known as the local 249. having reviewed the master plan and having looked at another plans i served on the board of supervisors and the land use committee and chaired it for 4 of the years this is a thorough documents and this document addresses the impacts to be considered and must be considered and certainly as a result of the u sf and this has been done her in a sufficient manner. i think some of the things you will hear in terms of neighborhoods again recognizing the u sf have the patience one is about one way and the other the other way those things take

a long time it was 88 meeting for the neighborhood concerns and particularly those top 3 issues was parking parking and parking. the gentleman can do it is there was a desire to not necessarily there the amount of parking but to manage the designations and the designation organization. the university has made great comments one of the things the university did was to offer our members basically free fast past we didn't have that before so we 6 hundred adjunct faculty our faculty is not necessarily tenured. so but indeed they have a need

to come of the campus. this has been met with the community subsidies and implicit your members have respond in a positively to that new benefit that's one of the many, many things you could talk about her. in terms of the issues of affordable housing the need for student housing is intense. on the block i live only a mile from the university we have 40 or 50 students living on that block. it's tremendous in the flat below our flat rented out to 4 or 5 students it's a two barroom place this 6 hundred units will

help in terms of the life that students need. i think the time is up. thank you very much i appreciate this is a fine document thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello chairwoman and commissioner president wu i'm speaking for the tense association we're one block in the middle of the campus. this end with this old mantra less than a significant impact. u sfs population growth has quoted his past projects and at a negative impact on parking. the r mp repeats less than

significant impacts. what dots residents want. at least one available parking space within our homes no vandalism from folks and to increase the enforcement increased to the parking relieve the u sf only compares the present action. if this is true the rfp can promise anything they said the population would there by 50 thousand people and they added people. does anyone building that adding 2 thousand computers has less than a significant impact on our streets. in 1980 u sf promised to

increase the spaces i quote both the campus and surrounding neighborhood it impacted by the automobile parking. u.s. sf move forward the plastering and dumped the commissioner torres cars in front of our homes now there are one hundred and 50 for students parks and a little bit more for staff. the ever increasing cars has caused a parking war in our neighborhood. we've had two physical assaults and brick shavrt a picture window in front of our human beings and curbs painted and verbal abuse that's a big problem and the university has

to recognize it >> you've got 18 seconds. >> 16 seconds. so when will it end only with the u sf parking permits - >> for the benefit of the public you get 3 minutes the first soft chime is when you have 30 seconds left and the second chime is your time is up. >> hi, it can be easing easy to get sentimental many people feel an emotional connection but we need to keep in mind that's a multi faceted business of stadiums that overwhelms their neighborhoods and they engulf

the neighbors. over the years they've combroshd on the neighbors i've owned a home near there we're experiencing the impact of other businesses that/spilled over with the parking. and annoyed with this with the in law unit we have a potential for more severe congestion. the i mps parking survey is a good faith effort it will not adequately represent the neighborhood. and this is heritagely flawed and adequate. it's completely unrealistic to accept with the posting of a website address directing

students to a survey will have a significant figure and especially, when investigating the students parking habits which in many cases they won't be willing to be forthcoming about. there are families that deal with the ramifications by being surrounded by train idiot universities community i ask that u sf direct it's further ambitions off the hillside. thank you >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners and commissioner president wu i live in the university terrace

area i live between the lone mountain campus and please allow me to shire. i liked the beautiful pictures and terrific writing i thank you u sf for making the reading easy. the i mp probable curses all the required females e items by when i reviewed the planning department fabulous website i saw that u sf is in that potential reside way zone and also on the website is a permit for u sf to install a diesel generator which when it's tested it will spew pollution into the

air. i ask you put a filter on the generator it meets the requirements but it's better for the people's health if it has a filter and they said it was two expensive. i learned in the u.s. we value life so i was disappointed. so he'll hear the neighbors talk about the parking problem and i am sorry to see one of the main solutions not solution but one of the help with the parking at the traffic parking is partial road closures.

that is from the back of the mp. or the traffic section well, it's going to cause my neighbors to drive other routes it's ugly but i hope we'll work together to improve the health of our assignment and the education i guess. thank you >> thank you. next speaker please. and good evening, commissioners, neighbors i'm merriam and i am a resident on terrace that abuts right against the baseball field on the lower side of the campus. i took the time to read through

the website and the planning and the notice of the public hearing is the first i've heard of any changes on the campus maybe that's because i'm new to the neighborhood and not part of the neighborhood association so i come as an individual i scoured to lock for the details about buildings seven hundred and 8 that are new proposed maintenance buildings right up against my property and explicit find any details 80 how it will impact any property in terms of light and height and sound and use. i look forward to hearing more details maybe from millions if that's the person i need to turn to but i want to point out this is the first time i've heard

about any changes and i want to make sure that individuals are also part of the process. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker >> good evening. my name is john i'm the president of the association i'll have lived near here for 3 years. thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns this is the dorm try built on alone mountain it revisess stooply outside the backdoor's of the development. it is simple two large for the site that question and answer bats all the noise and sunlight

and kurpdz to our neighborhood. we believe it's two large. c 1920 b of the planning code and the next refers to dormitories. associated with that section the size should be reduced from 67 hundred and 30 romance to 4 plus. that will allow the dormitories particularly the eastern roll up dormitories or push the project west. in either case the rope noise and the sunlight would be reduced. which leads to the next section i'm sure you're aware of that sections requires that the i mp addresses the scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

wurp it doesn't do that. almost 90 percent of the homes are two-story with small backyard. to build 4 story dormitories revising from the backyards t is totally out of scale. the height would leave no flexibility for the architect to direct the context to develop the sign litigations. we request that the commission require the applicant to address our concerns with acceptance and we just do that before adjourning today >> next speaker please

(calling name (calling names). >> i live with my family on terrace and the 4 story dorm part is in my backyard. we have three children under 5 years old and we've lived in san francisco since 1998. we sporadic purchased this house for the outdoor area to play in we wanted a small-scale neighborhood that was the character we invested our life savings in and this is proposed. section 304.5 this is located on

the base of the hill it is zoned rh one. our houses are two stories and mostly 20 feet high this is described in the code they quote tend to be uniform within tracks developed in a time period to built in separate lots they have the appearance of a small row housing railway thirty feet in height they tend to be 3 stories so acknowledge our character. the existing buildings are over one hundred feet distance except for one hundred and thirty feet

dance. u sf told you they would meet with they is trust us but in writing they addressed none of our requests they've rebuffed our questions relating to the negative impact in scale of our neighborhood. that's why we're asking you to please help us the character and scale of our neighborhood was replaced in the draft but not in the final plan. i'm asking to ask u sf to please protect my space in the community. i take it our understanding that the section requires an im p to address the scale in the surrounding neighbor after numerous requests the i mp still

does not address our concerns. we ask the commission require the applicant to - >> ma'am, i'm sorry our time is up. >> such this is a condition - >> thank you, thank you next speaker please. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm - please imagination a 40 to 45 feet building on a 45 foot slope with small backyards it's

sdpaift it's like a skyscraper in our backyard with thirty to 40 students looking into our backyards. it's a real intrusion on our privacy not to mention the noise in the afternoon. we don't have protections. there is no sensitivity to the context in which this will be seen from the street anywhere on the test the skyscraper will

look out of scale ugly and gross i've e-mailed u sf and asked them to reconsider but nothing. none of our concerns have been addressed sure they've had several meetings to tell us what's going on since there's an i mp you having will have to say no. once you accept they don't have to and given the response so far i believe they won't. they're asking you33

>> alternative which might avoid the adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods [speaker not understood]. we have repeatedly asked for

alternatives which might distribute the access units in order to avoid or lessen adverse impacts on our neighborhood. we have not asked usf to abandon their choice. we accept that [speaker not understood] under hill is best suited for housing but request alternatives be included in the imp that might avoid or lessen the impact of that selection. by breaking down the overall site. here are three we have suggested several times ~ with the only response from usf being that they would not allocate any additional land area to the housing. respectfully, without any alternatives being offered to address our concerns, we feel it necessary to reiterate our suggestion. one, expand the housing site to the west and south. two, [speaker not understood] alternatives that distribute some of the units to the area adjacent to our village [speaker not understood] now shown as future tennis courts.

the [speaker not understood] location is in scale with general plan guidelines and was proposed when the village was developed. three, limit the height of the housing to two to three floors from additional zone beyond the 100 feet setback from the terrace to acknowledge the scale differential. at the very least, we are seeking some concrete acknowledgment that alternatives will be included in the next submittal. alternatives that ensure us that usf will, one, breakdown the scale and mass of the building so it doesn't look like san quinten or a huge [speaker not understood] special. two, articulate the east and north sides of the building like those of royal village. on a personal note, i'm concerned about afternoon sunlight. i'm a painter and use my front room facing this new building as my studio. to lose afternoon light as a result of its height would be a great tragedy.

that along with the scale is enough for me to ask that alternatives be included in the imp so that when an architect begins the conditional use permit, they have other sites and options to consider as well. we believe section 304.5 requires an imp address impact on and provide alternatives to avoid and lessen impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. after numerous requests, matters and several meetings the imp still does not address these issues. we request the commission require that the applicant include [speaker not understood] prior to and condition of acceptance -- >> thank you. thank you. good afternoon. my name is pamela chiuy. i live at 240 ewing terrace and have direct experience with a large student housing project directly behind my home. that's the loyola village. design can mitigate a number of

our concerns, but we are seeking some assurance that those concerns will be considered seriously, not just a buyer or leave, we will do it as we want. that is why we are listing -- that is why listing potential mitigations in the i mitschtionerctiontion p is very important to us. we asked a number of times in a number of ways that our concern be articulated and we made part of the original architect's program so that we are not overlooked. we assure usf architect can design to criterion concern, but only if they know what they are. and the imp is the perfect time to list them for consideration. besides, it lets us know that usf is actually listening to us. the concerns with he articulated include noise from loud music. that can be directed away from ewing terrace by design. noise from parties that can be discouraged by design, location of gathering areas. currently we have existing

problems with the loyola village housing which has fewer students than the proposed dormitories. exterior balconies, patios and decks encourage late night parties. certainly we can call usf police to have them come at 2:00 a.m. in the morning, however, what do we do about trying to get back to sleep? noise from students moving through the development at night can be discouraged by funneling them to the center of the campus. noise from deliveries and garbage pick up at extremely early and late hours can pose a problem. we don't want garbage dumped or picked up outside our bedrooms before 7:00 a.m. in the morning. i don't know if you've ever heard garbage truck, but it's quite loud and when it backs up it beeps. there's a lot of noise. there's no sleeping in on saturdays. noise from garage include cars and trucks coming and going because there's a road back there in the plan, and garage doors opening and closing. surely site security lighting creates strong light pollution.

that, while necessary, should be directed away from or shielded from our homes because we're very close to this proposed building. it is our understanding that section 304.5c3d requires an imp to address mitigations that will address impact on character and scale in the surrounding neighborhood. after numerous requests, letters, and several public meetings, the imp still does not propose any such mitigations. we request the commission require that the applicant include a list of such mitigations prior to and as a condition of acceptance prior to adjourning. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is tom griffin. i live at 234 ewing terrace and my backyard is the hillside that this dormitory is going to be built on. what i'd like to talk to you about is my direct experience

with usf's mitigations regarding loyola village. that mountain as a campus is known for the lawn that leads up to the tower at the top of the hill and the fringe of trees that surround it, it's known all over the city, you can see it all over. and part of what the university is proposing as a mitigation is a landscape plan to make sure that those large mature trees are secure and safe. while one mitigation -- in order to be a mitigation, the trees have to exist. they have to survive the process along the way. and i'll give you the example of what went on with loyola village. we were told at an imp meeting there that the campus landscape plan will protect those large mature trees. we didn't have to worry about them. we asked that they be marked during the construction or conditional use phase. they were. but that didn't stop the fact that my wife came home one afternoon and of the eight trees that were 50 to 70 feet tall right directly behind our

property, six were already down and one of them stripped. it took her the rest of the morning to get some attention from usf and some attention from the contractor. she saved one of those eight trees. that was all that was possible. now, the university accepted that it was a mistake. they accepted that they really had some culpability here. so, what did they do? they offered to plant six fast growing tree. i'll tell you those six fast growing trees have grown very fast. they're 20 feet tall now and don't block what they were supposed to block 13 years ago. i'll be dead before they become the screen they're supposed to be. the issue is how can we prevent this from happening again? it happened, it was a mistake, they accepted it. how can we stop it? my point is that saying that the general landscape plan is the way of dealing with it isn't enough. it's too general. it needs to include a mitigation that says a certain area where these trees are located will be avoided at all costs.