that is going to chew up parking and holiday. i have to park on holiday or brewster, and as this project moves forward, it is going to have a significant impact on the neighborhood for several years in terms of parking. >> are there are additional speakers in favor of the the are? if not, project sponsor? >> good evening, president miguel and commissioners. her partner began this project in 2005 as a much larger project. it has been reduced over the

years in size and scope and the number of units in attempts to address concerns raised by neighbors. the original developer has passed away three years ago, and right before that happened, she could see he wasl"3:x not doing well, and she sold two of the lots and kept one for herself, and contrary to the nightmare scenarios being painted, she has no desire to develop any other lots. she only got involved in this is by nature of her partnership with the original developer. we recognize the companion case is for two homes on adjacent lots, but her proposal is for a single-family home. we believe she has addressed

every concern raised by neighbors over the years since 2005. at this point there are no substantive issues. with regard to joy street, i did not hear a single person suggesting there is 90 feet between houses. i do not think you can find that kind of a 90-foot setback from the home on any other street or stairway in san francisco. i doubt if it exists. the public works department has determined they have adequate sewer and water, and of course these people are professionals, and if it did not have all those connections, nothing could be built superior -- nothing could be built. all of the other concerns have

been resolved years ago. she will not build any additional homes on the remaining lots. she is willing to sell the remainder of the property to the city to keep this open space if you so desire. the whole point is to address the neighbors' concerns about the original five-unit project and not to avoid housing requirements as has been alleged by a least one of the speakers. gooif the speaker does not wante property or someone should apply, the application would be subject now to discretionary review at this commission and would be evaluated on its own merits.

in the event in which it should be built on her property, she is willing to pay her fair share of fees on a cumulative basis for the scope of the original 2005 a proposal under the laws and fees applicable today, so that is quite good evidence there have been no attempt to avoid affordable housing as some people have a legend those are fabrications periods -- are fabricated. we request they allow them to wrote stay as proposed. we will both be available for questions. thank you.

>> good evening. i do not know how thoroughly he reviewed the plans. i could spend a lot of time walking through the plans if you would like, but what i would like to say first of all, we have worked extremely diligently, more than any other project i have worked on with neighbors. we have ice huge number of meetings. we got a letter on a eighth of october, 2006. we responded to every issue. we made major revisions. we received another letter in december. we responded to every issue

again i do not need to go over the history. this has been narrowly approved. it has been approved by the planning department's, the environmental review. i want to stress again, some of the things we did over the course of time attempting to negotiate with neighborhood groups, and we inc. and landscaping on the news sidewalk, so now there is going to be a new sidewalk. we rearrange the driveway to get as many parking spots as we could. we revise the entries to satisfy

their concerns. we revised for the neighborhood but also in response to the comments. we revised the rules treatments. we revise the materials not once but three times for the neighborhood. they were not satisfied. i want to stress the fact that 90 feet away is going to be the construction of these houses. i still have 30 seconds. most of the boulevards and avenues of this city are less than an 90 feet. there are some issues, but i am not going to take the time. we have worked so hard to try to

i do not know what else to do. >> members of the commission. i have submitted an" extensive package to you addressing the issues. essentially, some of you have laid out the fact that on the technical issue, the fire department, water pressure is often carefully evaluated by my client. my client happens to have purchased two of the lots with plans and to ensure they would be approved by the department itself and there would be no

outstanding issue. nevertheless, after i became the attorney, i noticed it was supposed to be three separate applications for three separate houses, so i discussed that with mr. bollinger, and we did the environmental review for the three buildings on booster street. i think the concern of the neighbors is really focused mainly on joy street. i think when you look at the facades on booster street, you are looking at a two-story building. it is not a tall building. it has been masked according to the planning code to make sure you do not have this shahzad

that goes four or 5 feet. i think of this commission is concerned about the undeveloped lot, one of the approaches that could be taken is to approve the projects my client has for the stairway and to look at all the rest of it in terms of total development, but at the same time, i think that it has such special character that when any department, the department is going to treat them very differently, that you are not going to be having a cookie cutter buildings before you

know, which is what they are afraid of, so i think there is no reason not to approve this project at this time. pff:tjnñ>> speakers in favor ofe project sponsor? >> the evening -- good evening. i have been working on this since 2006, and some of the issues that have been brought up such as the slope of the site, i have been practicing for over 27 years, and half my projects have this challenge. san francisco is a difficult place to build. if you cannot build on 39%

sloths, i would not have any work in my office. there is nothing unusual about this. we have foundation systems adeqe slope. and more importantly, we should not be discussing the technical aspects of the foundation. this is aside from it. we're going to be faced with a department of building inspection that will be an addendum to the structural drawings. there will be a structural review by competent engineers who have nothing to do with planning. but simply to delay and derail the project. my client, one of the partners on this project literally died waiting for resolution of this

project. what we're talking about here is a single-family dwelling. two stories on burster. it is a sloping site. there are more stories on the back. so what? so is st. germain. i can go on for hours where that happens. why prevent my client to build what is properly designed that needs every -- meets every single guideline of our book that has been approved by planning? why else -- what else we have to do, but the neighbors? we're tired of that. we're tired of begging. thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners. i was -- first became aware of this project when i met mr. colcannon. he explained to me and the other board members have he had recently purchased the sides and as he began to tell the story, i realized he had not been out to visit with the neighbors. and at our urging, he sat down and we engaged in a conversation with mr. bowdon and we began -- we asked for the continuance so we could have a dialogue and understand what was at the core of this issue. at the meetings, we went over the eastern slope massing guidelines. we explained one by one. we showed how the parking had

been revised to maximize street parking. i pointed out that the massing on burster street, burster street is primarily three stories with some four story buildings across from these houses, there is a four story house. at one point in the meeting, we were gathered at the top of the stairs and i invited the group to come down in front of 187 and 191 burster. i asked him, what can mr. colcannon do for you? what can he do to amend your concerns? and there was a long silence. the silence was eventually broken with the stories that explained it was not about 187, 183, or 191. it has to do with the fear and

anxiety of what is going to come on joye street. this led to a conversation where there's this concern that a project or plan will somehow be cut and paste and the exact same things you see will get approved on joye street. our planning process will make fun of it and will kalpoe get it and will market. -- we all hope fun at it and we market. if we establish different patterns, the pattern is very different from the existing block pattern on joye street. i've seen cases where the two identical houses will not even fit on the same block because one-half of the block might have another block pattern than the other half. at some point we have to have faith in our system and our system will insure if anything happens on joye street it will

fit into the existing block pattern. thank you. >> good evening. they fit in to the context of the neighborhood. if this project is going to be built, the have to spend on their own merit. you will decide and planning will decide what will happen there. in the context of that, the tree houses should be approved tonight. as far as the technical issues go, sore and water, many people have spoken to that issue.

and the city will not put up -- they said it is. i would ask you to prove these -- approve these tree houses on burster street. -- burrewster street. >> i am a resident and basically i am surprised that the main issues seem to be with the d.r. requestor. the parents are about the sewer and water. this is -- i am sure we have the experts and engineers that are going to approve all this. the other issue i would have, if you buy property across the

street, you have residential zoning. you are aware of the house you brought -- bought across the street. you have residential zoning and sunday may have a house built across the street. that is how it works. that is basically all i have to say. thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there any other speakers in favor of the project sponsors? if not, d.r. requestor has for miniature bottle -- four minutes rebuttal. >> i want to direct your attention to the photo that is in your -- this is the city planning department site.

this is the block at issue. it is not your typical block. it is vacant. how many do we have that are not developed? that is on holloway's street. the issue is the scale of this project. these are the lots to be built on up here. this is the joy street housing. what you have is a developer and development team, if you want to call that that came out of the box saying we are going to develop all these lots. if you go to the attachment that you have been providedáthis week, the attachment is for a development project. it is a five plot development projects. that is the one that triggered the sewer letter from dpw because they plan on developing it at that site and the dpw letter stated 3107. it is talking about a sewer line capacity on holiday street that

they were planning on doing the connection through developing all these lots. now they're going to develop these three lots here. 9, 10, and 11 and there is no way it is next to the holiday soared line because there -- and there are intervening lots they do not know. -- they do not own. we have a consumer issue they keep saying it as been determined but it has been determined in the context they cannot build because they're not building the proposed sewer line across the back of all these side lots. with regard to housing, on 20th -- the planning department figured out if you did not put a condition on the project as it was going through, the first lot, you could not collect it later on when the housing came in for the fifth lot. it was the fifth unit that triggered it. you do not have language. i asked for language. it puts an obligation that each

of these projects. each of them. it goes to five lots anywhere, they have to pay the housing fee. the meeting they talked about, the neighbors talked about flipping housing and changing the scale. it was not -- is a ridiculous statement -- it is a ridiculous statement they made. you have an extraordinary circumstance on this block. the staff statement that there are none is unbelievable. you have a bare hill. it is and 90 feet across -- those lots can be developed. all the fancy language at this developer does not have any intention to -- owner does not intend to develop is not worth the paper it is written on.

it is not written down anywhere. these lots will be sold. i do not believe anyone is going to sit on real-estate and just say, we're going to let it sit there. it will never be developed. it will be developed, this developer has continued. it has continued to come in with development proposals. we have and inappropriate scale when it is seen from joy street trade to have to look at the difficulty of this site for those of you could do site visits, talk about your site visits and what you saw. if you did not do a site visit, maybe you should come in and do it. this is an incredibly inaccessible site. these proposed houses are extraordinarily gross as there will be seen on joye street. it were supposed to get that language. -- you were supposed to get that

language. >> products sponsors, you have two minutes each. have to minute speech. >> we're going around and around so i will not take up your time. i would like david surber to have a couple of minutes -- sternberg to have a couple of minutes to orient you to the project site. thank you. >> architect for the project. i wanted to show you a few things just to orient you again. depending on how familiar people are. can i blow this up? there we go. ok. i wanted to let you know that

these are the three houses being proposed right now. this right here is going to be a new sidewalk in the public area that is a steep downhill. if you see this dotted line right here, that is the existing retaining wall. this will be filled in so this will be a much more walkable street. this is not now because there is not the sidewalk here. there is a narrow sidewalk here that will stay. we do not know what will happen. landscaping is put in. we have rearranged the driveways as i said before.

these photos show what it looks like on brewster street. this looking on youe street. this is looking -- that was the original, my two minutes are not up yet. >> they are. >> david took the first part of your two minutes. >> ok. that is fine. >> let me very quickly -- these are the three lots right here. the city right of way.

there is an ability for private easement along these three lots. they come down and take it down the public right-of-way and holiday comes up [unintelligible] they can tie to. let me go to the character of the building. this is that building across the street from the project site and the building will be back over here somewhere. t(on this one, you can see that further from the jury street homes, this is a building that is about three stories high and it will be taller than the one

that is being proposed, which is going to be back on in this area. clearly, and i agree with the neighbors that if you look down at joy street, these are much different character buildings. at the same time, when any development that comes up, they're going to be looked at differently to make sure they match. to match the character and as i stated before, if this commission is concerned about that because of the common ownership, you could do for your action on that one which is 183 brewster street. if they need to have a study on that part of it. commissioner antonini: thank you. i think this is a long discussion and much of it seems to hinge on hypothetical future development whereas what is before me that i see is three

different homes, two of which are being built, proposed by 1 sponsor and one by the other. maybe you could answer some questions. we had a talk earlier today about situations whereby if future development were to occur on the other logs, there would be a situation where -- whereby especially if it was the same owner, there would have to be some contribution to the affordable housing. there is a time period you talked about in the same with any further ceqa considerations that might have to be done. >> correct. the separate issues triggering affordable housing. for the affordable housing, as you mentioned, this example -- it was a different example. in that case you have a larger lot that was being subdivided