer. in 2005, they applied for and were granted permission to build a structure.

and building permit was submitted. nouri public testimony at it was founded had been used as a tourist hotel without permission. it was revoked due to this issue. in 2009, the property owner submitted a permit. this is a permit before you today. the reports noted immediate concerns and policy considerations for the project. the sponsor has provided evidence the premises was originally advertised in airline. -- in error. they agree to file a notice of special restriction and enforcement of procedures, should they be necessary.

the department has received one additional letter of support. as the department has not found evidence that the project is exceptional or extraordinary, at this time we do not recommend you approve a permit, but we do have concerns about larger policy issues. >> i am still horowitz -- phil horowitz. and we have two concerns. the first is the president this would set. first, he took the middle units and claimed he was going to move in as his own apartment. that is what was happening, but instead what he did was he

promptly started renting it out as a tourist hotel instead. then he claimed his father was going to move into the bottom flat and got rid of rent control tenants there. instead of moving his father in, he started renting that out as well. there are a town of ipads. he was renting it sometimes five a month as well. there was prior testimony on the garage hearing superior -- on the garage hearing. they were told he was moving his mother in and they had to move out. this was rented out as a tourist rooms and corporate housing.

this is not affordable housing. we are concerned. our preference is to have three rent-controlled flats. one of the people living there is here today. we think it is disability discrimination, because he has epilepsy, and some people do not want him there. part of this systematic plan to remove rent-controlled housing, and it is in the papers we filed, and to arrive permits to the bathrooms, and each time there is a permit application, he said it was with the department.

that is not what you do for a flat. that is what you do if you do room rentals. it is not affordable housing. he admits in his papers that everything is going to the market rate. if you look at his website common-law -- at his website, he is advertising rooms for rent for weekly rentals, corporate rentals, and vacation rentals out of place where san franciscans live with heirloom antiques and so forth, and it is the opposite of what he has been holding himself out to the media was doing, trying to have affordable housing. edie's actually removing affordable housing. this has -- it has actually been

removing affordable housing. the garage permit, and we've found he lied intentionally, claiming it was being used to try to get a three-car garage that would have kept the next- door neighbor up all night, because apparently they are very loud. the new rules would be the highest structure in of victoria and neighborhood, which is going to be loud and father the next-door neighbor. right now the tenants are not allowed to smoke inside, so they go outside and leaves smoldering bus around, and we are worried this will be a problem. he has looked people straight in the eye and claimed he has never rented the rooms.

he claims there are mass releases, and if you look at all the websites, we do not think he is responsible, and we think this would be opening the floodgates to affordable, rent- controlled housing and replacing it with torras housing. it is very profitable to do that. that is not what we want for our neighborhood. >> thank you. speakers in support of the requester? people who support you would come up to speak now. whoever supports the d r requester. >> i live across the street from the property, and i want to make

a couple comments. first, there was a website that showed they were advertising rooms for rent on a nightly basis last month. he claims the advertisement was not his doing, that he saw the advertisement -- he stopped the advertisement, that he has not paid for an advertisement since 1997. -- since 2007. we are to believe no one called him from five advertisement. i see people coming and going from his apartment all the time because my windows look out on his apartment, and i can tell the people who are staying there, and over the last few years, i have been able to see people living there for a week or two, and theyav