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 and the subdivision itself was part of the overall project. this is a situation where we had existing lots of record that were bought by the same ownership. but may be developed in different ways over time. generally speaking in a situation like this, when it comes to affordable housing, the same ownership, the rule of thumb is 10 years. but again, there is no exact criteria. especially when we're not talking about one development lot, some are not real streets. there are other criteria to look at.

regarding ceqa, it depends on how the bloc is developed in the future. and when. if these homes are approved and are constructed, once they are constructed, they are part of the environment at that time and any new proposal after that will undergo its own review and those homes will be considered part of the existing environment. if they are not constructed yet and there are proposed -- proposals for new development depending on how large the development is and what type, it could trigger a larger review for a larger portion of the block or the entire block. there are different types of scenarios, it is hard to get at everyone. this is a high-profile area. this has been going on for some time. i feel like the affordable housing and the ceqa issue is going to be something that will -- we will keep our eye on in terms of how the bloc is

developed. >> that explains a lot of the questions and concerns. you have heard what the guidelines are and also the ceqa thing depends upon what is existing at the time. the next single house, two houses, six houses, it is hard to say how many might come and the larger the project, the more environmental oversight may be necessary. it could be that they could be all -- done and that impact was deemed to be less. there was some talk about these massive houses. 22 -- 2200 square feet is not massive. having seen the site, if they stepped down the hill as houses have to, you have two floors and the rest of them go down the hill. if you make them any less square-foot it she will not have anything to work with. you have frontage is on two of them.

it is 18-8 on the other. you only have so much lot to work on as the lots are divided. you have to have enough different steps down that hill to make it to a reasonable size home. the other thing that is good about these is they aren't new three-bedroom homes, i believe. that is something we're not building enough of in san francisco and for families who want new housing, who do not want to put money into an already expensive home and remodel it to fit their family's needs, this is a very saw after and important thing we should try to do wherever we have available siting. it is appropriate that it is. the other thing that has been pointed out is there is a separation of 90 feet between this last of these houses. the closest one to joye. other houses could be built

there someday. now the impact is fairly minimal. 90 feet is a pretty good-sized separation in san francisco today. the other issue about fire slopes, the sewers, and footing, these are issues that are the province of the fire marshal and others who would have to come in and make sure this is in conformity. it is not our place in the permitting process to evaluate those things. they conform to the bernal heights sud as well as the eastern slope. the parking goes by square footage. when you have 2000 square feet you have to have to car parking which is with the half. and all these other things that are parts of this which are more

restrictive than any other place in the city they conform to. i do not see any reason, anything unusual or extraordinary. in this i hope. developers can work with staff on design, particularly the part that faces brewster straight and try to make it contextual with the homes which are nice looking homes and were built in the last 10 or 15 years. you know the exact date probably. done. commissioner sugaya: i have a quick initial question. there is a map that was submitted by ms. barkley that shows various lots around the construction area proposed project. dates that are noted as construction dates.

the one on -- the ones on brewster are indicated on her mouth as being built sometime since 2000. >> the ones across the street? i'm not sure the exact date. the last 1015 -- 10 to 15 years. >> joy street itself, she has three lots in green which are from the 1990's. >> that particular document was developed by the neighbors. to show what had been developed in the last 10 years and i put that up to show it. that is their product. commissioner sugaya: thank you. if i have a question i will get

to it in a second. if you look at the ones in green since 1990, if you look at google street view, those buildings are three or four stories tall. i am getting the argument that the ones that we're supposed to be considering taking are too tall and too big. and yet these structures are not that much smaller than the ones being proposed, at least in the view i am looking at which is in the backyard area. that is an observation. i may have some questions later. commissioner moore: i believe technically all questions that come with steep hillsides in san francisco were answered, much more detailed than we normally

ask for. what i observed since this project has met so much opposition for so many years,é would be one building or three buildings or 2 1/2, it would still be the same questions and i understand when you live in an area where you have an open hill, it is difficult to imagine a could be developed. technical questions would arise. i believe this city takes extraordinary care especially when it comes to fire prevention to areas of hillsides that are less than desirable to build on which i'm sure you have encountered. we have people who have done this kind of work who are specializing in building in this situation and there would be foolish to come here and say you can build when you cannot. it would not be in the interest

of their own practice to say something which does not work. i find the differentiation of three buildings being designed together in this site very interesting and i think it's dresses for me to the subtleties to create a new context which i think is responsive to th that e already there. there are more or less connected but have already. this makes them more intriguing to me. i think there respond to this circumstance and they respond to this circumstance that neighbors who currently do not have a straight -- there will find parking on the street. parking is not a birthright. if you find a street where somebody accommodates through their design there would be parking space, i have found that very sensitive to the context and i think accommodating. it is clear this building has made every effort to, while they

have provided their own parking, they are sensitive to the fact that street parking is available for those who do not have it and live in the circumstance where if you have to rely on having it in walking distance. i am supportive of the design. bé future, i do not know. i wish the city could afford to buy this but that goes beyond the purview of this commission. i am in support to approve and will make a motion to approve. >> second. >> a couple of comments. ♪:÷ç architect designing three buildings next to each other, variations on a theme, if i can put it that way. this is something that is

traditional in san francisco. you find it in the late 1800's through the mission district. and other areas of san francisco. you find at -- it's in the western part, you find it all over. this is very common. there are whole blocks, let alone three buildings together. the other thing, there was a comment made somewhat derogatory about spec homes. they are billed for project -- profit not to be occupied by individuals. i have no idea who would. i bought my own with my wife 37, 38 years ago from an architect, and 1870's house that we did that house for modern habitation on spec. half of san francisco's

individual homes at least have been built on spec. there is nothing wrong with it. compared to the number of individuals who start from scratch on their own homes, most of them and coming to fruition on spec. i really dislike the inference there is something wrong with that. that is decent business and it is part of the architect and the developer's right to do this. commissioner sugaya: i was going to add that. i was going to say that. probably most of the sunset, for example, was built by developers and subsequently

bought. commissioner moore: that holds four russian hill, telegraph hill. -- for russian hill and telegraph hill. in this steep hillside, technically, it is far superior. one building which has structural and other components which make it an easier thing to build and maintain. >> the motion on the floor is for all three buildings, 183, 187, and 193 brewster. commissioner sugaya, aye.

the motion passes unanimously. you are now at general public comment. president miguel: is there public comment? public comment is closed. this hearing is finished.

>> good afternoon. now like to call the january 24 meeting of the public utilities commission to order. secretary, would you call the roll? [calling roll] i expect vice-president torres to be joining us shortly. >> we will go into closed session at the beginning of the meeting. any public comment on the items listed in closed session? he none, can have a motion?

>> so move. a-- seeing none, can i have a motion? >> conference of legal counsel anticipated litigation is council of bill legal counselor. conference with legal counsel existing litigation as defend iant fontana v city and county f san francisco. government code se >> we are now live. [inaudible]

president moran: we are back in open session. the commission met in closed session and took no action on items 5, 6, and nine. the commission did approve settlements on items 7 and 8. can i have a motion as to whether disclose discussion during closed session? >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> motion carries. -- president moran: motion carries. mr. secretary, if you would call item 12. >> item 12, approval of the minutes. approval of the minutes of the january 10, 2012, regular meeting. president moran: any revisions or corrections to the minutes? could i have a motion? to go so move. >> second. -- >> so