the four units of the direct access from the steps. and the windows and encourage the neighbors to the visitors interaction and the eyes on the street to enhance the safety. especially when it gets dark. this is the open space, as it exists now. at present, it is neither maintained or landscaped and you have seen accessible beyond the steps and it is framed by the black line walls which gives the feeling of walking through a left over space and the windows on the wall of the existing building are minimal openings and less than 1 percent of the wall area. and the proposed building will be five feet away from those windows and that is true, and if as required by code, for light and air and fire safety.

it is a typical urban condition. and the reviews will be reviews, but those are the views from a single room in each apartment. all of the other rooms of the apartment retaining the unobstructed city views and bay views. this project is not only about building housing on a vacant private parcel it also contributes to transform the right-of-way and maintain the public garden and the project is a spot for the sensitive design and it will provide diversified housing and the existing public space and enhancing connectivity to the twin peaks. and it is a positive addition in the spirit of the san francisco general plan. and for these reasons we respectfully request that the board up hold this permit as is.

with no new conditions, and in accordance to the city planning commission, almost unanimous position, thank you very much. >> mr. sanchez. >> could you switch off the projecter? >> thank you. >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department, the subject property is located within an rm 1 and that is a residential mixed low density unit. and the subject building permits application and it is located in just of the san francisco development that was developed in 1965, and there is a little bit of a development history on this lot, and in

1998. they sought a subdivision and a variance to split off the lot and at the time it had required a variance for the subdivision and that bas heard by the zoning administrator at the time mr. pass moore who is here this evening and i understand at the time he was inclined to deny the variance application and that application was withdrawn and there were no development proposals on the site until 2009 when this building permit application was submit and this seeks to have a five story, four unit building of the subject property and also to subdivide it however they have broken out the lot in this case does not trigger a variance and it triggered a variance for the frontage but they have widened it at the front so it will no longer trigger a variance requirement. >> the department reviewed this and it was presentsed with the history of development here, and also concerns about the pattern of development and the concerns that were expressed in 98 about this being a required open space. and we could not find any

evidence of it being required or conditioned to be maintained as open space. in the project that was proposed was code complying and it met all of the planning requirements and the department did have concerns about the development and in hearing some of the development history and the concerns from the previous 1998, we reviewed this and did recommend a disapproval on this item to the planning commission and so we did the neighborhood notice for this last summer, july and august. and that was for a staff initiated a discretionary review where we took the item to the planning commission and we noticed this in the 311 notice that was going to be a staff dr and at the hearing we recommended this approval of the item and it has been stated for the reasons stated by the appellant it was a concern about how it will effect the pattern of the open space in the area and the effect on the views from the open space across the street. at the hearing the planning

commission did vote 5-1 to over turn our recommendation and to actually approve the permit and it should be noted that it is a code complying project and we were recommending this approval because of our belief that it was not compatible development. the planning commission cited that it was the housing is providing family sized units and that the design was appropriate and they did review the project and did not have the issues with the architecture that is proposed here. and so with that, it would recommend that board of appeals up hold the plan's commission decision to allow the subject project and it has been noted that the subdivision as a bit of a concern in terms of timing and that the project itself is not code complying without the subdivision and the subdivision was submitted on monday and i did meet with the appellant and discuss this with them and we would not want to see the project constructed without the

subdivision being approved and that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. and this is a site permit and so this permit does not actually authorize construction. and so our plan and that discuss for the department building inspection is we review addendum which were the actual official drawings that get submitted with the site permit and we would hold any addendum until the review was completed and finalized for the subdivision. and i think that we would definitely don't want to get into the situation of having a building built where it does not meet the code if they don't have the subdivision, if it is ultimately for some reason not sought, or not granted by the board of supervisors if it is appealed that would be very much a concern of ours. >> so that completes my presentation, and i am available for any questions thank you. >> i have a question. were you concerned about this being a precedent setting

development? given that there are these staggered wedges of green throughout the development? >> yes, it is part of the character of this development of this san francisco development and that is even the loss of one was not appropriate. and i have not reviewed all of the other laws to see if in fact they are developable and i know that this is a point of contention with the permit holder saying that none of the other lots could be developed and the appellants have done the research and believed that they could be developed and but this does stand on its own. and you know the planning commission approved this because finding that is appropriate infield development and providing the needed housing for the city. >> scott, could you, tell me the timing on the subdivision again? and that process? >> the subdivision which was filed with the department of public works on monday will be routed to the city agencies including planning

rtdetermination of code compliance and respond back. and that decision... >> to the board of supervisors. >> it is appealable to the board of supervisors. >> and then, so until, unless and until that is process is over, no construction. >> right. >> because we would work with ddi and process any addendum which we will have to review any way and we have instructed the staff who worked on this that we should hold it until such time that the subpoena division is approved because it would be inappropriate for the construction to commence >> none has been submitted. >> no. >> do the planning commission minutes going back to 65. >> yes. >> and any research on what the minutes said here? >> i don't know that. because we would need a date of

action and it would be a little bit of a needle in a hay stack and they did their best to research and i think that this was a question in 98 as well. this was not the first time that this matter has been researched and i think in 98 and in the most recent research that we have not been able to locate any conditions of approval that would limit the development here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, i don't have much to add, and apart from the fact that the site permit was issued on may 15th and as you know suspended by ddi, or the board of appeals on the 30th of may. i checked today and there is no addendum schedule that has been created and so therefore none has been received by ddi and so no building allowed at this time. >> i have a question, if the contractor were to start

building what would be the action. >> if they started to building? >> correct. >> stop work order. probably a fine. for that. you know? it is not advisable. >> you don't see it very often. >> sow it would not be good. >> they don't have any structural drawings to build off. >> okay. >> so they would not get very far. they could excavate and could not poor any foundations they would be working without a permit in essence. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, we are going to take public comment, but before anyone gets up i just want to make clear that this was an appeal filed by an association and under the board's rules that means that anyone who is a member of the governing board or an officer of the association should not speak under public comment, their time to speak is with the party, okay? so anyone who is not one of those people who would like to speak, please raise your hand. >> okay, we are going to do the same process we did before.

ask people to fill out the speaker cards to help us with the process and if the first person wants to come up, that would be great and the rest of you can line up along the far wall so we can move this along quickly. and the president has indicated two minutes given the late hour. >> madam, and members of the board, i have already introduced myself previously and i worked in 1960 to 2000, apart from the last 25 years i was the assistant director and planning administrator and maybe the only one living that anybody can recall the approval of this particular subdivision was in the planning department in the early 1960s, there were quite a number of residential subdivisions with the single family and multiple family areas and the planning commission reviewed those for our consistency and it was our master plan policies along with

checking with the zoning that was in effect that did not recently been approved in 1960. and so this project had and the thing that the departments measure input on these subdivisions was looking at the open spaces that were provided in the landscaping treatment. and it did readily, little look at the bidding forms themselves and other than that it was within the density of them and it was in the other and they were not even the right and at that time so there was very little from that aspect. the project and the other (inaudible) there were two subdivisions and out of a very lengthy review by a planning that was in the planning department a woman named bruce chafy and i worked with her and i it was in the open spaces that were on the private land that would to be maintained and open for the public open space and they were to be maintained

by someone entity and now unfortunately back in those days the planning department was not as sophisticated as this today or the city itself in record things. so the only thing that actually got recorded was a subdivision map itself which references the landscaping map, was to be on file if the sfaoe and the planning department since that time. most of the departments have moved several times and the records have been misplaced somewhere. i have a feeling that maybe they can be found yet. but they have not had a chance to do it and as the president, mentioned, maybe that likely there is a discussion of the item in the minutes of the planning commission if we could establish when it was before the planning commission. there is also a likelihood that there is minutes when they approve the subdivision. and that was the condition here and this was a condition of the approval for the board of the supervisors and this will be dated on the approval.

and it would be on the position of appealable. and you actually have to go to the board of supervisors. in order to qualify that is open space while i basically support the planning department's reasons for denial of it and the reasons for the background report and probably did not understand the significance of the subdivision and then reviewed it and faced with the fact with the buildings that are san francisco and they were not ones that the city would approve today under the discretionary review. and it was the project and the architect design tried to meet those guidelines and from the standpoint of what they are already faced and with the green space. >> sorry, i am just double checking your time has run. >> i am sorry. >> i did want to comment one of

them. site permit, i think may give more merit to... (inaudible) the project sponsor. >> i can't hear your point. >> i think that the site permit may be more right of being able to pursue with the subdivision and the project than is being said. if you were not buying the argument that was given, then i would strongly urge you to continue this case. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> >> we have lived there since 84 and i have also been a

emergency neighborhood response team through the fire department. one of the things that bothers me about this is as you start changing that is the safety. we had a fire down on the street below us and as we pointed out that having those spaces in between the apartments was very vital. over the time that i have lived there, i have seen the traffic increase and they are asking to increase the traffic some more and open space for the twin peaks across the street from us has been upgraded by the city and we have more tourist and more visitor and more people up on our hill. and that is not a straight through street up there and it goes up and around and back down to market street again and so the only people up there are the people that will live there and the tourist and visitors that come up and we have seen an increase in the cars because of the increase of the people in the area. and to add more cars to this it would... that density and it

makes it hard mou for the people in the area to park and for our visitor and we have a terrible time having our visitors find a place to park. i think that it is strange that they would put a five foot space between windows, between buildings these people have those windows and have been using them for all of this time. thank you. >> thank you. >> shiela and i am before the board to request that the board reverse the issuance of permit 1293586. the permit holder alleges in their brief that the lot i rye side on is the only sizeable

vacant portion belonging to a single parcel and facing a public right-of-way. that other unbuilt areas are either too small or shared by two adjoining owners, making them more difficult, it is not impossible to develop. his argument is if this permit were to be upheld by this board, with the spots left undeveloped in the san francisco neighborhood. >> the allegations are completely false. and he has put forth to this board erroneous information meant to mislead you and in surveying the property the 70 crest line lot is actually the third smallest lot of all 14 lots throughout the development. and furthermore, of the 14 lots, ten of those are owned by

one single owner. only four of the lots are owned by two of the parties but as i pointed out to the board. and developed and i can provide this board with the accounting of the lot sizes in question but i want to make real quick one point in regards to the pictures not only are they good at fudging the numbers they are good at fudging the pictures. this is the picture and the current state of the development. my window faces that lot and tourists are going up and down this is the twin peaks bus stop at the top here and the tourists and neighbors alike are traveling that area, it is clean and well maintained i stair at it every day because it is my own window. >> sorry, which one is your window? >> something that we can see. >> yes, mine is right here. >> and the following pictures that i have here as well, are the additional two of the larger spaces as you can see this is another one that many tourists use to take pictures,

and it faces out and right below our building this is much larger than the current structure, in question. and finally, another this is a second largest. or i am sorry, this one is the 8th largest. and the one that i just showed you was the second largest lot. madam president and members of the board i selected this location due to these open spaces and because of the quiet peaceful nature of this community. i asked that you give much weight to former zoning administrator mr. pass moore's testimony, these spaces were intended by the original developers to be left open, while we have a housing crisis before us. a four-unit condo building that provides no affordable housing at the twin peaks bus stop is not going to solve this problem. >> and we must respect the original intention of the developers and the integration of the spaces throughout the twin peaks community and by up

holding this permit, a dangerous precedent. >> rour time has long past. >> that is why i urge and respectfully request that you deny this application. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and next speaker please. >> good evening. i'm kristin kylie and i live at 66 crest line and i have for 30 years just down from the property that we are discussing and as a resident of the long time resident of the area i am here to say that san francisco is known for its quality of life for its free spirit in its character that allows its residents to express our modern and progressive life styles and importance of view and all of this lends itself to living in that area as an ex-tening of the entire city.

and the free spaces allow or integral to the entire quality of life of living up there. and not only do they provide us for safety knowing that at any time in the event of fire and any other emergency we can make the quick exits that these areas provide and knowing that we can, the area express our nature and our appreciation of having open space around us. having clear air funneling through our area where we live. all of this is important to the lifestyle that we had chosen and that we have on the hill it is very breezy and a place to live as anyone knows. >> and we love living up there and infusing the life on the

hill. just to cover up these areas would be to to create a blacktop jungle up there that nobody would care to live in the future. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> my name is nancy o'brien and i have lived in san francisco for 25 years on crest line on previously on park ridge, my objection to the loss of the green space is aesthetics of course, and based also on the evidence that shows that these were intended and they were planned. the subdivision was by the brothers if you don't know, look it up. when the board of supervisors committee was considering this, they said, supervisor boa said that the history of twin peaks development is the history of many mistakes going back to

1937. and when the area was zoned for apartments, planners persuaded the developer to preserve some of the historic peaks. they owned all of this land across the street. they could have built another bunch of amounts and i guess that is what the planning department accomplished. and as they say shortly before the board of supervisors heard this. since june, 1961, the planning department has been working with the gelerts to hire an architect for the first time in their long history of san francisco building. and persuaded them to lower the profile of the 21 acre project and cut the density of development. and at the board of supervisors meeting, several supervisors spoke out against it, however legally their hands were tied. he mentioned the board of supervisors minutes, there they are. that is the whole thing for the

approval of a subdivision that is how things were done. the planning agreement and the subdivision map, said that there would be a planting plan and there was landscaping every single one of those spots has hort culture plants and evidence of terracing and there was planting plan initially. and of course, when the buildings were sold off, that went out the window. but the subdivision map says that there will be a planting plan and the subdivision map also shows the limits of the development. and here is a lot line, well let's, here is a divided one and a lot line, and for the lines on either side are the limit of building. they were not given cart blanche to build every inch of every street in this subdivision. >> okay, thank you.

>> next speaker. >> hi my name is frank and i am a long term resident of san francisco, and thank you commissioners for being here this evening. and i want to share some images with you as a sharing of what twin peaks used to be and some of my own photographs and i am a artist and i am going to show you the great places that possibly be removed from our community. i urge you to repeal this permit. i have worked for turner broadcasting and the discovery channel and i was the director

for the san francisco arts festival for two years and i never owned a car in my life and i have done that because i love muni and i can only imagine what this is going to look like if these developments go through and we have to put ladders on the outside of our 37, to get up the hill. this new housing development cold rush shines as bright as the dome as the city hall and it happens alongside the new california green rush. and we need to take our local warming responsibility in harmony with the global effort to reduce the global warming in the universe there is hardly any life and they have not discovered any life except here on planet earth and that makes one tree and one blade of grass precious and so the larger vision is wanted here and your wisdom can help, we the people emphasize the value of our green verses the gold and the argument that the building having gone up is going to be benefit the creatures like the

mission blue butterfly is ludicrous. and putting the ivy on the side of a building does not give you the value that we get from the open spaces that we maintain and thank you for taking time to look at the images and i think that the speaker will want you to indulge in the beauty and there is one vineyard left and those administrators in france must have left that there and when you travel up to that area which now on twin peaks spicing hamburgers to kill our dogs. consider our appeal and deny this building permit. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is don berm man and

i am one of the owners of 74 crest line which is right next door to this proposed project and i have owned the building for 29 years, i bought it because the real estate person that sold me the previous owner said that there will not be an open building, they are not allowed to build buildings there, i would not had bought that building had i known that i have to look out of my window and a few feet away from anywhere i have had gorgeous view for my family and friends and tenants we are going to have this monster trinext to us and i just want believe that any planning department would allow something like this. this will also reduce the value of my building, i strongly believe that, plus. the tenant that i rent to and

my future tenants and i will have to take lesser rents i spent half of my life building this building and we put in a new green area next to this proposed project and i put up a brand new wall so that you could see it from down the street which will be blocked by this that they are proposing to put in and i spent almost $100,000 so are they going to reburs me for what i have put out? and i just want to say that i object to this process and i beg the board to do something to stop this before they ruin our area. >> your building is north? >> north of the project? >> my building is right next door which is north of the project.