drawing on the sheet 3.3 is not drawn to scale. i over laid a drawing of a section from another sheet and laid over the drawing that they showed on 3.3. what you see in red what they show and what you are supposed to see is in black. i think the department should go back and review this case. >> before you sit down, help me with the top sheet that you over laid on the top of the bottom. tell me what's what? >> the first sheet? >> the over lay. >> she's talking about the section. >> that one. yeah. >> this is a copy of sheet 3.3 from the applicant's set of plans and what i did is i over laid a transparent film which i

traced off of another sheet 2.3 which has the section and with section dimension. so basically if these drawings are to sale, both of these drawings should match. so sheet 3.3 is drawn shorter than what it's supposed to be. there is a big discrepancy here. >> in the 3.3 drawing that is part of the application, are the measurements reflected in the manner that the over lay document describes? even if they don't lineup are the actual measurements accurate? >> what the red lines are what they show in the drawing and the dark line is what it should

be. >> does the dimension reflect the difference versus just a graphic? >> no. the graph is drawn incorrectly. >> did you check the dimensions. the dimensions are a difference. >> they don't show the dimensions. when you look at the both, this section and the other section, they claim is the same building. >> here is my question in terms of the representation to the city through the drawings, i'm curious about the over lay, the numbers that the dimension say you've got at the top line 15.14. what are those numbers? >> these are the numbers. the 18564 is a survey number taken from the survey of the garage level and then the subsequent

levels are the dimensions both from the original metrics drawing and the applicants drawing what the height should be. so these are to of the correct scale of what it should be. so the red line is what they have drawn and the dark line of the setback and the height limit which is dash in black is what i have figured it should be where it should be, but the line that they showed is in red which claims that the building is under the height limit. there is a discrepancy. >> okay. so the original, the one that you have on top of the below, the below document is the document that was submitted with the plans. neither of the over lay nor the submittal

actually have measurements reflected on them, is that correct? >> i have inserted these. >> and the drawing and the scale used for the purpose of this drawing, i under your argument. i'm trying to understand everything else that is going on to see if there is any place where the discrepancy can be reconciled. let me ask the question. is the scale that was used for purposes of the drawing that you have on top the same one used. is there a scale that is presented on a larger sheet. >> perhaps this might explain better. i traced this off of 2.3. i traced this from 3.3 and you over lay it, they don't lineup. >> it doesn't matter to me unless the identical scale is used. >> yes. they are drawn to the

correct -- they claim to the correct scale. >> is that correct. >> yes. >> i have a question about the settlement agreement you referred to. as i understand your argument that you are saying that the 1962, it's actually 1961 settlement agreement should influence the equities here in some sense but i don't see any reference to anything regarding height in that agreement. is there anything? >> no, that dealt with more horizontal additions. >> so there is nothing about height. why is it relevant to what we are talking about here. ? >> that was agreed to in 1961.

>> you are objecting horizontally and vertically to the expansion? >> right. >> yes. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> moebs -- members of the commission i'm miss barclay representing the owners. let me go to the agreement. the agreement said that they can not be any set a front setback of 15 feet on 32nd street. that is maintained under this proposal. there is no prohibition to increase the

height of the building. there is no expansion horizontally. that is incorrect when they say there is a violation. in fact that would allow us to have bay windows and decks. all of those were removed. what is now the building that is virtually i content cal that was viewed buy the planning commission twice and this is the second time by the board. the difference is we removed all the bay windows fronting on 32nd street. the the expansion and that building snvl identical to what it was

before. let me go a little bit into the height and i will let the planning department respond. height was an important issue in the last round in 2010 and because of that, the plan of -- as well as the zoning administrator, larry bat ner went through the height calculation with a fine tooth comb dividing up the site into different sets. they mention that they are talking about certain poets of reference that they used and i'm not sure whether they said that they

used the center line. all i know is this particular roupd he sat down with the architect and he did what he was told to do. so i'm going to let planning, this happens to be a corner lot. in the planning code you can measure height on either street. 32nd street slope up further if you look at the elevation and so you have actually a much higher start point if you look at basically about where the existing front door on 32nd street. if we actually move and recalculate the height using 32nd street, that would be higher than what

is calculated using el camino. this doesn't use the height limit not with standing from the architect. since they didn't touch on any other items, i have something there toss an extensive brief that explains all the point unless you have questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez with the planning department. as it's been note this property has history. i think it where

commissioner fung first had the code of a pound in an eight pound bag. when he said that, i remember. >> i increased it to 50. >> it's a bigger amount. that's been removed and been noted. some of the other briefly touched on some of the variety of issues raised in the appellants brief with regard to far and potential legal issues to the property and it doesn't apply to resident animal our age district and it not an issue. i have investigated the property and the allegation used and the last report hearing and met with the person who was working out of the house as an assistant to the owners of the property and found that it was consistent with what we would allow under

the planning code. i think one issue that has been raised here which has measure -- merit and nooets need to be received is the height issue. the potential inconsistency in the plan and where they are taking this section from. it shown in different places on the plans depending if they are doing the existing section versus the proposed section. there need to be some clarity there. certainly taking it from the plans they are talking about the center line from the building. i would dispute the height is based on the center line of the property. you take the center line of the building and take the ground point elevation and you take the

center line of the building and that's how you would calculate the height. that said and noted by the permit holder this is a corner lot and 2012 allows the project sponsor to designate on a corner lot which frontage they take. measuring on 32nd avenue would result in a compliant code so it's a calculation and some clarity. i apologize for not having reviewed this matter. that's why i did not submit a brief on this matter. i apologize for what maybe a waste of the boards time. luckily it not a late calendar as we have experienced. i think we can work with the project sponsor and review the plans and take

another look to make sure we have the height calculated correctly. and the alternate frontage they can use. the code is a little bit off od in this way. you can have the rear yard in a different location from where you take the frontage from a different height. we have where the yard can be located to preserve neighborhood pattern but in the definition of height. it does states that where the lot has property to animal -- frontage won on two or more streets. it's a unique lot situation because we have not only an unsloping lot but it's also laterally sloping and we have a property line which is not person pendicular to the rear

property line or the side property lines. so i think that has caused some confusion there. i understand why it would be and i think we can take some additional time to ensure that it does comply with height requirements. >> was there any documentation from the project planner on this height analysis? >> i had discussed it. there was an e-mail as part of the brief on the case from 2009-2010 that stated the rational that he and the zoning administrator used and i received that and i was not entirely clear own though i did defend the case to the board of appeals when it was before you in 2009 but the additional documentation this client has provided to the it causes us to look at the height measurement.

>> okay. i'm confused about something the appellant say there is no horizontal addition here? >> i don't think so. there is a variance requirement because of the vertical addition in the setback but other than that, so maybe it was some of the concerns they had. i don't believe there is a horizontal. >> okay. >> any public comment? >> please step forward. >> my name is sam garfunkle. there is a big discrepancy on the height limit. they have just confused you with saying how they can have either side

32nd avenue or el camino. they have specifically requested a change of address from 10032nd avenue to designate the front of this are building on el camino del mar. to bring this up at the last minute is very contradictory. this is the height measurement from el camino del mar and i had to agree not to build my building higher than mr. lang who developed the property. i had a 40 foot height limit and i told my builder it has to be under 40 feet. the building inspector was called five times to measure my building . he

measured it at 39 feet. the plans you saw on the front of their building and not 32nd avenue. they are allowed 30 feet height limit to the bottom of the pit and then they can do a 45 degree angle and go up to 35 feet. if you are looking at this picture and you are telling me that their building is 10 feet lower and that i lied and built my building higher than mr. lang, i have some serious doubts. i have asked scott sanchez over and over for his calculations on how he determined the height of the building. he is never done the calculations for me or anybody else that i know of. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we can have rebuttal. miss wong? >> overhead please. i just wanted to clarify some points. ray is during sponsor presentation that the existing project will be in the same envelope as you can see in this picture the orange area will be the new added square footage which is adding a 4th story addition and i believe it's about 700 square feet. his property to the south he does not have a roof decor other

structure and our argument is that the proposed project is inconsistent with the neighborhood. thank you. >> finally i would address that sanchez issued the look about the grade. i look at the grade both ways. at the property lines on both sides the average grade is 7.925. i looked at the average grade along the building. the average grade is 11.53. according to my calculation, there is no way you can have reasonable head room in a space less than 4 feet in their addition under the height limit. >> thank you. that's the conclusion of my presentation. do you have any questions? >> your calculations are based upon an old survey, an old set

of drawings. have you done any current confirmations. >> let me correct that. the is survey was done by the application to the current project. >> you also indicated elevations from the previous drawing ? >> the drawing only showed the building section heights. the survey includes the slab and there is building height and also the grades around the property in terms of elevation. i took the grade and figured out what the elevation changes are figured out the grades for the four sides and determined

and added the two sides up and divided the two by the average. >> did you determine the data was the same from that point to now? >> what mr. sanchez says that my interpretation of the points to calculate the height is correct. >> i understand that. i'm talking about the data of elevation and the original drawings say was on the slab and on the roof versus the data that you now have on the current top of slab on the ground floor, are they the same data? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. barclay? i think this

has already been made clear but to clarify for the record. i want to thank scott san chez in the planning department for agreeing to reevaluate. that's all i have. thank you. >> first i would like to clarify the address. originally this was 132nd avenue, it became el camino del mar not by voice. the board of supervisors decided that every single property with frontage on el camino del mar shall use el camino del mar as the address. subsequent ly the address

changed. it's not our choice. i think when it comes to the height limit, they are a lot of data in the evaluation in the record of the planning department sections, drawings that exist to support the department's decision that it's an accurate building that is within the height limit. so i don't have any objection to work with the department to go through all of those and present a very detail analysis to this board. >> thank you. >> are you finished? >> yes. >> all right. the addresses have nothing to do with how the height limit is. the parameters

of the site. okay. >> that's correct. >> mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez planning department. i just want to reiterate that we are more than happy to review the calculations for the height and confirming again that the street address even where the door is located has no bearing on the section of 20.12 and that they can choose their frontage. i apologize to mr. garfunkle that he did send me an e-mail. it's been a very busy week and i did not get a chance to review the matter before today. >> mr. sanchez, in terms of the amount of time given, everyone has pressing other work, would

two weeks be enough time for to you sort out the calculation? >> no, unfortunately the staff planer who process this is out on vacation. i'm going to be out myself next week. it might be toward the end of june or july if that's acceptable. >> okay. >> bear in mind. there has been too many meetings on this case. i don't want this to drag out. if we need to have absolute verification on the height, i would like to have a decision made as soon as possible. >> is there an issue with the timing in july? >> i have a problem with anything that is passed july 7 because i'm scheduled for rotator cuff surgery so i won't

be around. >> unfortunately our meeting calendar that we have an available june 5, 19 and the next one is july 10th. june 19? okay. >> not a pretty calendar for us. it's not. >> okay. if you would move it to whatever date you choose i would ask for to you specify if anything you with a want to report back to the board. >> i would like the pages on the calculation. we are going to allow very little time for actual arguments. three minutes. two pages from all

sides. yes. >> simultaneous filing? >> given the appellant raised this issue and the department is going to address it, i think we should do a submittal response at some point. >> my concern is the amount of time that the planning department has asked for to prepare this information won't give this sufficient time. >> if we can submit scott sanchez's plan would be ideal. would it be two pages written with attached plans? >> yes. anything that would help us understand the height issue. >> okay. >> i would like the hearing to be solely focused on the height issue. that is the only issue that was raised tonight. no new issues. >> so, are you then open to simultaneous filing. >> simultaneous is fine, the thursday prior to the hearing. >> okay.

>> you are represented, yes. do you want to speak to your client? >> okay. all right. i will make a motion to continue the matter to get the planning department to get the calculations on the height issue. we'll continue to june 19. submissions is limited to two pages of briefing to be exchanged the thursday before the hearing and the sole issue that will be discussed at the hearing would be related today -- related to the height of the building. >> can i raise an issue to this point to the party. when we heard this case, a lot of other issues were brought up. i would like to ask the parties that we are only focused on the current

proposal and nothing else. >> before we take a vote, i should probably make a disclosure that it just occurred to me, miss barclay's firm is a donor to my organization which is a non-profit, the organization that employees me that has sponsored an event that has passed. about the it certainly is not a big donation in relation to the organization's budget is what i'm trying to say and it certainly wouldn't affect my employment and has no effect on my vote tonight. just to put that on the record. i have never met miss barclay before tonight. >> okay. thank you. >> we have a motion from the president to continue this matter to june 19, 2013, the public hearing has been held. additional briefing is allowed at 2 pages per party with extra