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. >> thank you.

>> and these pictures that they are showing are deceptive pictures and i think that you should go there and take a look at the property and that will give you a clear picture of what is going on. >> next speaker. hello, i'm john, and i am the other owner of 74 crest line. and i have lived there since 1985 in one of the apartments as my business parter has lived in an apartment since 1985. besides all of the loss of the green space, park and congestion and all of that i am concerned about wind damage. we had a lot of wind damage and it blew our siding off and the $100,000 job, but we just did my partner was talking about

the wall. it is the exterior wall against next to the public staircase. at any rate, if a building goes in there, we are going to have even a stronger wind tunnel through there, and i am concerned about that also for my plants and i have replanted and i am also concerned about that too because the loss of the sunlight. i hate to see the loss of that and as my business partner said we will be looking out one of our windows staring into this building and it is fairly deceptive and the photos are and they did a great job with the photoshop. >> thank you. >> next speaker please?

>> good evening commissioners my name is grant wilson and i am a 13 year resident on crest line drive in reviewing the material put forth by the project sponsor, and reviewing some of the notes from november 13th, i have two questions. things that we wanted to consider not necessarily directly related to the questions of open space, but in housing need. i found no questions in regarding housing need either with the san francisco plan or here in the twin peaks portion of the san francisco plan. and i just see this project as being unnecessary. you have a four bedroom, town house on the top, and i just

wondered what family can afford in san francisco a four bedroom house, where a two bedroom in twin peaks rents for 2500 a month and i did not see a reference whether they will be for sailor for rent that is not specified and i saw no assessment and no metrics to indicate that this housing project was of need to anyone and so i questioned why is it necessary? to put this project here? or any other project of that type. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> in your hands. >> good evening. thank you for your service. and i know that you are exhausted i just want to talk and i leave the technicalities

to them i want to speak as a resident for 20 years since my son was four. i am lucky that i was able to raise him here and he is a native san franciscan and we have always be proud of our area, those open spaces what they have done is really magic. like i like everyone else i agree if you could go and take a look there is very little narrow places that make a big difference. and the green area. and i catch the bus on castro and i come up and a lot of tourists ride the bus and they just like we have a lot more people when my son was little, and there is a lot of parking space but not because the rent is too expensive too many people are rooming together and there is hardly any other parking space and we have one garage and so when i come at night he always makes sure that if i am working with me and the

garage because sometimes i have to walk two blocks and park all around the neighborhood and worries he is always like mom are you okay and are you home? >> so please, think about that. >> thank you. >> would you like to state your name for the record. >> carly bravo >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening and thank you very much for your time. and that was my mother who just spoke and i think everything that needs to be said has been said, but i just want to second i guess, everything that everybody has said. and i just have to clarify and reiterate this again because it is so, so important that i urge you to go and look at that

space, it is amazingly deceptive what they did with that picture. but our neighborhood is very con jected now and parking is an issue, and there just are not that many green areas left in san francisco and that is one of the few spots that is still has green areas and it is very important for all of the residents of the neighborhood and we are very tight knit community and i just, this will set a dangerous precedent. and it will be a shame to see all of those green spaces go. over a little money and again, this is not about housing, this will help in the housing crisis in the city. so i respectfully ask that you will give this a deep thought and thank you very much. >> and would you care to state your name for the record.

>> adrian bravo. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker please? >> hello, my name is michael and i am actually resident at 70 crest line drive on the top floor and so if you see the i am the top window right there. so that is me. i have been a proud resident of san francisco and i moved from boston two years ago when i first moved here i stayed with friends in the castro and they recommended that i actually climb to the top of twin peaks and i got to go up these staircases and it was a beautiful experience and now actually i run the health and wellness for a healthcare arguization no 65 medical centers and hospitals which is 7,000 healthcare workers and it is really important for me and having this five-foot shaft worries me for my health and wellness and for the family. and my family in home in

indiana. and this experience is magical and the nature is necessary and the pictures are deceptive and when i do make my way home from california i do have to walk two or three flights of stairs down to find park and back up and so adding the residents to the neighborhood is really going to create a confrontational culture to this community and i strongly recommend that you rethink this and i can imagine how exhausted you are so thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> thank you. >> good evening, my name is martha and i have been a resident at 70 crest line drive since 2007 and i know that it is late and so i am very grateful for this opportunity to speak. i believe that 70 crest line drive is the last place that a

building should be built. this image shows that the proposed building wedged between these stairs and these apartments is this building eliminates green area and crowds the fire hydrant area. and the lane stairs are built around a surrounding green area that connect directly to the twin peaks stairs, it is mentioned in the tourist literature on-line and as a great urban hike area, the daily tourists arrive by car to access the peaks via the stairs and this makes the street parking competitive and difficult, and fortunately the residents have six parking spaces and at the base of the green space and these will be eliminated if the proposed building is built. residents really need this parking and this is a very high density residential area compounded by tourism and requires parking in addition to the resident garages and another reason why there should be no building at 70 crest line is that this particular green

area and vista lane are the final links of the chain of stairs leading to the twin peaks stairs and heavily used by people and animals. my apartment is one of the six windows facing the green space and i see in here the people and animals all of the time. the twin peaks nature area they traverse between the residential side and the twin peaks as it is now the green area next to the vista lane offers a retreat for the animals should they encounter people on the stairs, the 70 press line green provides public safety for both people and animals. one last thing that i would like to say is what is really needed is we have tourists who often take shelter in 74 and 70 crest line drive entry ways because they are not prepared for the turn of the weather and we really need, they sit on the

curb and on the stairs and they sit in our entry ways but what is needed here is not a building, we need a shelter. and so, i would like to thank you for listening. >> i urge you to deny this permit thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> i work with the architects on gaining permits through the planning building and so forth and while i drew up the packets which includes going after the (inaudible) of the buildings and the surrounding areas and to propair the materials and so forth, so i have been up... and had a look at it, when it comes to the tourists they go up to the twin peaks and relatives from australia. and i would have never taken

crest line up there and i go up there frequently because i have a lot of people visiting from other cities. this is the beautiful building. and i would urge you to approve this as is and not make me changes and it is not a big tall building and it fits in with everything else out there and i really would urge you to go ahead and approve it. thank you. >> any public comment? >> okay, seeing none... your time has passed. >> yeah? >> so, we will take rebuttal now, mr. bait man you have three minutes. >> >> we believe that the subject proposal fails to meet the requirements of the proposition m, policy 8 that states that

our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vista be protected pr development, in addition the sponsor's statements regarding policy 8 and the application for priority general plan finding are in many respects non-responsive to that policy requirements and the sponsor has cited that the planning department eer report including that department could not locate the records and require for a permit and neighborhood designed feature, policy number eight does not require that the open spaits and access to the sunlight and vistas have approval or would be a required neighborhood design feature to be protected from development. >> while such criteria do relate to eer and sequa, policy number eight carries no requirements for the access to

sunlight and vistas be protected from the development regardless of what is in the habitat and further to maintain the public stairs and the portion of 72 crest line of the 9 foot wide strip adjoining the public stairs and this does not address the reduction and loss of open space and loss of sunlight to the public stairs that will relate from the proposed construction. the sponsors states that the commitment cited above will improve the quality and security of the public open space. the public stairs currently exist next to the red space and with the wide vistas and easily visible. the proposed building places those stairs into a narrow 19 foot wide alley wide, this

decreases the visibility by the facade next to and above the public stairs one inch off the prop line will essentially remove the public stairs from the sight line of the windows above those stairs from the proposed buildings. short of using a parascope where you could look down in front of those window and look down at the 90 degree angle. so safety has decreased by this building in terms of eyes on the street. the public stairs will move all of the direct sunlight and be placed in the shadow. and we ask the board seriously to consider the impacts of the proposed project as they relate to proposition m and deny this project. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez? >> good evening, commissioners i'm constructional engineer for the project. i have been practicing it in

san francisco for over 28 years and i must say that i am extremely proud of my association with renardo and he is a brilliant architect and the professor of architecture. and this design fits perfectly within that wedge. and we are committed to repairing and maintaining and landscaping the comment ride away of the stairs in perpetuity and we are designing a four unit building and family housing and some speakers brought up the fact that why build family housing. and to me that is incomp rehensible. >> this is a perfect place, i

don't understand why density in san francisco has to be located on the east side of san francisco. why not the west side? we have perfect open spaces and we will be preserving a five foot section between a 14 unit building and our four unit building. and you are providing landscape architecture and we are providing green roofs, and we are maintaining the stairs and we recognized in the process will ininvolve additional potential levels and we know that. and we are going to be filing for a sidewalk permit with the appeal on that and we recognize that and we respect the right of the neighbors to appeal that. but commissioners we are following all of the rules and all of the procedures and we are paying our fees and we

interact with the planning to request the documentation and we provide td the documentation and we are committed to building a beautiful building in an area that can accommodate additional density. there is no deception of the pictures and they could be taking from an angle that shows clearly... >> it is a beautiful design, and we have been at it for the last five years. and i urge you to consider the great architecture and all of the effort. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department, two points, regarding parking the subject building that does provide the four dwelling units meets the required parking and actually exceeds it slightly

and provides the parking spaces where four is required for the four dwelling units and in regards to the 101.1 finding that the priority findings and in the planning code that reflect the general plan. and it is not if you don't meet one of them, it is that they look at these unbalanced and so while the staff report did make a determination and this was part of the basis for the decision for recommendation of denial and one of them was because of the view issued and the planning commission set and balanced the project and balance meets the general plan finding that provides housing and family housing which the city very badly needs and one of the justifications for the planning commission approval and the design and the 5-1 position of the planning commission was to up hold the permit which was code complying

to allow the permit to be issued. >> there was a commissioner missing. >> correct. one was missing commissioner hillis and the one vote in opposition and there was another board of appeals commissioner sugaya. >> okay a question for you mr. sanchez. could you tell us a little bit about the process for the subdivision? application and permit or whatever it is. and how is that process different from or what evidence would be different that would be presented there that is not presented here? >> we would like at it to see if that meets the planning code requirements and we have already seen it through this building permit application. and they have shown the loss as proposed in the subdivision and we found that this does comply with the planleinging code requirements and we would recommend that the department of public works allow the subdivision and the department of public works decision to allow the subdivision and i'm assuming that they would.

>> okay. >> thank you. >> i have a question. the staff initiated the design review. and would you explain a little bit how that works and in other words, the staff and i assume led by you would have denied the permit. so we have reviewed this in 2009 is when the application was submitted and i believe at that time i think that maybe mr. pass moore had the staff kind of let them know in the

background on this. staff reviewed this and i was brought in and we made the determination that this revised subdivision was code complying and did not need a variance. since the decision making process involves the chief the current planning who is the person who oversees the current planning staff and they are the ones who review the plans and the permit application and also the director of planning would make the ultimate recommendation and this went up to the director and did not feel that the design was appropriate so that was you know given back down to the project sponsor as our recommendation and they chose to pursue the project and so with that in mind, the project is code complying and no commission action required and we had the staff initiate the discretionary deal and when we sent out the notice for the 311, it stated clearly this is a staff initiated review, there

will be a hearing. there were no additional dr and there was going to be a hearing at the commission and for everyone to have their opinions heard. >> thank you. >> i have a question mr. sanchez. so there is quite a few of these slivers available for the open spaces. and this evidently is not the smallest or the largest if given the permit here, do you see that there is going to be a rush left vacant for a long period of time and the developers were afraid to go there, do you think at this point, that they are going to rush to develop these other open spaces? >> i am concerned about it setting a precedent. >> i understand.

there is a dispute that the other properties and they are not and within the assumption that there are other developable lots. that we would review them and any of the proposal on a case by case basis and however, given that the department made a recommendation to planning commission to deny it and they chose to approve it i think that our staff you know the department leadership would probably view that as the planning commission made their opinion known as to whether or not they will be infilled. and so yes i would say that they are to the extent that it could have an impact on how the department will review and this was a code complying project and we recommended denial that does not happen often. that is very rare that we get to that circumstance.

and we brought it to the planning commission's attention because they are the ones who ultimately for us make the decision. and so we take our direction from the planning commission. and so now, this matter is before you and i am defending the position of the planning commission to this board and we deter to your judgment and wisdom. >> i have a question. >> is this permit dependent on the subdivision approval? >> yes, i would not want to see the construction unless the subdivision can be authorized because the project itself would not be legal without the subdivision. >> okay. >> it very much needs to have that subdivision in order to be perfected. >> okay. >> and that goes back to it was a question that was in my mind

as you mentioned several times that this is code compliant. is it code compliant when it is subdivided? or is it code compliant currently and you can have this much of density. >> it is code complying with the subdivision. it is on the subdivision. >> i don't believe so. i believe that is the reason for doing the subdivision is to allow the project to pursue. >> how can we up hold or deny a permit that has not a legal code compliant lot? because we have conditioned with the subdivision of the lot. it is interesting? the chick in the egg question. and i fell like we have that

item earlier. >> was there a legal discussion on that? >> we have discussioned that and i have directed the staff not approve the aden um that will allow the construction on the site that will not approve that until the subdivision and i was surprised that it did not come in until last week and i was expecting them to come in until after the planning commission hearing and i can understand that from the project sponsor, we would not want the lot to be subdivided and this was... >> if you would like to go ahead and subdivide the lot. and then the permit is ultimately denied >> but it is also, i have never in all of these years, been in

the situation where the legal lot that with no variances requested or anything, and a project addendum with that lot is no one code compliant. and the lot could still be. and the lot could be developed or subdivided. >> no i am talking about the existing lot now. >> and you indicate that you did not feel that it was if we built this addition on to the current lot, it would not be code compliant. so it is a new construction permit and so it is a new building and on the lot. and it is in our approval is predicated upon the subdivision that is shown on the application and so we are

approving the permit. they need to perfect that with the department of public works and we have done this both ways. certainly it is cleaner and probably more straight forward to have the subdivision come first. and the permit on that and i can't speak for the project sponsor, i'm assuming that they are pursuing the permit first because the board would deny the permit here tonight they would presumably, you know if that is the end of the project for them they would not subdivide the lot. so, is that commonly. >> they are hedging their bets. >> i think that we have a