plan obviously gives us dimensional ideas. however, what this thing will look like on the outside is unclear to me. the reason why i'm asking that question is that several months ago we approved a project and when it was built the community came to us and said that they were very, very disturbed about what they thought we approved and what they got was completely different. that speak to the height of the sign, the location of the sign and a little bit concerned that the current glazing is more like the opaque, looks like your sunglasses type glazing. i had hoped that there would be more disclosure relative to transparent glass, some understanding of a friendly face to the neighbors. signage which does not overwhelm an 11 foot 6 facade and on and on and on. so, i think i need a little bit more information to be supportive of this project.

i am understanding of the difficulties of seven years of an empty space. however, what i am approving here does not have the type of disclosure i'm looking for. >> commissioner, it's my understanding they don't plan to make many changes to the store front. but i would let the sponsor, people at the bank speak to that. >> would you please explain to us what your thoughts are? yes, i'm planning on basically keeping the facade the same. i'm cleaning up the store front. and the sign is going to be a lot smaller sign than what's there now. if you wanted to put in your motion -- put your concerns in the motion, i wouldn't have a problem with that. i'm basically going to be cleaning up the front of that building. >> what are your thoughts about the glazing? is it tinted glazing in >> what do you mean by tinted glazing in >> it has like a brownish tone versus a more clear transparent glazing. [inaudible].

>> anybody does. >> [speaker not understood]. i've been sitting here too lock. we can change the glazing. * i think while we try not to [speaker not understood] we try to avoid doing any preservation, historical study. this building what built a long time ago and there is a chance we might need to do historical [speaker not understood] if you change the store front. we're not certain about we have to do it or not, but we decided to keep the store front -- keep the existing aluminum frame. but if the commission feels like we need to change to clear glass, we're happy to do it.

the signage we've got is going to be under sign permit. it will meet the planning code [speaker not understood]. >> i'm not sure if we're stretching it here. i would be very interested in upgrading glazing and overall store appearance. do we indeed glad [speaker not understood] fresh life out of building that has been sitting vacant seven years, a different type of glazing, a more contemporary or type of framing would probably appreciate. i do not want to add any [speaker not understood]. but the upgrading of the space which i normally would have problems with given the assessment of the department, would have to really come forward in the very positive way in order to be supportable for me. so, if that is acceptable, then i would like to make a -- or add to the motion, i think i see commissioner antonini supporting me on that, that the facade would be brought up to a more kind of improved

contemporary appearance with transparent or glazing and the signage which obviously falls within the rules of the department recommends for this area. >> commissioner, if i may, the staff has prepared a motion of disapproval. so, you need to take a motion of intent to approve and then continue this item to two weeks from now or -- >> we need time to prepare the motion. >> right. >> what are the specifics of what we are basically given that direction. >> depending upon how quickly staff can put that together, you should continue that out to december 13th or even to january, potentially put it on consent. >> okay. >> so, i would modify my motion to make it intent to approve. i would continue to december 13th and i would also add the recommendations of commissioner moore to, you know, the clear

glazing and try to -- without changing any facade severely that it would trigger the historic but perhaps the framing could be changed from aluminum, which i doubt is historical to something that might be a little nicer appearance. that would be the motion. >> second. >> i just wanted to make one clarification. excuse me, commission. if the planner would be able to work with that date of december 13th. >> that would be -- the motion would need to come to you next week. >> that way you can work on it. >> is that doable? >> it will be tight. it would be tight. my supervisor has to review it and come to you. they're going to want -- we'll want them to give us a facade drawing. >> we have two meetings left this year. i believe the second one is the 13th and the next available

meeting would be january 10th. >> if the sponsor is okay, i would just as soon do it in january. >> i guess if it's going to be a hardship, i'd get it done sooner than later. if it isn't ready by the 10th or the december 13th, we could always continue it. >> that is certainly an option. >> >> let's try to go for the 13th. if it doesn't work, we'll continue it. * >> all right, commissioners. on that motion of intent to approve and a continuance to december 13th, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden in >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. excuse me, 6 to 0. commissioners, that will place you on item -- >> can i have a request?

our person is on our way back. is it possible to change with item 20 and be made last? if you want us to present we will, but we just [speaker not understood]. >> i have to keep things rolling if you don't mind. keep it in the order they're on the agenda. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. item 19, 2012.0859d, 70 crestline drive, request for staff initiated discretionary review. >> good evening, commission president fong, members of the planning commission.

department staff tom lam presenting a initial discretionary review on the property 70 crestline drive. the proposal is to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. and currently the subject lot contains a five-story over garage, 14-unit building. and [speaker not understood] subdivision, one southerly lot will contain the existing 14 unit building and the new vacant northerly lot will be [speaker not understood]. and then there is a five-story over garage four-unit new building is proposed on that [speaker not understood] vacant lot. as we reviewed, the application and the circumstantial evidence is the department does not support this application and it

recommends to disapprove. the reason s are as follows. this is a small neighborhood existing within [speaker not understood] neighborhood. * it's a unique neighborhood and the reasons that it was developed around 1965 and contains a significant number of multi-unit residential buildings. and the one unit [speaker not understood] develop a number of lots containing a residential building, a remainder of the lot is maintains as a open space. and during a site visit [speaker not understood] identified there were five lots on the subject block and a number of other lots on the

adjacent block they are developed in this way. this application, basically it was not -- it is not consistent with the purpose of the planning code in that it will not preserve and protect the [speaker not understood] vista san francisco very many. it will not be a beneficial infill project in the san francisco development. [speaker not understood] and congestion of population in the san francisco development. if the project were approved, it would result in an inappropriate precedent or expectation for similar infill projects elsewhere in the vista francisco development. the current project is a similar to an earlier project submitted in december 1998

under a minimum lot frontage variance application, case no. 198.999 d. the owner of the subject property subsequently withdrew the 1998 variance application because there was strong opposition and the realization that the zoning administrator intended to deny the variance application. and the owner [speaker not understood] since 1998. * from the current application, not to mention the previous application received numerous opposition from the neighborhood, from the residents in the subject building and from the surrounding residential buildings. and today we receive more than 40 letters and/or e-mails opposed, in opposition to this application. and also the staff visit

reveals that the circumstances surrounding the subject property in this neighborhood do not appear to have changed since a similar proposal was submitted in 1998. and they subsequently relinquished by the same subject property owner. this concludes the staff presentation. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. put it on the bench, the rail there. thank you.

is the image on the screen? how do we do that? >> i'll do that. go ahead, start talking. good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect for this project. this is our proposal for 70 crestline. one thing i want to clarify is that i was hired to design this project from scratch in 2007. this project is not the 1998 submittal that was withdrawn, and i have no relationship to that project whatsoever. can you hear me from here? our site is at the base of twin

peaks. it is unique in the sense that it's adjacent to vista lane shown in red. this is a right-of-way which [speaker not understood] allows the public to come up through the neighborhood and to the base of the twin peaks natural area. our proposed project is a four-family infill, a small development that is [speaker not understood] to the fabric of the existing neighborhood. and it will be framing the vista lane steps in a similar manner as the other buildings down here from vista lane.

the steps [speaker not understood] and the setbacks match the existing buildings as you can see in this model. and there is a side yard separating our building from the neighbors. so, there is no interference with light, air, or privacy for the neighbors. also space for the steps is 19 feet wide which is practically similar to the other spaces that cover the stairs through the neighborhood. this is our building is seen from [speaker not understood] drive. it is among the existing buildings and these are the steps going up the hill. this project follows all the design guidelines, residential design guidelines for the

planning. it doesn't require any variance. and actually, we worked for four years with staff, collaborating to fine tune this project until we were informed that actually it was not appropriate for the site. this is how the building is seen from the above crestline. as you see, it has no interference whatsoever with public views from the hill, and it's a very minor intervention within the you areurban [speaker not understood] formed by existing neighboring buildings. so, the entrance to three of the four units is directly from the steps. so, our presentation was to open up as much as allows the

facade overlooking the steps. and, so, the idea is that with generous openings in the building, especially with terraces -- sorry, accessible terraces would allow the contact [speaker not understood] safety, [speaker not understood] contact between the public and the building. this is how the space is now. as you can see, the steps are not very well maintained. this is the open space and this triangle here -- i'll finish in one minute. this triangle here is our site, is covered by brush, by nonnative plants. it is not accessible, not usable space. this is our vision for the

[speaker not understood] steps going through. what we are offering is a family [speaker not understood] and open space that is safe, that is landscaped, and that [speaker not understood] the architecture. and is going to be maintained in perpetuity by the owner. we all have been joined by the office of [speaker not understood] fletcher, a landscaped architect -- >> thank you. they are going to explain the strategy for landscaping next. thank you very much. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. [speaker not understood] from fletcher studio landscape architecture. there is another exhibit on the screen. in the plan we foresee planting

a verdent fern growth [speaker not understood]. additionally, the the slope below will be planted with perennial shrubs and contribute to the existing of the habitat locations for the blue butterfly and habitation for [speaker not understood] spawning and mature growth in that spot. the wrote et has the potential to enhance the connectivity of the neighborhood in the city, twin peakses, adding additional lighting, safety erosion control to the hillside. * peaks. thank you. >> thank you. okay. opening it up for public

comment, i have some speaker cards. don vermin. okay. patricia -- that might be you. brian brown berger. and frank [speaker not understood]. good evening. i'm patricia [speaker not understood]. i live at 70 crestline drive. i'd like to share with you some pictures. actually these are ones that were produced in 1998 and i'm pleased to say that they're so much better [speaker not understood] to generate the open space. so, can this be switched on? oh, here we go, okay. i can manipulate them.

they're not very good, but nevertheless what you can see in the area here -- >> you might want to speak into the microphone there. i'm sorry, i can do both of those. that's the space we're talking about where there are the steps where you can see the figure. and to the right would be the place for the new building, which i might add is a very lovely one. and it takes up that amount of space. so, if you look at the bottom picture there, a little closer, i think you'll see it will take up quite a considerable amount of space right to the edge of the public stairway whether maintained well or not is an issue between us and the city. it is an important place for people to use. i'll show it to you in this fashion, [speaker not understood]. there it is, that's what it

would look like. actually it's been de nuded recently. it's open brush habitat. it's a public stairway and it contributes [speaker not understood]. * and it's connected with a whole series of other stairways or what goes way down the hillside. what you can see in the left there is actually the building itself that is being -- next to it, adjacent to the building. here we are at the top of the stair, the top of the stairs. that's the view up there. and here's the side of the building. and i think you can see here these are the -- these would be windows and there's even other windows lower down that actually are indeed blocked by this new -- very beautiful

edifice blocked. i guess that's it. i don't have any more time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hi, my name is brian brown berger and i live on park ridge drive which is right below crestline for over 21 years. and i want to share briefly an experience i had two months ago. i jog in the morning and as i was coming up the smaller set of bottom stairs leading to the bigger upper stairs, when coming from the under brush of this contested lot, i saw a coyote. i've seen racoons, pos onlies and yes, skunks, but this was the first time i had ever seen a coyote less than 50 fetus from me. we stared at each other out of shock or astonishment. i knew it was a coyote.

a woman had photographed a coyote at twin peaks. she had an art show at the presidio and i went and saw those remarkable pictures. of course, this is a minor miracle that there would be any coyotes still able to sub survive in san francisco today. just as i was standing there in total awe and amazement, two tourists, i believe a couple speaking german, were starting to come down the stairs from the top and noticed the coyote and stopped dead in their tracks and they gripped each other's arms when they realized what they were seeing and there were tears in their ayes. all four of us, including the coyote just stood there in a silence i can only describe as sacred or spiritual. i am an ordained roman catholic deacon, and i know a holy moment when i experience it. and then the coyote vanished back in the thicket on that contested land. i would say this wondrous incident crystallizes the

vision of the developers [speaker not understood]. they have a very small piece of open land where human beings and nature can encounter each other and we're reminded there is something bigger than ourselves. it is so precious and rare because it speaks to our better nature and our higher ideals. every single open space however small has been developed on corbett and burnett. this in san francisco is the one remaining track where that quiet tranquility which nurtures our souls is still possible in this bustling and noisy city. i take the corbett bus which is increasingly becoming like a tourist bus because so many foreign visitors arrive to climb the stairs to the top of twin peaks to witness that gorgeous panoramic view of san francisco and the entire bay area. many of them walk down the stairs on their way back to catch the 37 corbett at the bottom of park ridge and their last glimpse of the beauty revealed to them was the once

pretty brush and wild plants and shrubbery cover on this contestedth land. about a month and a half ago, all thes are berry vines and lovely bushes and trees were brutally removed by the owner of 70 crestline. all that remains is dirt and debris. i don't know whether it will show up. * but anyway, for the long hard rainy season predicted this could potentially cause a mud slide. >> sir, your three minutes are up. i hope you will reject this proposal. thank you. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. [speaker not understood] here to speak on behalf of this project. one thing that i really wanted to do tonight with my time was emphasize that this is not the same project that was submitted in 1998. that project was withdrawn. you can see that on the

overhead here. this is most definitely not that project. the project team, having faced difficulty with this design, they failed to choose approval for their variance. they scrapped it and came back with a new design. you are seeing that design tonight. everyone has talked about it. but i just want to remind you that this is not the same project. the project architect worked very closely with planning staff over the course of four years to come up with the design that is before you today. this is in my opinion a good design. it does not require a variance. it is an excellent example of well design infill which we desperately need in san francisco. after four years of design

work, the team was informed that this project was not compatible with the site because of the open space that it provided. however, the open space is not part of the original design of the 1965 vista francisco development. we have done the title search. there are no srs on this property. we searched all the records. no open space was established as a condition of approval for the original construction in 1965. we believe that this project is a good infill project. it is well designed. the design team worked closely with planning staff to come up with this project. and we urge you to approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. additional public comment, tim colin and todd david.

good evening, commissioners. tim colin on behalf of the housing action coalition. and i should say that i believe the project sponsors came to us in july and presented a project. this is sort of one of the surprises. we don't normally get involved in projects like this. we generally have a threshold of 10 units or greater. but they asked to present to us and we agreed to review it. and on behalf of the members of the endorsement committee, they liked the project. they liked it an awful lot. felt that it's exactly what you heard, it's good urban infill. it's good use of scarce land in san francisco. and, in fact, felt that this is a good looking design. and putting this development at this location to our members was a higher use of the land than preserving a