people in this neighborhood. i believe that taking down 8 hundred and 80 trees is not a good thing. i don't understand why every skier foot of the land in the city has to be developed. it is a really bad, bad project. and you this planning commission has the chance right now to stand behind the neighborhood to support them not the developer. support the neighborhood and say we're behind this unless major changes are accepted by you. i'd like to ask you just is non-no on this once. this is a very, very bad

project. i'm very concerned about it. thank you >> mark, laura and john. >> my name is john i've been a long time resident. i oppose this project. the forest that we use a wonderful and beautiful and the fact that the land and that hillside is so unstable, bolders come down all the time. as they say 24 duplex and 10 units and 10 years per unit is so many cars.

and the traffic up there like they said is going to be impossible i urge you to take into account this. this project is too big and too massive. and the renovations don't show what's going on. thank you. >> come on up. >> my name is laura. i live in the apartments. i look out to the forest. i look out my living room window to the forest. apparently if those apartments are built i'll be looking into

another apartment development. i am on disability. i happen to know there's 12 other families in that particular area. it's very hard for me to think of incurring what goes on to think of the new buildings. it's a very limited area of the woods. i can't imagine how they're going to fit housing and others things in that area. thank you >> thank you, thank you for linking to us. i'm mark you live on crestmont

drive. after hearing all my neighbors i want to echo all that they're saying please, please reconsidering it's a very narrow widening road. at the very least accompany and looking at this. i hope you'll give that some thut. thank you >> any additional public comment. >> thank you. i have been a resident of west of twin peaks i'm have famous with the area. i've been there many times and i visited with the neighbors and have had a couple of occasions in the past few years.

i've walked the sites. it's always struck me as odd there's development on the bottom of fifth avenue and 6 avenue. the other development is on crestmont at the top of the hill and there's nothing in between. there it was never developed because the middle section that was not developed. a little bit of history byu both citywide and pardon me that kind of explains my position on this thing. not unlike the situation after the earthquake we rebuilt san francisco we built a lot of big apartment buildings because this was a growing workforce.

it's appropriate we need the density but i think one of the beautiful things l about san francisco we have divert however, there's another part of this whole story what happened was people were fleeing san francisco to live in oakland, berkeley in resident parks because they didn't want to be so dense and there was no plays for it to be built and san francisco developed like st. france, lakeside village and later forest hill and we speak about forest hills it provided a place for lack of a better term

people in what would be upper-middle class could live in an area that wasn't so dense. now we're building almost no single-family homes in san francisco. and what is happening is people with families what are looking particularly for a new home are forced out of san francisco. if they buy an older home there's in bad shape. or they're forced into homes where the neighborhoods are used for other things other than housing and it's not a pleasant place. i'd like love to see this move forward as proposed by the neighbors with fewer sites. i think we heard from an expert

in housing prices and i think her comments were adequate for this to immunes and not to pencil out to cover the costs you've got to have a number of homes. you're not going to sell those homes more modern $1.8 million. so i think that there's an upper limit to the price range that these are sellable. so it's important that we build this. we have a few opportunities to billed those on the upper side. we have to do this in a way for

families they want enough parking and as a matter of personal history we moved to the west side in 1996 but the two most important things is the front door we didn't have to go into oath problems to get into the house. kids are not in the backyard very long. and this project all of these are single-family homes. even the ones that are together in the building with parking below them the dlupz are two units but their actively individualized. you have your own entry.

so the question of the traffic there are a few things i think we have to realize. there's some existing continues i understand oftentimes people are not able to park in their own drive ways. each did you want maybe has a car and those spill over into the streets but those aren't the problem of the developers, however, i think the neighborhood should do what they have to do. to make sure that the existing,

you know, houses have enough parking and it's somewhat enforced to try to minimum 34iz parking. you've got to park on the street but parking on the street makes it unsafe. a few others things the speed bumps. i don't want accidents. i'd rather see speed bumps and mirrors. trimming away some of the trees on the forest side that makes it a little more vision there and it's been brought up that some

people say repaving the roads making the streets wired. the widening of the existing road would be a pretty expensive endeavor. there might be some cooperate venture. maybe we could have a retaining wall and the benefits not all of you but the existing homes and residents are having problems with their - chief and joanne says the street seems to be wide enough and the street that is being provided for 20 feet is wide enough and there's a plays to turn emergency vengeance around. i think we need to do our parting to use some i thought

existing space to provide housing that's appropriate for families in other areas crestline i drive along most everyday. i see a lot of lots that could be used. this is one that's been approved many years ago. i like the idea of the decks that don't look like their stuck on the side of buildings. you may have a more stable hillside when the midsection is shored up and, of course, there's going to be slides now i would put in structures that

would stabilize the hill. i don't know about liability bonds, insurance for 10 years maybe staff could comment on whether these are d bye b i issues. there may be a need for that i maybe have some questions in a second along with those. i very much encourage the city may be trying to work with some of the properties on warren drive to allow pedestrian assess through there. maybe it's a matter of money or who knows what but a stairway would be good so people can walk

down that hill and get to work, you know, it would be a harder climb coming home at night. if you get a little sweaty it's not as bad at the end of the day. i do have a couple of questions though maybe someone from staff can answer. the virus you bonding they were suggesting can anybody answer that. what is appropriate? >> they can't? that's not within our jurisdiction? i mean - i know there's some things by somebody brought up insurance for one year what is standard? >> commissioner that's not

usually the planning commissi commissions. >> i think it's out of our jurisdiction but i think we should ask the questions what is customary and what is required to insure the public of whatever's necessary under the law - you. >> the project inspector wants to address. >> thank you i'm on behalf of the project sponsor. the project site is within a special d b i protection area. additional requirements supervisor ellisburg said it covers about a half square mile

area. in addition to what's already in the d i r it has about 50 pages. we'll confident this project will be developed with professional engineers. that's number one and second traditionally the owner will require the contractor to produce the responsibility for making sure that the building is built as designed under the structural design and bonds issue. and thank you thank you very much. and, you know, last night in the discussion i can talk to project sponsor about some of those other things many of which have been brought up.

and thank you >> public comments closed sir. >> you're out of order at this time. >> thank you. >> yeah. i will take to the project sponsor and some of the other things he's offered to the neighborhood so the rest of the commission sees fit. >> thank you commissioner moore. i'd like to ask the project sponsor this is architect his traffic consultant to shed aren't more light on the technical issues that have drifted toward the other issues.

i'd like to hear from the traffic engineer a response to the length of cal did he sack just to repeat it because at least this is brought up by 20 a to thirty people in the room. from a general chapter to what the cities asking you to do we need to look at proper housing to recap of what was quoted to have 20 percent of the land san francisco supports 80 percent of development that's a scarey that number when the projects far outnumber the land and the density for which we all want to

live i'm putting the emphasis on all. i'd like the technical questions to be answered so the rest of the people thinking that things are not working well will be put at rest. >> members commission. i'm with the consulting copy. i want to specify to the planning development i help to prepare the error. i can answer questions as to the part of that work. and you had a question about the width of the project >> i'd like to ask you about assess and sufficient road

capacity to support the number of cars and the reasonableness of the traffic that comes down and goes to the area. >> regarding the traffic capacity there was a traffic analysis that was conducted and that was done assuming that a typical allocation will be 37 additional vehicles traveling that road during the peek hour. i'm assuming that nobody will traffic by transit and you'll have to drive to and from the side that will add 50 vehicles. that supports the analysis. we conducted a analysis far the various i locates and we found

out that the additional project as originally conceived although there will be additional traffic we have done a measure of traffic and there will not be a delay. but the level of service will not change. as it's been pointed out it will be 20 feet and there's parking on both sides. at this point it leaves about fourteen or 16 feet depending upon where to burger to go through that's a typical situation that can be found in other cities and or in the neighborhoods across the field. it is true that vehicles have to

yield as one t is approaching another one in some cases what we call the east side of the road parking has been prohibited to improve safety. so that's, you know, in a naught shell of what i can say >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> so somebody please speak will be the soil and hillside ability. >> commissioners we did know as part of the eir i think you've seen our stick document and just to recap happened we hired a soil engineer who hired a geologist. they accident the study of

lowering the geologist into the hole and there's 5 different strauts of rock and when the hillside slides it's the water getting between the rock. when the land gets saturated the whole section will slide and that's what causes the slide. hence the recommendation to get as much water off the hillside as quickly as possible we're going to take a trough on the backside of the road get that down into the sewer. that is the primary remedies.

i think everything you've heard about the slides istry and i think everybody knows as steve said we have enacted legislation to make us go through this research and more on the design to make sure this doesn't happen and so it's not only our engineers and our soil engineers the city is going to hire any outside people. we hope our situation will help the situation from the hillside. >> i have you standing there can you please tell us one more time because you're putting all

cars that are stipend to those garage of the 34 cars there is no parking on the side of the road could you reaffirm - >> the fire department asked us to provide 4 feet of the sidewalk so nobody has to walk while any vehicles are on the street. and to clarify things the state has upped it's weight requirement in the last 20 years prior to this required street it was less than fourteen feet and now it's up to 20. it's an older development that

needs it's parking and that's what happened. >> i appreciate you just specializing that out one more time. >> commissioner. >> thank you for folks who came out to comment. i visited the site and claefrl it will have an impact on the neighborhood there will be more traffic especially during construction. we take a broader view we wouldn't approve any project that has such an impact on the neighborhood. i think the density is appropriate. i do have questions. i think what is important is the

traffic there are definitely a lot of cars parked on both sides of the street can i ask the developer or the walkway down to fifth avenue i mean, obviously, that would awe legality the trip - what's the status of that >> can you tipper - turn on the overhead. the issue is where this touches the apartment it doesn't above fifth avenue so hence gary and adam have been windbreaker the

owners of the kirkland height we're having to go through their property. i'm going to >> i'm going to ask adam to address that. >> good morning commissioners i'm the project manager. i have been working and discussing with the property owner of the kirkland heights about the possibility of creating an easement or some type of assess arrangement to doing to fifth avenue. obviously, there are a private landowner and we need their approval to assess their property. negotiations have been ongoing weigh haven't been able to reach an agreement. but