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 way to resolve it. >> thank you >> there is a way, you can always condition it. and we have directed this. >> any more questions? okay, thank you. >> commissioners the matter is yours. >> okay. >> any comments? >> well, i think that the choices are complicated but i would feel the most comfortable with, i don't know maybe else

can go first. i am debating. >> the issue does create the challenges and impersonally inclined to wait and find out if the subdivision is granted. they don't have to actually do it. right? >> by requesting a subdivision does not mean that they have to do it necessarily but we know that it is feasible. and they have already applied for it. >> they don't have to do the subdivision and so if the board of appeals up hold or deny the subdivision >> they would up hold or deny the subdivision and then after that, the map would be recorded in the subdivision would be

complete. >> not necessarily, would it? >> and then they will have to go forward with the subdivision? >> it is proved... >> i think that they may decide if they want build on it to do the subdivision. >> the entitlement and they don't have to... >> i am not 100 percent certain and then the final map stage and i don't know if the permit is issue then they can abandon it? >> and i think that it does not prefer until it is recorded. >> right. >> if the appeal is after the tentative map approval. that may be the case. i apologize i do not know for certain. >> the fact of the details. >> do you have any other information? >> i don't think that we know whether or not the requesting party with stop the process. and after the board of supervisors has acted on the appeal.

>> okay. >> so we don't have... >> the information. >> we will go with a contingency and if there is a grant or we can deny. >> that is not necessarily the option that we would want to go down. if that is the case, i don't think that i feel comfortable making that... in other words, i would not want to up hold this permit and condition it on the subdivision approval at this point. i would probably lean towards just granting the appeal and over turning the permit. >> i am not sure that i see what we are doing here tonight as necessarily being related. okay. >> i mean, we are being asked really to look at the kind of the planning aspects of it. and it seems to me that the subdivision and legal issue

that is separatable and that is just how i see it. >> i don't know. >> so i would be comfortable taking an action tonight. >> or in the alternative, the way that i see it is that this permit should not have been issued because it was con tining ent on the subdivision being granted. that is how i am looking at it. although i think that we can make a distinction. >> a site permit should not have been issued? >> right. >> it is based on the assumption that it would be. >> right. >> it is conditioned on the fact that it would be. yes. >> not that you assume that it would be. >> okay. >> it is the same thing that what the planning department has done when they approved the site permit and their approval is conditional upon the

subdivision being perfected. similarly, we have that option also that the question is whether we have agree with the projector not. and issue her is... the appellants don't want anything there and it has nothing do do with the design and it has something to do the windows perhaps and the things and the issue is whether to allow anything to occur on this particular site. >> and in addition, i think in my opinion, not only because of the subdivision issue but also because of the green space issues and the views and the lighting issues and the parking issues i think that for all of those reasons i would grant the appeal as well. >> i just disagree with the development here. >> i have been really torn when i first looked at it i thought that it was a well done design and that it fit in and sort of

enhanced the look of the development. i think that even mr. pass moore said that the development of that kind would not get approved now. in listening and thinking about the ramifications of it, it concerns... and i don't see why it would not be a precedent if it were and i am very much leaning towards pulling the appeal. >> i feel similarly mixed i think that it is a stunning project. and it is, but, and in fact, on the record, before listening to the testimony, and hearing more about the green space and it is part of, there remains some question in my mind but i am persuaded that it was intended

to be those green spaces were intended to be there. and that is where notwithstanding the fact that it is a beautiful project and it would probably as you said, enhance what is existing. in terms of the visual and in terms of the beauty of the project itself. it is a hard, it is a hard call. but i think that the most important sort of most compelling information relates to the question of was that green space supposed to be there on a permanent basis? based on the entire development? and it is also persuasive to me that the department's own staff was going to and in fact did recommend against the project.a

are struggling with that and i have been struggling with this case since the beginning as we listen to all of thets things and i usually make the decisions fairly quickly. but however the question is two-fold. and one is that and what i am weighing is the fact that what the intent subposely was and is no. codified and i am weighing that against the people's presentation of the intent and what you can see in at the pointers of the pattern of the lot and streets there. and as compared to the property span of the owner, and which, are important also and it is something that i have to always consider in making these kinds of decisions where it is either a yes or a no issue. you know?

and i guess that i have made a decision on my position and that is, i am prepared to support the project of, on the basis that the subdivision is conditioned. and the approval of the subdivision will be conditioned to it. as i expressed earlier, this is not the first housing boom that san francisco has experienced. we have experienced many since this development has been done in the 60s and in the 70s and 80s and 90s and the 2000s. i just think that it is easy to build on that green space and it would have been done in the 60s by the geller brothers in the 70s or the 90s. my concern to be honest is that if we fill one green space, the decision that this board makes

pretty much determines if all of those green spaces are going to be filled. on the one hand there is nothing written that indicates that these green spaces were designated specific and were to state green spaces. and both sides have presented strong cases to represent themselves. i think that if we close one green space we will have to close all of them. and i don't know if i feel comfortable enough with making that decision and it is not just one project it is all of the projects. >> so i will make a motion that we grant the appeal and over turn the permit on the basis

that... commissioner hurtado may i make a suggestion? if you don't mind? >> no i don't, it is the end of the night. >> with the city attorney's assistance i would encourage you to base your motion on the basis for recommendations that is in the planning staff, that is on page 4 >> there are two bullets that shows that it creates circumstances because it will not preserve and protect the character and stability of the development and not be as orderly and beneficial in the project and any other that shows that the project if approved will result in expectation and the project elsewhere in the san francisco development. and i would also encourage you to base your decision on section 76 of the tax regulations code which talks about the assessed on the surrounding property and resident