weekend and he describes the conditions to me on kal street. they were approximating what was be happening. this is an older man he's very tall and you may recall the little woman who said that she was trying to go to her door and she said she donald them when they tried to burn her with their cigarettes. this is the condition that our neighborhood which was, you know, a residential neighborhood and a proud neighborhood has been brought by negotiating

groups that you to. on polk street friends i read the section on how it was so much worse the bars cleaned it up. the neighborhood clean up came on the backs of those people. this is the kind of person that's listed as a resident of polk neighbors. you know, you're hearing this about the coalition. this list of membership was pushed judge? because we were eliminating me. they were changing the by laws to eliminate me. why? because i testify that

about the bars at the planning commission. and after several times when this change was read over and over by the city employees it's a police code violation. i can be arrested for this. but almost all the resident are given because they were forced out by threats and intimidation in the press and yet those are the group that you say is - our neighborhood is wrecked >> any additional public comment? >> sue i'm asking the commission to request a hearing

on a couple of hearing. one is a presentation of how where you're going to process with the dates where we have to read those in the paper. it's a planning commission issue. second saturdays paper the sequesterer. in the sequesterer list which is the list of impacts of san francisco was the removal of chunks not all but a chunk of the central quarter what is going to happen to the funding for the sequesterer for the city? i think it's a matter of planning commission interests >> if the sequesterer changes the funding for the central quarter it's going to impact south of marketing and maybe

people on south beach. the sea level rise i think you deserve to have a presentation from someone who was expert in the area not a cheerleader in the sea level rising area. and if there is, in fact, a plan support by mayor's office and enthu enthusely sponsored by the mayor's office to eliminate a chunk of you 80 it's a land use issue. so this is your opportunity to ask for hearing. i can't ask for hearing and i'm pleading with you get the information on what the sequesterer monies are going to do to the city. we shouldn't have to read it in the paper. thank you >> is there any additional

public comment 1, 2, 3, 4. >> okay seeing none public comment is closed. >> commissioners that will place you under the regular calendar 11 and 12 have been continued you're on the next session. san francisco overlook the developmental. please notes the public commit for the draft is close it end on june 19th. the public does not conduct the final hearing and they've been presented to you already on the general calendar >> good morning. i'm lisa planning department staff. the item before you is the vial impact report for the project. a draft of the certification

motion is before you. the definite was pushed on may second 2012. it closed on june 19, 2012. subsequently to the public comments document we noticed a minor area we would like to correct for the record. i have copies for the public as well on page 128 there's a footnote number 6 is erroneously struck through. in fact, it should have been shown that we're adding it as imply text instead of eir.

and there's another error with the footnote so, please restore them in those two locations. having address the - the error found it the implementation of the project wouldn't result in any significant environmental impact that couldn't be mitigated therefore the commission would not need to adopt a statement pursuant to the california quality act should the commission choose to approve the project. we would like to have the consents of the report show they are adequate. and we want this to show it's

okay. >> thank you. commissioners? >> i move to certify the error. >> second. >> commissioner anton i. i had h a question for staff it's not part of the document i just want to note even after certification we should realize that make sure the waterlines that come into the area that are going to service the new development are in adequate shape on the heels of the problem that the waterline think 15 avenue certainly that needs

to be looked at. i suggest that as we move forward whether the prong is approved or not approved it's important to all parts of the city we look at the major adequacy. i know you talked about a drainage it's eastbound predicted on waterfall by not on sewage lines that may rupture. but certainly with reference to that neighborhood and yeah. i think my motion should include the awe rot sheet >> is that acceptable?

>> commissioners on that motion to certify? and that motion passes unanimously. it places i under the next case c e and v request for additional vangs. good afternoon mime with the planning staff. i have the offer look project. the project is seeking pursuant to planning code for the planned unit development on two vacant lots that also had a several

units and a new paved private street for access. a total of 13 buildings will be constructed on the site including 24 units. they will be up to 25 and 80 square feet. the proposed buildings would measure between 16 to 40 feet in height above the new street are the requested proposals will amended from 1963 that was amended in 1976. the project requires a variance from the landscaping permits as well as p u d expectations for

rear yards and a c you for off street parking. the property is located within r dwelling street. the project would provide only 34 dwelling units that is below the zoning district and consistent with the 1976 p u d that left units unconstructed. the department received several letters in opposition to the project from the residents in the neighborhood. this is located at the end of crestmont drive.

the destable shin of the street pedestrian safety and construction impacts to the two existing residents. a letter of opposition was received from the preservation coalition. so the department is relating approval of the project with conditions. we feel that the thai family size units about be beneficial. the r m-1 is less dense above and below the site. we have the owners to make sure the highly side it stable.

it would provide more than parking spaces that are needed their providing two to get for the larger unit sizes. and lastly the p u d proposed number of units is much less than that would be permitted in the r m-1 district. i'm available for any questions and comments >> project sponsor please. >> i'm the project sponsor and owner and i'll be doing a few comments and i'll be asking my

staff to speak to you. that will be bringing thai beautiful homes to the city. in today's climate with this is a project it is friendly and we can all embrace. the development history of the lot extends back to other several joining loss. under that theoretician is 126 unities were built. there this thoogs an additional 23 units were built.

in 2003 a thai unit project was proposed for our lot by the previous owner. and the 1976 previous project is now updated in 2004 and environmental use applications were filed in the project began were when i purchased the project i thoorsz the over all project similar to what had been proposed previously. we felt it was consistent with the holmes in the area. since 2010 my team has been working with the city on finalizing our plagues and i'm pleas to be in front of the you all today. i'd like to tell you that when i

bought this property i reviewed the records and i noticed there hadn't been enough community outreach and interaction with the neighborhood. i focused on working with our local neighborhoods and also made it a priority to extend our reach throughout the west side of san francisco. we're we are going to educate people about fire protection and community spaces but to actively solicit feedback. we've had the benefit of

feedback from our many workshops and presentations to the neighborhood organizations and also one-on-one small group meeting. plus we've been able to reach a significant larger audience. we've made changes to our proposal and we added a supports court and a request for more parking. which we went ahead and are requesting two to 1 parking 68. i grew with the neighborhoods and it's skater of public transportation i hope you'll support this request.

we found people who like family sized homes are welcome in this area. we would like the endorsements to win over a lot of people's support. there is opposition to any feasible development and the fact is when i bought this property we knew that was the case and we've made every effort to reach out. we've approached the neighborhoods with the suggestion as a larger part of the agreement we want to provide pedestrian street lighting and

also traffic coming issues like installing mirrors to help benefit everyone in the immediate neighborhood. we've had two separate meetings but today we've had no interest in some collaboration but i remain open. such perception of all the neighbors that we have spoken to privately that have expressed their opinion and there are a number of unfounded resumes about our project wild to dispel. first, as your heard we're a

high density project we have low density location we're only proposing 34 units all within a similar size of the neighborhoods. we will destabilizelize the hillside, in fact, it will increase the stable it. we'll provided a satisfactory environment. we've heard that it will provide traffic problems. we've heard that san francisco may create emergency assess problems fire assess and safety will be improved and improved emergency vehicle turn around.

that san francisco fire department has reviewed our project on multiple coordinations and have found everything to be within standards and another comment is that crestline drive is the longest cul de sac but we're able to identify upper terrace is on a interesting equivalent it's longer and it has more than doubled what crestline has in addition to my project. so the implementation that a project such as otherwise within a cul-de-sac is not true. i'd like to say one more thing.

we made the decision to pay the fees to allow the housing department so more adequate use those funds to make more effective and efficient use of those funds. i thank you. i'd like my architect to join me >> commissioners. can i have the overhead? commissioner my name is a toby and i've had the privilege of working on this project for 10 years. i felt that in the 10 years and

change of oirp we've been able to embrace the necessary changes and make a good contribution to the neighborhood in this project. as everybody has mentioned this is an r m zoning. we've color code the environment development around us are that the red is the units. the green are 3 to 9 units and the blue is single-family. and what you will notice is the proposed that are adjacent to us is the sunset towers or the cortland heights agreements there's a lot of high density units where we're not going to

embrace those but the hive development on cresting land drives and that's the single-family houses on the street. and to that effect what we did was develop this site plan. the site plan has 24 unities in two - 12 duplex units above our joint garage. it doesn't call for any on street parking but we're developing the street with walk ability and a site on the private property next door. it's individual units that have been separate by corridors and here's the fire truck turn around at the end. we can work better as you can

see here are very challenges. down here you can see typical - we are one floor above grade to be the four story building over here. you can see from the contours we're well above the neighborhoods above us and not be blocking their views at this time. the design considerations were many. we want to design a project that can be viewed from the street but actively from the longer view of the city. so we have the idea that we have two sides to the project the side that faces north to the ocean was conceived to be dark a

than the pines in the site. you can see from this eir drawing that our project is actively right over here and barely visible. likewise with the idea that what is your facing north we're going to use sun catchers. and we'll add to the distinguish of scale to the unions. a closer visit from the city's side is actively provided in the eir. so you can see that the modulation changes the color again breaking detain it scale to be - additional we've incorporated decks so they don't

do the sort of stuck on the bacon the house's above us. we've provided space between the units and you can look at the 5 foot slot between the i take it. our street an on the other hand, designed with light colors so you can any other time misses the site. i'll quibble go through the green criteria that we've embraced. we're using green roofs to capture the water in order - if you've read the eir and owe l theeological it will slow the water before it gets down to the city sueers.

we will have sun shades as well as sky also and solar to modulate the light. this is a view of the project all assembled. this is a view of the street where will use decorative pavement to make it more - lately on our fire truck turn around we're proposing a sports court with a basketball hoop that will