about where unfortunately, we feel the project has shortcomings while to the public interest portion of the project. again, i believe the site can be built on and the site produce good architecture but the project needs to meet a number of thresholds and challenges it currently doesn't one of the shortcomings is the fact it ignores the public values associated with the most i come back size and conditions on top of the steps clubbing the public realm itself. the site because of when it was built and how developed over the many times of exceptional

geographies one person described it as a hilltop it in anyway it has signage of the proper lane, etc. but we want to have the offer lay i believe that the extension of the general plan priority and some would say it's comparing the experience at arriving at the several steps the public has to make the project work and at this particular time in the work of the driveway here i would like to pub pickup there is is way to perhaps modify the building or move it around and still have a little actually 3 buildings but

create a better attitude how we deal with the public realm. the first one is that if for a moment all 3 buildings would be reduced in building to equal 23 feet. we would gain 30.5 feet by which we could put the derivative to the elevator inclined with the stair that leads down to the cottage in the rear yard and still create a public view corridor which is fulfill 13 point plus wide this will not diminish our ability to fully extend the building to the permitted width into the lot together what an extension and

notching it. this will create units way over 3 thousand feet each and most likely meet the objectives for family housing including the features your envisioning for our project. the 23 feet is a midrange between the typical lots in san francisco that are 23 and 25 feet we'll see that in order to complete that this year i want to skip and take the ferry over the saul obsolete we extended over the hillside and then creating an slate it takes you down. there could be a wrought iron structure that could be a greenhouse enclosure with this

drives onto the platform so the rest of the things take the cars it will going come 0 into the similar fashion you on the thing is slimming down the houses and in that sense fine tuning the massing still take the access to each the units from the intermediate landing you'll be basically are not the rhythm tuesday creating the safe and unblocked flow of the pedestrians coming up the steps and going over 0 sizeable portion not moving the bus stop or stop sign and moving into pioneer park. the other thing i would ask is to consider move and this has been said by mr. hillis and

anton to move the project off the steps perhaps by two or three feet in order to getting give it more breathing room. i'd hope i could get our attention to give it more breathing room fine the east and south by which the whole experience would feel like at a newer building everybody is house will come to order back the house and it becomes nor noble. height two stories above the stair grade for assure and 3 grades are a 15 foot set back and a possibility for creating a

little bit difference between the housing expressions that is ultimately in the detail. in response it's my kind of proposal and i'm kind of waiting how you respond to that >> thank you. i want to pick up open a couple of thoughts on the question of views. it's unclear if pioneer park with the canopy of the trees which verify is blocked exactly i know that pioneer park is exactly across the street but any project from across the street will be blocked so views is not the issue but picking up on commissioner moore's authenticity the first one around pedestrian safety i do have a lot of concerns looking at the staircase an filbert and coming up the last staircases

it's mostly tourist once you walk up to the step you're in the way of driver there's a question around necessary and desirable with the parking. it's four spots versus the hundreds of thousands of tourists walking everyday that's a public concern there's been a number of concerns raised around size and height of the building i know that eliminating the parking actually eliminates a lot of the bulk of the building and the larger public issue is that thought how's crisis we're in those are huge unit their 4 thousand square feet. and i think that the argument for family sized housing or other needs to accommodate people i don't think you need 4

thousand square feet to highway a family knowing there were 5 cottages on the site and knowing this is 3 units of super luxury units on this site i know we're above the arena goals 2 hundred percent in the expensive category is hard to justify this size of a unit. knowing this this site used to be 3 and combined into one 0 i'd like to see 9 modest family sized unions. commissioner antonini >> okay. mr. butler i'm trying to pick up where commissioner moore left off i'm going to see if we can't graft something. first of all, in regards to the separation i'm looking at the picture there is a separation between the upper most unit and the second unit the walkway down to the cottage and what's the

wealthy of this separation >> i believe it's 3 and a half feet. >> okay. i also have a separation on the extreme west side between our lowest unit and that is referred to as the cottage but the next house how big is that you 3 feet. >> i'm suggesting do you is that the very at least combining moving both of those as opposed to the extreme lowest end as ms. christianson said that will create a corridor you'll have the stairs to access the cottage from the west side and then walk across the gasped to get into the cottage that would be something that could be done and my second question is what is the current wealthy of each of

your units now commissioner moore was talking about 23 feet what's our width now. >> 25. >> 25, thirty and 34 are what it is now. >> they vary a little bit depending on the number we may have is so take a second to give the correct number. >> i'm hoping we could shave a little bit ouch and make it 24. and also gaining putting that opening in the space we're up to 6 and a half feet and picked up a additional few feet that leaves a gracious opening as you drive up you'll see the verify and separate our buildings away from the house on filbert and

give them more breathing room the other thing i will suggest if you eliminate the stair penalty houses or pit hatches in there it would take something over the top of the building i think the height is fine the way they're designed but when a would it be possible to have hatches instead of stairwells >> i think i can respond to get things starting on this west side generating more space. >> yes. and i think i can respond to the penthouses commissioner moore i was discussing our ideas with my client and not paying attention. >> why not picking up put on the screen the address he will because that's also on their screens. so what we've deny talking about thus faster far is the proposal the zero property line proposal

that leaves the 3 feet of space that belongs to the westernmost property. because this issue has come up in the last duo few days it i've make up an idea this this proposal if you start with the shaded square to the lower right and yes - let's start right there. directly to the left of that cottage is the 3 feet that belongs to the cottage we're proposing setting the westernmost unit back 2 floors an additional 4.8 and then setting that unit an additional 5 feet even if 12 foot eight

from the property line >> yeah. that sounds good it answers the criticisms that have been budget up the most visible spot where people come up telegraph hill boulevard any building is going to block the view but after they've made the turn it's not a significance so that's a big improvement and prepared to be supportive and would it includes the eliminations of the stair penalty housed aussie think that point addresses .3 through 5 of ms. kirsten sons decision i believe it makes the massing for transparent on that west facade by adding the windows. moving into the penalty houses we prefer to reduce the size the penthouse we can reduce them to

six or seven feet and make them work we'll have 42 inch railings so we prefer that >> and those railings are set away from the sides of the building. >> they vary by won't have the effect of the railing all around the perimeter. >> we could see where we could go if you get them down to 6 feet that's a little bit more acceptable so i can go ahead and make a motion to strike and be supportive of the motion to contain the modifications that have been brought up by mr. butler to move the spaces between the unit so that the

spaces other than the west side of the units and modifying the height of the penalty houses and go into the other modifications you've made to set back those units i think we've got that on the record but you can repeat. >> we'll set back the westernmost wall why not put that on the screen. this is a perspective we've generated and the impact that would have coming up the him that's a double set back of 4 foot 8 which is the bottom left of the pyramid of the agree gate 9.8 at the top in the interest of opening up that very to reiterate the first is 3 feet that's the neighbors 3 feet and the second 4 feet 8 on the

second floors and the next two floors an additional 5 foot sent to total 9 feet 8 from the property line >> so that's my motion to go along with the proposal as spelled and by mr. butler. >> i appreciate the corporation of the architect but there's others commissioners. >> commissioner johnson. i have a few questions in general as an overview i feel as though theres a number of suggestions from public comment and fellow commissioners i'm leaning towards not necessarily not a balanced project but there so many changes you might be willing to its hard to put the

project together today and even though people have commented that is starting to look like a different project then we spent time doing i have a few questions and getting something you can maybe help me. so i was confused as well? my first planning commission meeting i don't want to ask a lot of questions maybe i don't get it i was confused by the fact there was little information provided been the com the reason being that i maybe neither here nor there on the cottage but it sounds like even whatever project is built whether the density will make

that more difficult to do anything in the future that's from my view of being in the area so i was - i would personally want to see the information about what that cottage is going to look like maybe in the way for assembly future. the second is just on construction you know, i tend to think that construction is a necessary evil if you're going to build something you want to mitigate our impacts as much as >> is as the noise i didn't dusty disbusiness i want to address one the comments on the adjacent property were you planning to do any foundation shoring or any kind of work would that be part of the permit process should we consider that today, it's a question of mere

process you're considering. >> well, i, answer it from an architecture standpoint but i've mentioned our firm doesn't a lot of those excavation actually, it's not that difficult i railway can think of one case in 20 years. so this speaking as an architect this is not a difficult evasion part of the project we've touched on is doing it so it's not disrush to the telegraph hill traffic back to our question of shoring up to the neighbors we're going to take care of the neighbors not only will we have a great construction engineer who only

takes care of those things >> just a couple more questions i definitely want to echo commissioner moore's and commissioner antonini made comments in that way i think we could make those buildings narrower and get to some of the sort of view impacts additional also list some of the density questions coming up it's a suggestion i make no commentary open 3 is the right number but something to consider and my next question about density i wrote 963 i want to verify were there 9 units and a plan to go to 6 and now 3. >> that's my understanding i will verify that.

>> so yes formerly there were 11 units then they were all but one removed if the site about 17 years ago. the project that was approved in the late 1990s allowed for 7 units and the proposal is 4 total. >> so again, i have to look at it in terms of 3 because there's not a lot provided about the cottage. but maybe project sponsor person did you consider more units within 3 i know you did around 6 summarizes with the bulk but did you consider more. >> i had discussions with members of the telegraph hill hill folks early on and they felt that number of units was

not sensitive to them, in fact, they've suggested a few more units but the density was right and we felt the density was 4 not if or five or six that's our sweet spot the numbers a little bit higher i lower discussed but nothing. thank you and getting towards looking at the filbert steps my only question slash concern i don't know if i call it a hood i've done up the steps and this should be a building there and isn't i think but my question is there a way to either orient windows or other sort of lighting to enhance pedestrian safety that on the fillmore

steps people trying to go up towards dusk get in that last walk or run and now it's a building there we want to make sure dollars visibility on people so bad things don't happen to people >> we're happy to provide additional latin-american on the fillmore steps our buildings are set back at the stair level we're providing space we can make sure we light the space and steps in a way that you know not two bright for the other dwellings and centered in the beautification proposals about some of the planted areas of the steps. >> excellent thank you i don't know if that's part of the design but i'd love to see that and in terms of the two last questions in terms of the

backside of the development it looked like and i'm thinking of more a little bit of an ascetical so it looked like they have their reverberation of ground floor sort open space i think it's possible to increase open space for the people who dwell there as well changing the set back or the back facade of the building by providing more open space on the backside of the building so set back this and get to concerns i add that as a comment in terms of when you looked at the design i'm sure there's plenty of ways to look at it. >> i want to say we are n within the set back there's no

variances with regard to that my understanding is one of the original buildings was in the middle of the site we thought this plan maximize a lot of the mid block from spaces if you look at this years ago we feel we've accomplished that we can look at additional measures it's over a 17 year span. >> excellent. thank you >> and then other comment on the pedestrian safety i know that people were talking about going to the top of the steps now 2, 3, 4 someone's derivative i feel it's safer now than a tree and rocky area people sometimes run up telegraph hill

i think that a driver is better than rocks and i want to say commissioner moore made a comparison to sal slut i'll compare it to loped and talk about the use of the underground space you said the excavation is not anything that is particularly hard to do and out of order in terms of the construction methods but, you know, london has creativity how they build underground space so especially, if you guys move towards a design that's narrow whether 3 or more or 3 could there be consideration for using the underground space for other

than cars again, i'm not an architect i don't do the building technology so i'm going to make a detailed comment but should there be a bettered use of the ground space it seems like a lot to me. >> thank you may i address that. >> i want to address the width this math hadn't been done we're proposing 18 inches per unit in reduction in wealthy and proposing a net reduction even if 3 feet actually in our pulling that side back if you average it we're hitting the 20, two to 23 net feet.

on the undermine and garage aspect you're absolutely right about london and new york goes down and that's where you go we're after a combination of not really sending our car down an elevator we want the convention and that's a preference of the project sponsor. >> okay. commissioner sugaya >> yes. something commissioner moore triggered a question did we ask rec and park for any comment on july 29th of 993 there was a letter directed to mr. nixon from tim assistant to t

to the general manager they expressed two things one was used and the other regarding the telegraph hill boulevard i'm wondering why we didn't ask rec and park for some comment on this. >> there's not on rec and park property there are many buildings but we don't ask rec and park comment on i that's an unacceptable answer we have a letter already on a different project on the same site now we're saying theory not important enough to talk to about something they've written a letter about you don't have to answer. in photograph 1 it includes the project capital p the nomination

with no expansion of the building envelope this is something that commissioner johnson ways wondering about two if the project includes the restoration of the cottage why are there noted plans 90 in our packet and how, we approve this without the plans of recreation and restoration if it's part of the project. >> sxhifks e commissioner hillis. >> can we go going going back book to the diagram with the additional space in unit 3. can we have that up >> yeah. >> we use