these of the only other two which is an alley that dead ends. for various financial codes and other reasons, that was not an appropriate option. the rear of the building. the question is, how do you get there. you can circulate to the entire building and take out major bays. i would not be suggesting that. >> there might be other greater -- creative resolutions.

the only people that move the th. we're not talking about lots of people. maybe there can be a system by which you can have the valet in front of the building. the eligible that access to the garagwe would be the valet people. the other option would be to add a speed bump so people can drive fast. i don't know if reconfiguring the building is what we have to do. we can be really smart and look at how to achieve the same goals without having to change the building.

the other thing is adding a speed bump into may become of the project sponsor can talk about whether those two kinds of medication -- mitigation could be at work here. >> would be certainly too happy with the owners and the residence and the staff to see if speed bumps would be an acceptable solution. the cars would have to go a block further down. this would create a little bit more traffic than just having people come in directly. from our experience if someone is a tenant in the building, and they have enough to teach in the proper ways.

>> if i were a tenant and at least the space, couldn't i just say to my client that they can come and use it? >> the way it works is that you have a plastic card keep that you would need to use to get into the garage band and the tenants would know who is in monthly parker and who is not. >> if we were talking about the 400 spaces, then i think that moving the the rise entrance would make a lot of sense but we are talking about 31 spaces with a card swipe and we can conditions something like a speed bump.

on the rare times i drive, i am not sure which way to go. this is not occurred to me to remember. i don't think that this would make an ideal insurance regardless of the issue around the building which does seem to be a problem as well. if he were trying to build 400 spaces, this would be an endeavor worth pursuing. we can achieve the same goals of the community and allow the 31 spaces to move forward. that is my personal opinion. >> i neglected to mention that our original proposal was for 95

stalls in october. the owners sent a letter to the planning department complaining about that. they subsequently met with mr. peterson who is one of the property owners. we reduced this from 95 down to 31 to be responsive. >> thank you. >> having lived for 38 years and going into the main part of downtown, i pass this several times a week. i know the intersections, i know the building. i am looking at 31 spaces. you're talking about those that could be renting their from the new tenants to the old tennis. you are talking about a commute between seven in the morning and

10 in the morning. a number of the retail stores do not open until later. a number of prospective tenants usually come in early. this is so low an account that an eir would barely take into consideration. i appreciate what commissioners the guy was trying to do and work on it. if it was a new portion of the building, we would not be having this discussion, obviously. i would not like to see an entrance on eighth street to be very truthful. i think that this is a dangerous thing to do. i think a speed bump is not the worst idea whatsoever.

there is the concept of the restrictive right turn out of the alley. this certainly works. this is not uncommon. this is the only correct way to go. i am perfectly satisfied with what is in front of us. this is the office development authorization and the allocation. so, the design details are technically in front of us but of course they are part of a total motion. i am prepared to support this at this point. >> yes, let me continue. part of my reasoning or thought process was that i did not want again preservation to be blame for some kind of design manipulation that accommodates parking through a residential

street. secondly, i think that having spent over 25 years and historic preservation and reviewed some any standards, projects and i think punching a hole in the eighth street elevation is absolutely no problem. we were the consultants to the ill-fated mills corp. development. in that project, they wanted to punch holes in the bald head buildings on embarcadero. their proposal was to do a series of 8-10 entranceways into their retail. that went to both the california state historic preservation office and to the park service.

they allowed to upwards of four too six. those are windows they are bringing down to the ground. also in looking at the draw lines, the proposed entrance is the wit of one at bay. if one is enough to come off of decatur, i think it would be enough to come off of eighth. that said, i will support the project. if we can impose conditions too slow traffic and do whatever on dictator, that should be sufficient including speed bumps and may be a sign with respect to children or something and maybe the project sponsor can have a little hand out to the monthly parker's when they release -- when they lease the space.

>> the one difference was put up by commissioner more which is off of bay street, you have to pull a 90 degree turn. you might have his opening be the one which was spoken about. you have to provide for cars being able to make that turn. you are coming straight and off of the street. i will move to approve with conditions and that the project sponsor's work with the neighbors on decatur street. i think this is already in their street lighting and their street trees. approval of already resolved issues as far as improvements to the street. also, to explore the possibility of the valet parkers, speed bumps, and i'm not saying that this would have to be something.

these are all some of the things which i think would be possible areas of discussion to try to keep traffic as calm as possible on that street. having lived in a residence where we have an easement in the back and one of our biggest issues was slowing traffic. they are putting up lots of signs and not repairing these so cars would have to slow downjgcp there is always a way. that is a motion. >> second. >> i would ask public works to determine whether or not the speed of -- they're very loud and very unattractive.

i would look towards public works to do something and not add noise. >> i believe that the department of public works has worked out particularly with the police department. >> most likely, the speed cables. >> we can use the language, traffic calming measures. >> the mission on the floor is for approval and you will encourage the project sponsor to work with the decatur street neighbors. you would ask the department of public works to work with them on traffic measures.

[calling votes] fax we will take a 15 minute break. >> 18a, 18b, and 18c. mr. president, and you want me to outline the procedure as we go forward? staff would give a presentation

of the three properties as one case. dr requester has filed for these cases. the president is going to give a 10-minute time frame to address the three items, and you will have three minutes each. >> since we have to deal with multiple projects, can we please have 20 minutes instead of 10? different buildings, different lots, different developers. can we use 20? >> good afternoon. as you said, this is 3 dr

requests all wrapped into one. the proposal is to construct 93 single-family homes on adjacent lots. -- to construct three single- family homes on adjacent lots. the homes range from 2165 square feet to 2231 square feet of usable floor area, and each home include a two-car garage. just to give you a background, they were initially proposed on 2006. and there were concerns over an emergency access, adequate infrastructure, steep slopes,

and change in the overall c those interim controls expired in 2009. it is important to note this is three separate cases. the owner of a lot 11 sold to a separate owner in the past, so there are two lots. they are all the same architect, as they were designed at the same time. the review board is the dr requester in all three, although neighbors have expressed concerns. the main issues raised is that

because there are such, it creates a unique situation. they do not trigger affordable housing contracts. gooin response, they ensure thee was adequate water and sewer capacity, and the environmental review, a portion of it did look at a larger area than those three lots. the environmental review was limited and cannot go further than that. they were not triggered.

the development will be appropriately taken into consideration. the second issue you brought up was that the project will remove on street parking, and it is currently used, which is currently just a staircase, so they have no vehicular access. the planning code requires these to have two parking spaces. 7çánf]4there is an additional requirement based on the size of the buildings. the only alternatives to removing on street parking is to

get a variance, which is required, so we are ok because they were maximize for on street parking. az be adequate access for a emergency vehicles, and there could be soil movement after construction. we did consult with the fire department to ensure there was adequate access for emergency vehicles, and the fire department assured us they also have the right for parking red zones and other areas where they need extra room. additionally, the soil movement issue was covered by the geotechnical analysis, was not an issue either. the fourth issue was that the designs idid not meet the review

board and design criteria, and there are also concerns that the project should be required to meet the findings of those interim controls. regarding the design, the design team did look that this several times. they made minor comments and work on them, and we also work with them on sculpting the rear. the project is completely in compliance with guidelines. the additional comments about the east slope, we felt those supplied were very minor or did not apply to these projects. the residential design team review it before and after and found there were no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. the department recommends you not approve this as proposed,

and because they are located in an appropriate area to meet those guidelines. they already restricts the height of the buildings in this area, and these buildings meets those additional requirements. staff has consulted with other departments to address concerns about an emergency access, and there are no extraordinary circumstances. i am available for questions. >> dr requester. >> the attorney for the dr requester. this project is at a site that is undeveloped. it is an extraordinarily steep slope, and i have this in the report, but i want to show you how steve is.

-- how steep it is. this is the site. this is holloway. this is extraordinarily hard to access. you have to know how to find it, and this is as morel the street. -- this is esmerelda street. the utilities are difficult. i got this from the planning department. this is the main one they are supposed to connect soup. these are the sewer lines. and they have to get from here to here.

i want to talk about the problem we have. we have a developer who got this site for 10 units. they have gone through various reintegrations, and now they have a project with two buildings of five stories and one building of four stories going down the hill. as you gofaú understand, they are very modest, and they are coming down a slope you can only access by coming down stairs. you have a hard time finding it, because there is a freeway. oakdale does not exist. it is the right of way for the sewer line.

this is the freeway. they have no streets where people have streets and label. what you have is a project on a very difficult lot surrounded by homes that are very modest in scale, and they are looking out against a five-story building that does not appear five stories, but when you are next to it, it is a five-story building. what we are asking for is the buildings to be scaled down. we are asking the city to do a re-evaluation. the sioux were clarence says it is based on an old project, and would you show this again?

when they did the last stuart of valuation, there was going to be a small airline -- when you did the last evaluation, there was going to be a small airline that went down to holiday. that is the sewer line they say is going to be felt. of the projects that are here are a 11, 10, and nine. there are two ways to get there, this way or a property they did not own or this way. they did not have anything in here that shows how they are going to be build on these three lots without using other property in construction or development or for sewer and access. you cannot have a story line that starts up here and jobs through thin air through a sewer

line. these are not inconsiderable issues. for this site, there has been repeated issues. the neighbors are going to give you more detail, but you have of project you do not have the entirety of how it is going to be built. there is no longer a proposal to build about at the rear of 5 lots connecting gf. staff does not think it is a problem, but they do not pay attention, and they are avoiding the affordable housing, and i will deal with that in the rebuttal to reagan -- in the rebuttal. >> thank you. >> i am a 20-year resident, and i wanted to talk a little bit,

because the city put some infrastructure work in our neighborhood, and we knew the development was going to come right behind it, and 14 houses since the late 1990's have been built, and we have never found ourselves in this position. the project was brought to us by a developer, and we did not know there was a condition for trees, and that is where we found ourselves. they say they are going to put a road on the nine houses they are building. then it became seven houses. then it became five houses. and we see they are going to develop three houses, and this whole process has been

manipulative. commissioner borden talked before about how you deal with the community and how important that is to be doing this kind of development. this is a massive development for a small area. %]our house was built in 190. it is a story and 1/2. we cannot build a down slope development and have passed the house five stories and the other half to two stories and -- have half the house five stores and the other half to stories. even with the 14 houses where we never had a dr request, we did not even know what it was. we never had this kind of ongoing process, and then to see the lot get sold, he bought a lot and the drawings thinking

everything was ok, i assume, because we had our meeting recently, because the owner of each of these lots has not been straight forward and has not made any consideration for the issues brought forward in the very few times we have actually sat down and looked at this, so i beg you to look of the fact that this is not just some people saying to keep our hill free. do not ever do development. we,et'bjf understand these lotsg to people. we have worked with the houses in that immediate area. i come from the affordable housing community. good if we treated the communities the way this neighborhood has been treated by