i raised it at the a.d.u. hearing. no one can live comfortably without a freezer. you have to have ice cubes and ice cream. you have to have something you can put in your microwave to make dinner at 10:00 at night when you get home from the planning commission. my suggestion is that -- and i want to show this. this was just handed out. just to match the real one near me. that plan looks just like what i showed you there. it is a concern of the excavation and the canopy. my suggestion is the lower flow -- floor behind the garage becomes a public living space of the larger units. the second floor becomes the bedrooms, on the top floor becomes a nice two bedroom that can be rented or what ever. however, they are going to make money off this speculative project. it is two and it does meet the requirements. you know, the design. >> president hillis: thank

you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to commissioners. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: it is highly unusual that we have to look at two proposals and say where are the pros and cons? i do take the first page comment by the department rather seriously. design option a is not in compliance with residential design comments issued in 2018. so that means we should not be considering option a. that leaves option b. option b., i want to be very critical. i will differ from it. it is not a particularly designed -- well-designed set of units. anybody who can look at residential unit designed would

say that there is a lot of -- a lot about nothing. they are large and they will probably fit larger families than the one representing here. we are speaking about 1800 square feet and raising three children. perhaps that is not a discussion that we can take as a metric on this building. it is basically the only option b. that i am personally considering entertaining to be discussed. i am curious what the other commissioners have to say. >> president hillis: i will chime in. this is an interesting issue we have. i think the problem is and it has been highlighted in the past, and we see it in build out to neighborhoods, in that developers are encouraged to build large single-family homes. and we want to maximize the zoning and build, you know, watch what family -sized homes. we want family sized units and they want them to be livable. we want to have 2200 square-foot

units that you can have a family of five. but then they are adjacent to more single-family home blocks. if you go down the next block, there is a huge four story 1950s style building made block. we see it very similar to the neighborhood where i live in where there is a diverse amount of architecture but predominantly, there is single-family homes and two family homes. but they tend -- if they are two family, they go back into the rear yard. the floor plates tend to be 1600 square feet or 1400 square feet. this is what we are facing. we are facing the neighbors who want to three stories, although i did not hear a lot of complaints about what that fourth story would do. i hear it is in the crow's nest and nobody will live in it. but then somehow it is the big issue here. that fourth story actually makes the project more viable as a two

family unit. the layout of the three-story alternative is not good. we have a smaller units backed up behind the garage. and then you are two floors of living space and a three bedroom. it reads more like a single-family home with an a.d.u. i lean towards -- i think we can revise the fourth story but i did not hear a lot. i cut the deck off the back of the third floor. i know you shake your head to. you want your single-family home back for the cobbler who will not live in the valley anymore. [laughter] but no, it is not at. we just heard about people who live in 2200 square-foot buildings and so -- i have not had to interrupt one person as i heard the debate. a ledge at its -- legitimately believe i too have three kids and i live in a 2200 square-foot home with a unit back behind that my mother lives in and it

is a thousand square-foot unit. that is what we will get on the second one. not a two flats that will dominate two families. that is what we want. it is two. i think we can take off the deck. what i heard more about where complaints about the fourth floor. the people adjacent to it have the biggest issue with it. it is the decks that cause the problem off the third floor. it is over the decks in the back. but i don't think that the small one bedroom on back on the top floor, ten years from now, it will blend in just like everything else in the neighborhood. it will be fine. and it makes for a much more livable two units building then what we get in the three stories. i have redesigned -- i would make that fourth floor recommendations to make it compliant with the residential design guideline. i would remove the decks as much as possible from the back. but i heard no real issue about

the impact of that fourth floor except for the decks. i think it makes two family sized livable units instead of one unit with an a.d.u. i am for option a.. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i would like -- i don't like a 2,000 square-foot place. but if you look at the elevation, both front and back black , it does not meet the residential design guidelines. if there is a way to dig down and get the extra space, go right ahead. keep it within the guidelines if you can do that with a fourth floor. i think they would come up with a way to do that. i am for option b. but i'm not happy with the disparity in the square footage.

we have gone on record saying we support it. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice-president melgar: is it possible to have a fourth floor and have it be content with the residential guidelines? sorry, is it possible to have a fourth floor and have it be consistent with the residential design guideline, and two is there a reason for those specs? if it were a two unit building cat do you need that for the space? >> that was a question i was actually asking earlier. that was a concern if they remove the top decks from the top floor, assuming they keep -- >> president hillis: from the third floor. >> the removal of those decks could -- they would not have direct access to the rear yard. they need at least some open space for that unit. the residents of the design guidelines, the residents of the design team and the planning

staff, we evaluate these projects and we look at the context of the block and the appropriateness of the dimensions of that structure. it is still -- there is nothing on that block that would be a potential impact on that space. i will say at this point, it is available and it is the reason we are in this forum now. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i want to ask the man who was instrumental in directing staff onto the residential guidelines to also comment. i am very concerned that what mr washington summarized is indeed important and led to the very clear statement of why the project is not compliant. would you perhaps elaborate on that? >> unfortunately, i was not at that particular discussion. i don't have any more benefit of

that. i was actually -- mr washington specifically, what it was about the four stories that was of concern to us. perhaps you can speak to that? >> yes. this was continued from june 21st. in these two designs were submitted about two weeks ago. and there was another residential design review, and an additional comment was added at that design review. that is, and the fourth story with the roof is proposed, it should demonstrate two guidelines which includes reflecting the adjacent shaped roof and be to scale with adjacent buildings with the slope of the street. so it is basically the fact that it is a 7-foot and then a

pitched roof. the original requested a gabled hipped roof which could include dormers. and so, the dormers would possibly be able to allow for additional head height for bathrooms and things like that. >> commissioner moore: and that is what mr gladstone obviously told us that doesn't work. because he explained that the usability of the room was a sloped roof and dormers does not create a workable room. and that leaves what is proposed noncompliance because you can't you can only build a three story building. that is basically what they are at odds with. there is no discussion on the size of the family sized dwelling. you have 12 time bags and 12 times as what you can put into this bag. this is what ultimately, our

guidelines and adjacency considerations are all about. it is about fit and context. i do support your idea that you are lucky enough to have a home in which you can raise two children which is larger. however, for everybody else next door and up and down the block, in the situation when the homes are smaller, building family sized units was in context. that is the overriding principle. it is still possible. at least from what the public has told us. why would we force a larger mood -- space and would be accrued at the expense of everybody else? that is the issue. i am not pushing forth those units being family sized because the other unit is still in the 1500 square feet. it is still a very large unit. and this techie -- if the second unit remains larger, that is fine by me. it would have to occur in a three-story -- three-story

configuration. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: move to approve option b.? second. >> clerk: there has been a motion seconded to approve with conditions options b. on that motion -- [roll call] that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner elissa voting against. . inst. >> clerk: good evening and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular meeting fore thursday, january 12, 2018. i will remind the public to

please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during this proceedings. commissioners, we left off on item 18, for 2014.1459 cua for 214 states street for a conditional use authorization. please note on june 14, 2018 after hearing public comment, you continued it to today by a vote of 7-0. commissioner johnson -- oh, you are here. commissioner johnson, you were not yet seated with the commission at that time, and so in order to participate, you need to acknowledge that you've reviewed the original hearing and materials. [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you very much. [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. i thought you were going to stay for this one. in light of this being the second hearing, we will provide five minutes for the project sponsor and two minutes for the

public. >> good evening, president hillis, commissioners, planning department staff. item before you is a conditional use authorization at 214 states street. this project is a c.u. to allow the legalization of work that's already been completed and to propose alterations and conditions to a single-family two story home that would allow revisions tantamount to demolition. after closing of public hearing, the commission continued the item with guidance to -- for staff to confirm with the department of building inspection on whether or not the project should have been categorized as an unlawful demolition peradmin code section 1038.3 as well as to get further input on the violation and history that had occurred at the project's site. on may 18, 2018 the project had a hearing at the building inspection commission. although no official action or resolutions resulted from that

hearing, the b.i.c. did request that chief building inspector patrick o'reardon make a presentation. i provide the commission in a memo the minutes from that may hearing. the proposed project includes the addition of a ground-floor garage and front entrance, a one story horizontal rear addition to the second floor, through new roof dormer is and then enclosing of two existing roof decks. to permit excavation that has already occurred. the proposal will increase the existing 1,635 gross square foot building a 1,214 square

feet. since the publishing of the original case report, staff has received 12 letters and e-mails in support of the project? we've already received 41 letters in opposition to the project as well as being nolg that both adjacent neighbors to this project had filed d.r.s before it was a conditional use authorization in just the 311 building permit? staff recommends in seeking the conditional use authorize that the staff add a second unit into the building unit. this concludes staff's presentation. patrick o'reardon will be giving his presentation now. >> president hillis: okay. thank you, mr. o'reardon. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you, jeff. good evening, president hillis and planning commissioners. my name is patrick o'reardon. i'm a chief building inspector at d.b.i., and i'm here to give

you my perspective on the project and the property located at 214 states street. the agenda for my presentation includes the permits that were filed, issued, subsequently suspended, and the one that's being reviewed currently by the planning department. the current status of the project and next steps. in this slide right here, you will see the existing facade of 214 states street at it was before -- prior to construction in march of 2014. and moving on, in the next slide, you did see the current state of our status of the property. and as it has been since 2014, so no work has taken place since december of 2014, and

this is the current state of the property. the building permits that were issued, the initial building permit was for a bathroom remodelling. did not include plans. this was issued in september of 2013. that was followed by a series of permits that spoke to repairing of a front balcony, new foundation, revision to that foundation permit, and i think the most significant permit is the permit 2014-008254675, which i'll speak to a little bit later here. so this is our notice of violation which was issued december 24, 2014. in fact, the senior inspector called me and said, you won't believe what i'm doing christmas eve.

i'm writing a notice of violation for this project here, and this is what it ended up being. we identified misrepresentation exceeding the scope of the permit. a lot of excavation, and the corrective action as noted on the violation, number one, was stop all work, file for the necessary permit with plans, obtain planning department approval, obtain the permit, and do the necessary work to complete the project. so that was three years and, what, eight months ago that that all transpired. so an overview of 214 states street. just for informational purposes, a permit application, a form 8, is an over-the-counter permit application approval. and if form 3 is a permit application that is submitted for in-house approval, usually

proving multiagency review, and that would include most likely planning in most of these cases. so the trajectory of these permits is as follows. a permit application was issued for permit application 2013-09257756. again, no plans, bath remodel. this was issued in september of 2013. then, a form 3, which was taken in for review. permit application 2014-08254675 was issued in november of 2014. that included siding replacement, enclosure of balconies at the states street facade of the building, along with the relocation of the front door from the first floor to the ground floor, and the relocation westward of existing

garage door. so five additional permits were either issued, issued and suspended, filed or currently under review between that september 2013 date and april of 2015. seven complaints were filed between march 2013 and january of 2017. currently, we have two active notices of violation. one being the one i just spoke to for the misrepresentation, going beyond the scope of the work, the additional excavation. and the other one was issued based on a complaint in regard to vacant buildings when i believe we received a complaint that there were "esquatters in the building. we want to make sure that the

building is secured against entry, so last thing we want to hear about is a fire occurring because of squatters being in the building. that notice of violation was issued january of 2017. six permits have been suspended at the request of the planning department. work has been stopped, like i mentioned, since december 24, 2014 except for some work making the building structurally safe. 214 states street, going back to the significant permit application 2014-08254675 was for number one, replace existing shingles with new redwood lap siding. number two, enclose existing balconies at bay window, returning to original state prior to permit application

296721. that looks like an unusual number, and it means that it's a very old permit. it's from 1964. so the third part of that permit speaks to relocate existing front door at first floor to ground floor, and relocate existing garage door to west side to accommodate existing street tree. this permit documents misrepresentation. the permit documents show an existing garage door, no garage door existed previously, and the street tree wasn't accommodated because it ended up getting cut down. so moving on, misrepresentation beyond the scope. permit application 2014-089415 which was issued in sept 2014 shows an existing storage room. the storage room shown did not

exist. permit application 2014-08254675 which we just spoke to in the previous slide was issued in november 2014. shows an existing garage and storage room, neither of which existed. and permit application 2014-08194202 shows a scope of excavation to rebuild retaining walls at rear yard. site conditions were not clearly illustrated on the architectural drawings. retaining walls were substantially higher than the section on the drawing shows, approximately ten-foot-high walls are in place at this time, and originally, there were -- they seemed to be about 3 feet in height according to the drawings. so they -- the walls are substantially taller than what the drawings show. site inspections and findings at 214 states street, multiple

site visits have occurred at the site since the first complaint was filed back in 2013. a notice of violation, 2014-12792 was issued based on-site investigation for exceeding the scope of building permits and for misrepresentation of existing conditions. an additional notice of violation, 2017-8573 was issued for vacant building, and that was issued in january of 2017. the adjacent property at 126 museum way was impacted by undermining at the property line. both properties are being monitored regularly by inspectors, and for next steps, form 3 alteration permit application 2015-1463876 is currently before this commission. this file permit seems to be a comprehensive permit outlining existing as built and proposed conditions. if the permit is approved and

issued, a start of work inspection will be scheduled for review and direction for the project team. a senior building inspector will be -- will assist the district inspector for additional oversight at the start of work inspection, the framing inspection, and again, at the final inspection. thank you and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is that all for the presentation? perfect. so we'll open this up for public comment. >> clerk: project sponsor should have five minutes. >> president hillis: project sponsor? oh, i'm sorry. project sponsor. you're the project sponsor? >> yes. >> president hillis: okay.

go ahead. you've got five minutes. >> thank you. todd mavis. project sponsor and part owners. my partner and i are 20-plus year residents of san francisco. we bought 214 states street in december of 2014, 4.5 years ago because we wanted to live in a single-family home. we bought this home because we wanted to live there. that's why we designed it the way we did. we designed it as a single-family residence, and we designed it with specific or, you know, clear design features that appeal to us. at this point, i just want to clarify as well something that inspector o'reardon said. many of the complaints that were made that he referred to were actually made before we acquired the building in december of 2013. but i also want to emphasize that when we bought the building, we wanted to live there. we liked the area.

it was close to the tennis courts near randall museum. it's close to where we like to work out, it's close to the castro theater. we like the floor plan that we designed. we thought it met our unique needs. we really wanted to and planned to live in it if we're allowed to have a single-family home. but the rear question tonight is whether or not we should -- real question tonight is whether or not we should add a second unit to a single-family unit. our neighborhood have been real clear, they want us to add a second unit on the states street side of the lot because they want no other development up on musium way. many -- museum way. many of the neighbors that i spoke to don't want added density on states street because it's so narrow. we've pointed out that the zoning administrator said it would be very difficult, if anybody wanted to build up on

museum way, it would be very difficult to do so. i also wanted to point out that the size of our home is actually pretty modest, 2,000 square feet of habitable space. we're actually making the footprint of our building slightly smaller by removing the front stairs. we're not trying to build some sort of a monster house is the point we're trying to make. 222 and 224 ord court are a point where owners have made -- we they had so many different comments and critiques of the proposed plans that now finally, after all these years, the four units that were proposed that could have been livable units never got built even. so the next question is is it feasible to add a second unit to 214 states street? our neighbor who's an architect drew up plans. i have one page in particular that i'd like to share with the commission when they have a moment to look at which shows that it's not feasible to add

the second unit. for example, the stairway that he designed in the building would only have 5'3" clearance and head room. it doesn't meet the open space requirements because you can't even get to the outside from one of the units that he designed. if you think there's a possibility of adding a second unit, then please, i would like to have the tubt to opportunit answer that question. yes, mistakes were made on our getting to this hearing tonight. 3.5 years ago, we made mistakes when we relied on unlicensed professionals, and we relied on their integrity. references were made by inspector o'reardon about bathroom permits that were pulled without drawings, and those i would like to point out as a point of clarification were pulled before we even bought our building. but i do want to emphasize we

take full responsibility for we are we are right now. we take full responsibility. we hired architects and contractors that made mistakes, but we have diligently pursued all necessary means to come to where we are today with drawings that accurately reflect the existing condition acondition and what we'd like to build. our licensed contractor removed too much of the building. we've asked him to make those corrections. we hired a company to do as-built drawings. we hired a company to do as-built drawings that unfortunately, our architect, jeff gibson, did not use when he was drawing up the building, and those misrepresentations continued into the drawings. but however, we take full responsibility for where we are now so that we can move forward. i would like to emphasize that we would like to live in this

home, we would like to be able to live in a single-family home. and we appreciate your additional time. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. there might be additional questions. >> thank you. >> president hillis: okay. we'll open this up for public comment. if you'd like to speak on this item, please lineup on the screen side of the room, and you'll have two minutes. you can -- you can come in any order. go ahead. >> my name's daniel camp, and i live in the castro nearby, and i want to urge you to support this c.u. first off, the building you saw in its current state is not inhabitable, so it's not helping or housing anyone mp. we're in a housing shortage as he thought we all greed early -- as i thought we all agreed earlier in the day. second, this process has been going on for, like, four years

now. the fact that, you know, a project can go on for -- such a small project can go on for multiple years is in my opinion, a pretty big reason why we're in the mess we are in right now. as long as people keep moving here, we've got to welcome them, and it's bad that -- that even small projects can get gummed up for four years. so this process needs to be fixed yesterday, but the next best thing you can do to speed this up is approve this project today. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is joseph collins. i live at 40 ord court. i've lived there 15 years, and i'm in favor of this project. it's been going on for so long,

this house has been uninhabitable, and it's been an eye sore for the tire neighborhood, a magnet for homeless people and vagrancy. seemingly, it's been going on since before i had gray hair. we've been hearing a lot about a multiunit building at that site, but it would have very limited light, and it wouldn't be desirable. states street is very, very narrow with extremely limited parking. i think what they need there is a family home, not more housing. as todd was saying, the park is very close. it's a great place for families. that would be a great use for that building. you know, it's not acceptable how long this project has been in limbo. it seems like there's been so much opposition from it.

you don't hear so much from the people that are in favor of it, but i am, and i hope that you vote to go forward with it as designed. i think if we vote to go forward with a multiunit design, it'll be many more years before the project is completed. i don't think that's okay, either for the property owners or the neighbors and this project has been going on seemingly forever. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jessica, and i've gotten to know todd and his partner over the past few years. one of the many examples of the support and guidance for me is when i was training for my first aids life cycle, and

that's a 500 mile bike ride. as an avid cyclist who bikes in the neighborhood often, i fully support the efforts of todd and kevin to build a single-family home. before i continue, i just wanted to mention there are also other cycling members from the a.l.c., but they actually had to leave before today's meeting due to kitime constraints. i wanted to share a letter with the commission members. this is a letter written by a neighbor who lives just a few doors down from 214 states street, phil aquilar. he initially opposed the project because his neighbor misrepresented todd and kevin's desire to build another building in museum way. i signed their petition in protest. however, i have since found out otherwise.

i now strongly support 214 states street as currently proposed, a single-family home. even though no development is proposed for museum way, the building on states street has been left to be suspended up in the air for the last three years. the project should not be compelled to add another unit to the existing structure on states street. some of the neighbors only want to cram two units into the existing building on states street to prevent development while others just want to completely stop it altogether. forcing owners to change their plans to accommodate two units is not fair and this does not seem feasible because the building backs up to a very steep hillside. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commission. my name is steven brown. i'm the department chair for horticulture at city college in san francisco. i've lived in this city for 35 years and i'm very familiar with states street, the congestion and the parking

situations up there. but more importantly, i've known todd and kevin for 20 years. we're very close friends and i've seen them go through the agony of the purchase of this property with the hope to live in a single-family dwelling while they live in a two-family dwelling currently. they -- they want more privacy for themselves, and that's why they bought this property. i've seen them go through this process over the last four years, and i'm really shocked that they're still being blamed for things that happened before they even purchased the property -- at least it seems that way from the planning department. so i'm in support of you passing or recommending that they be allowed to move forward with this project as a single-family dwelling because it's very important for them to move on. and i doubt that anyone else in this room would be able to afford the situation that they've endured over the last

four years through this planning process. they've paid for the mistakes that were made by -- not by them, but by the contractors that they've hired, and i think it's important that you pass this proposal so that they can get on with it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> dear members of the planning commission, i'm chris blank, and i moved to the city quite a while ago, and i'm pretty familiar with the area around states street from my sunday activities. i got to know todd and kevin as really humble people. from my experience, how i experienced this neighborhood, it's, like, very family friendly, and it's very welcoming to people. i feel more density doesn't, like, really benefit the

neighborhood. also, i'm very supportive. i want to read the letter of a neighbor who couldn't make it today. he lives right down the street on states street. dear mr. jeff horn, dear san francisco planning department. i live at 261 states street. i know 214 states street very well. they are just down the street from me, and i walk by it every day going to play tennis. usually, the owners of 214 states street finish remodelling their home and keep it as a single-family home. making them add another unit to this building doesn't make sense. the lot is very steep, which makes it difficult to get to the back yard. the owners want to create a modestly sized three bedroom home. that is exactly what we need on states street. please do not cause them further delay by forcing them to build two units. it's been over four years already, and the unfinished empty property is very unsightly. i would like to see them finish

a beautiful home on states street. thank you, david chen. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is jeff poe. i represent the 249 states street-40 ord court homeowners association. we support the building of a one unit home there. it was interesting to see the photographs from the city, a very unique part of this neighborhood is the fact that we look at a sheer rock wall from 249 states street. the density has nothing to do with this project. the issue is that the street is narrow, and the street is narrow because of the canyons. my house at 40 ord court and

249 states street with a different address happen to be one on top of another. in order to understand the scope of this project and why a single-family home is more desirable in the neighborhood, you have to look at the topography of the neighborhood. i speak in support of a one-family home there because of the sheer rock wall that we face. the house on jenga blocks needs to be changed to a house on a foundation for the safety of the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. poe. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. my name is rick goldman. i've lived at 230 states and lived there for the past 11 years. this is in the corona heights

district. many in support have not been involved with all the work that we've done to put into getting the corona heights special use district involved and they have not had to endure the months and months work without permit, work beyond the scope of permits, and inaccurate plans that neighbors have been inundated with for three years. obviously, some of these neighbors -- supporters do not come from the neighborhood when they say parking is a problem on states street. we live at 230, very close to 214. we let very upset if we cannot park in front of our house. it's one of the areas where parking is not a problem. at the december 14 conditional use hearing, the project sponsor and again today described how he wants to live there at his home. -- as his home. the sponsors created an l.l.c. which is common for this project called 214 states street l.l.c., however i want

to point out they have been listed on the secretary of state website that they have been associated with at least ten additional l.l.c.'s, and i have this for the commissioners, listing the other various l.l.c.'s they have been involved with, which is another reason when they say mistakes have been made, considering they have been involved with other developments, it's surprising that they've encountered this many mistakes, and that there were mistakes. so considering what has occurred so far, i hope you understand why we are very reluctant to extend the benefit of the doubt, and i hope that you will be cautious, too. false statements have been made before, and we have to live with the permitting consequences while the developers move onto their next project. there's only one way to stop the illegal construction work being done, and that is to not reward the developers do be doing this. please do not approve the one unit building at this location. >> clerk: thank you, sir, your time is up.

>> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is joe butler. our office represents several neighbors in the conditional use hearing. i e-mailed some drawings and a letter yesterday, and i have copies here if jonas wants to pass them out, please, in case you want to refer to them. lot 17 on 2620 is not a typical for san francisco parcels. permits granted in 1990 describe a two unit dwelling on the 20 foot by 125 foot deep lot. this up sloping lot is quite steep and the site has frontage that is planning code compliant and adequate lot width and size for two dwellings in an rh-2 zoning district. the developers are experienced over many years and their structural engineer has produced drawing for hundreds if not thousands of san francisco drawings. one would not know that from reading the permit history and the complaint history for this project after mavis and chang

brought it. drawings did not -- [inaudible] >> -- nearby neighbors, and their uninspected foundations encroached on the lots of adjacent neighbors. in begging for giveness tonight, the sponsors make another false assertion that a two unit building on states street frontage is infeasible. their credibility to make such a statement is undermined by their behavior and my attached plan. as you can see on the overhead, in fact, i don't have time for that. without meeting either of the corona heights special use district and feasiblity requirements, there is no justification for a conditional use authorization. consistent with the letter of the ordinance, your commission should be required that two

units be developed on the states street lot. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. butler. next speaker, please. >> can i have the overhead, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is chris parks, i live at 231 states street. i'm just a couple doors on the other side of the street from this project. this is, i believe, the same -- i'll move it up so it's above the writing here. these are the -- okay. thank you. put it above the writing, please. architecture butler has produced a set of drawings showing two units in the same envelope proposed by the sponsors. the set shows one two bedroom unit and one one bedroom unit with a garage. if the garage is replaced with a bedroom, then, you could have

two two-bedroom units. it is incontrovertible that the two units in one building that is within the -- then, that two units in one building that is within the proposed or permissible building envelope is feasible. this being the case, there is only one way to maximize density on this site and that is by approving the projects with the two units. we also want to emphasize the manner in which the project is pursued. if the city rewards unpermitted work, this endorsement only promotes other developers to do the same. these are the plans that were circulated earlier in the process that they now disown with one building on each end of the lot. you have seen joe butler's plan. this proved two units are

feasible. if you want more buildings, you can remove parking and so on. the most important thing out of this process is that the commission have a finding that two units are feasible. this was the whole reason for our special use district. that's part of it, is that you build on one end of a through lot. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> mike schulte. i live at -- own the cottage next door to the subject property. you've heard tonight that they have no plans for building on museum way. here's the drawings that they chose -- that they hired an architect to do, jason architecture, commissioned by the two states street, l.l.c., clearly, you can see a four story project above 214 states. this is the end game that they

want. if they can build down here, one unit, then, they can later go back and say building another unit down here is not feasible, therefore, we're going to build up here. i think you guys have seen all the trickery and fakery of the permits pulled. they fabriated the existence of a garage, a curb cut, an entire basement, concrete walls, and towards the rear of the house. look at this concrete wall. commissioners, they can't even get to their back yard from their proposal. the claim that they want to live here in a single-family house, who designs a house where they can't get to the back yard? the proposal's a sham. we ask that you -- as neighbors, we ask that you have them come back in an honest, transparent way with a two unit design fronting states street in conformance with the spirit and -- in conformance with and

in the spirit of the corona heights s.u.d. there's precedent for this, and it's just nearby on 284 roosevelt. it was another tantamount demolition just up the street, same lot size, same upslope as the condition for approval, planning absent and maximize the densing and add a unit. you unanimously approved this project april 6. joe butler showed you that two units could work within the envelope. i'm going to show you how two could work without the energy. there is an aerial photo of the project. >> clerk: sir, your time is up. >> oh, i didn't use it, though. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public

comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so let's see...i don't know where to begin. i understood mr. mavis, and i met mr. mavis when you did the lloyd street property in duboce triangle. i recall our meeting. we sat at cafe flor. you had built up some other properties. oakwood property was one of them. we talked about this property. 35 lloyd. so you've got a lot of experience, doing these things. i know lloyd street was probably 2010, maybe 2011. and we're getting up here, and we're talking about -- and i said this in the hearing in december, one unit,

single-family, or two units? and i come back, and i say, i don't really -- i looked at what actually transpired here, and i'm shocked. i'm actually shocked. i've never seen the building's -- chief been inspector get up here and say, this was submitted, did not exist. this was submitted, did not exist. it's nuts. and then mr. mavis, you got up and said, and some of the other speakers, we're being penalized for what some other people did. all these permits other than the bathroom one which i'll give you were after you purchased the house. i mean, it was your house in 2014. so you accept responsibility for all the misrepresentations, i'll call them lies, that you did. you know, section 303 of the planning code on conditional

uses, subsection f, says conditional use abatement. the planning commission may consider the modification or placement of additional conditions on a conditional use when the planning department determines based on substantial evidence that the applicant for the conditional use had submitted false or misleading information in the application process that could have reasonably had a substantial affect upon the decision of the commission on the conditional use, which -- which is not in compliance. i'm actually thinking, because of what i see here, i think there's substantial evidence here, i'm not in the mood to approve a new building here, i'm in the mood to putting the building back that you had that you fraudulently removed all these portions of. you can get your single-family house back, but it's going to be the one that you bought.

i'm waiting to hear other commissioners' feedback. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: i agree. >> president hillis: do we -- just a question to either staff from d.b.i. or our staff, do we know what that is? what the building was? i mean, i don't see plan -- you know -- >> we have some drawings that are relatively accurate and dependable, i believe, in our archives, but i would have to research that and -- and make sure that, you know, what i'm saying is correct. >> president hillis: okay. 'cause i think that's what we would probably want, to show what that is. mr. mavis, you said you had drawings -- can you come up for one second. you said your architect did

drawings and then relied on some other drawings, but had drawings showing the building at -- as it was before -- i'll call this work was done. do you have those with you here today. >> i do not have them with me here today, but what i mentioned during my presentation, and unfortunately it wasn't very clear because of time constraints during my presentation, but what i wanted to say is we hired an outside third party company to draw as-built drawings, and those were given to the architect. and what i also wanted to say was that after the permits were suspended, we should worked diligently -- have worked diligently with the building department when there were notices of violation to clear them. and one of the notices of violation was to submit drawings which accurately reflect the existing condition of the building.

i'm sorry. i'm just getting distracted by the side conversation because i can hear it in the background so it's a little difficult for me to concentrate on what i'm saying because i'm hearing another conversation. i apologize. >> president hillis: but the existing condition not when you bought it but at the time that you asked for the -- you know, you had done work and were asking for a drawing of an existing condition. >> i'm sorry. i don't understand your question. >> president hillis: when you say you have drawings as an existing condition, existing condition when? >> so we hired a company to do drawings of the existing condition of the building before any work was done. and then, subsequent to issuing permits, after the n.o.v. was issued by the building department, one of the conditions on the n.o.v. to clear the n.o.v. was to submit drawings to the building department which accurately reflect the existing condition of the building, and we did that, and we worked with senior inspector joe duffy and submitted drawings that he looked at and reviewed and

said, as well, yes, i agree, these drawings do reflect the existing condition of the building, and those are the ones that are in your packet. >> president hillis: well, tell me. i mean, you -- what about the garage? we haven't seen a case quite like this where it was so blatantly obvious that the plans were misdrawn, that plans were submitted that weren't what the condition was. and i think those happened during your time of ownership, so, like, the garage issue, all right? i mean, i think that's what troubles us the most or really troubles me the most is that somebody submitted plans that showed a garage that didn't exist, right? i mean, so it was blatantly incorrect and -- and done in a way, i think, to mislead the building department or planning department and get things approved. that one's new to us, that level kind of -- of incorrect plans and deception. so that's the line, and

we're -- we can't fight trust anything that's on these -- quite trust anything that's on these plans or that's been submitted. >> i think -- i think the best explanation that i can give you is that the existing conditions that you have in the conditional use permits that are in front of you were reviewed by the senior building inspector, joe duffy, and also during the building inspection commission hearing in may, so approximately two months ago, the building inspector, inspector o'rear dln don said yes, i think these drawings reflect the current condition of the building. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. about the garage? >> yeah, yeah. >> thank you very much. one thing to be clear on the actual conditions that show that garage is that it described that there was a garage door. in the photo that inspector o'reardon showed on the

right-hand side. in front of that garage door or garage-like door, door that looks like a garage, it was clearly shown as the as-built plans was that there was no curb cut and the existing tree you see in the photo was in front of the garage. i think that there's been a frenzy around this whole notion of misrepresentation. it begs the question, why would someone say there is an existing garage if there's a tree and no curb cut in front of it? what we're trying to describe at the time, which was a big mistake, and we take full responsibility, was to describe that door that was there, that aperture that was there that was garage like. the tree you can see in the street view photos was before any demolition was done, and we reflected that in the plans. we take responsibility, but none