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 the geological 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 disdevice our parking lot and a electrically us ail at the perimeters of our common street as it fades into the existing green plays. we hope that our project will benefit the fighter families on the block but w will be a benefit to all on the street. >> thank you. opening it up to public comment.

tim collin. william, michael, paula gorman. jeff, linda. good morning >> we've followed this project for years as it's evolved and i would draw your attention to this article. one of the challenges we're facing we have to figure out a way to plaintiff's no. plan for 2w0 thousand more units. in the article there was a remarkable quote saying that 20 percent the housing units raise

two questions. is it fair to the 20 percent of the land that the folks of the 20 percent >> to us this raises the question of the term density. it suggests that some neighborhoods have to take more, more density this project is zoned for much more housing. it was reduced to almost half to play cat the neighbors and we think it could actually accommodate more. but again, this is in response to neighborhood concerns. we think that the project would be improved.

we know that the project sponsor we would ask a huge improvement to the neighborhood. that said we think this is an excellent design and it fits well, with the neighborhood context. there is a low density neighborhood. those are family sized housing units close to many of the best schools in san francisco. i'm not be sure that there's an oversupply of that >> this land has been zoned for decades. there's been a repeated outreach that's out of our control but the effort were made. this project so us is why the

action coalition was formed. there's not a lot of people that will speak out positive. i hope you'll approve it. thank you >> next speaker please and if i've called your name come down. >> my name is william. i will at 475 crestmont. i appreciate your giving me the time to speak. if i understand cell the additional use is to determine if the proposed use a desirable and will have a negative impact