have a car realistically. that is going to add to the traffic problems more than the three 3 units. there was a lot of support, there is 50 letters of support, and i like the things they did. i like the fact that there are separation in the three distinct units, there is a design that they can be a little bit more contrasting but they are unique units and single family homes which there is a scarcity in san francisco. i know there is construction on brotherhood after a 12 -year fight and they are building them now. i don't know of any other isolated homes. i think it's going to be four additional units. and i understand the access is when you couple the proposed opening with the existing space on the other side of

the property line i think you have four feet 4 feet from the first unit and three feet 3 feet from the next two and i understand the view corridor is about 8.5 feet. that makes for a good view corridor and some for location at the top which is okay for those going up the steps by foot and stopping to look, but for someone who is coming up telegraph hill boulevard by foot or car, that's where you are going to see the view as you glow before -- before the boulevard. that's a place to put it. i like the way that's been done. i like the fact that there is another cut on the west side and cuts the impact from fill

bert street. we went over the construction plan a little bit. the views from pioneer park are not affected, they are going to be about the same as they are now. you have lots of trees there and to be able to really see anything to the east to the south, you really have to be high enough on the tower itself because there are lots of trees there and as you are ascending the trails you are looking at the structures that are presently there. i do agree with the speaker who said all the other structures as you come along telegraph hill boulevard are side by side, there is no view corridors on any of the others. those are the main thing, and

i was happy to hear this was going to generate a generous amount of property tax there. a lot of questions about the shoring and the fears of slides. this is the province, when a project is approved there is a responsibility on the part of the sponsor and the builder to shore and prevent any damage to the adjacent properties. this is dramatized by some of the high rise downtown where the one on fremont is going through extensive work to make sure it does not affect the neighboring excavation for the transbay terminal. it's a real tricky deal and that was not specifically called out in the approval, but it's part of the

process of building something that that has to be done. anything that is built has to follow that order of business to be able to be safe. i like the project a lot and i'm very much in favor of it. i'm interested in hearing what the other commissioners have to say, barring some minor modifications, i think it's answered most of my concerns. commissioner richard? >> i have a couple of questions for rick. i have been involved in these issues in our neighborhood for some time. we've had some large projects coming before us and we get to come before the planning commission and sing couple ba -- koom ba ya. it seems as toe -- though

something broke down in the process. can you walk us through? >> from the beginning i met with dwellers on several occasions two 1/2 years ago and went through a number of different renditions of different massing that will be acceptable to them and at the end of the day, it was a very divided group that had a lot of unique opinions and it was clear there was never going to be one voice from them saying this is what we want, and really they were very anti-parking and i realized that i was unwilling to do this without parking. i asked a member of the dht i asked

for the addresses to everyone that attended the meeting because i wanted to hear what each of them thought and i was denied that they didn't work that way. i reached out to as many neighbors as i could over the past couple of years. so asking everybody that i knew if they can introduce me to their neighbors and that's how about a dozen meetings at my home going through plans really trying to listen to specifics. it was a really difficult challenge to incorporate almost 150 unique opinions. i think we have done a really good job doing that and we had another meeting at my house

on monday. >> when is your last contact with the dwellers? >> we had a meeting right before the last hearing. >> okay, the other proposals that they brought today, have you seen those before? >> i have seen them as of last night. >> do any of them resonate with you? >> i think putting the view corridor is not as effective as putting the corridor on the west side even after the rendering you have two tall buildings and in comparison a small view corridor and feels like a tunnel. i think we have a degree mapping showing the actual degrees of the views because

the cottage to our west is so much smaller, the view corridor from the western side is much more expansive than the tunnel view on the eastern side as they propose. oor this >> this is the view on the western side where you have pretty expansive views. just that radius of the view. so so do any of your proposals resonate with you? >> no, i don't think they were thought out well. we were working on this project for two 1/2 years and they had an architect come up with some mock ups. i think they are far inferior to what we have. >> okay. i will hold my comments until

later. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you very much. i appreciate the changes of the project sponsor has made. i at least at the last commission meeting i think the buildings are further separated from each other, i think that it resonates as a family building rather than a model of structure which is one of the major comments that i heard as the spectrum at the comments i heard. i'm not a believer that all residential development especially when it's private development needs to be a consensus of every opinion in the room and i do think that there were some changes here that benefit the project itself and the progression along that street, from a runner, cyclist, i have run

up that street. i think these buildings will compliment what's already there. i will just have a couple of quick things. i appreciate the work that the project sponsor has done since the previous meeting, not just with the design but also with some of the elements of the design with the steps and their construction plan which again i agree with commissioner antony that this is a problem with dbi that is going to work physically and technically. i think it's an improvement on the original circumstance. the only thing i would say is given the work on those changes , i would want to make sure they are reflected accurately in the conditions of our approval and in our motion and i don't think they are right now. so depending on where this

conversation goes, if there is anymore changes i would make shero -- sure they are accurately reflected. the design changes need to be reflected on the motion, the description describes the buildings as differentiated, i'm not sure that is case anymore based on the design, if it is, that's fine. the second to the park stewardship and the construction plan should be added to the provision on the conditions of approval and that's vague where we were in the previous meeting, but not where we are now and that needs to be reflected in our motion. that's what we are approving, we are not approving discussion, we are approving a piece of paper. those are the three i would want to see, otherwise i'm

pretty supportive of the projects and changes that were made. >> commissioner hillis? >> so thank you for the presentation. i appreciate the changes that were made and what went into them. i know when we were here last time we grappled with how many feet we had in certain areas. i'm glad they went back and looked at it. i actually think somewhat minor changes on how much feet you setback here makes a difference. i liked the design before but i appreciate the changes and i think it's vastly improved with those modifications. it reads as three separate buildings but the building even i think the south facade benefited the most from the changes and instead of doing it on the west. so, i like the plan.

i also appreciate the eacd plan presented. i don't think there is a huge difference between the two. it matters between you put the view corridor and expand it or what i think is a more superior kind of massive urban design that we have that you presented. i don't think they are too far off, but to me i think the urban design and how this is massed is more important than preserving some small view corridor, the view corridor we've had has been great because the land has been vacant, that's going away no matter if we put one building there. there is no need to preserve that. there is plenty of view along the boulevard. this is a private lot and i think it should have buildings on it. i prefer the massing that was presented by the project sponsor. i think that plan works

better. i think the parking garage off telegraph hill boulevard is my biggest concern in this, but i think you have all addressed it, and you have done everything possible to mitigate the impacts of the curve there and i appreciate the design. the diagram you showed how far back. my hope was to give it as much breathing room as possible between pedestrians coming up the stairs and potentially have cars coming up. how much space between the stairs or what's considered the sidewalk there in the garage entry you kind of have that view? >> presently there is i believe almost five 5 feet of

space between what you technically call the north south line at the south. the diagram we showed specifically addresses it's five foot four, 5'4", you can see where the driver would be and pulling out of the garage. you can see it how many degrees we have there. it's 112. i think one of the concerns i heard that someone walking up the steps wouldn't be seen and wouldn't be able to sea from the car. we made sure everyone saw everyone. >> can i ask a follow up question to that. so if you put up that cone again, is there a point at which the head of someone walking up the stairs is below, is there a wall there, essentially near the property

line. is the cone a true cone? >> it is. the steps are approximately six inches 6 inches a piece. if someone's eye level is 5 feet, then they are able to see that car five steps, few more, about 10 steps from the steps. so i think that is a fairly accurate depiction of the cone. we don't have any high elements that would get in the way. >> is there anything more we can do to mitigate the impacts of that? >> we have looked at that and it's very tight in the north south direction. we have a sidewalk and car elevator and a setback at the

south line. we are between a rock and hard place on that dimension. however we have looked at a couple more feet and in my mind that would produce a more visually clear driveway situation especially considering this is a front wards out situation. so everybody else in the city virtually everybody else 90 percent are doing this over their right hand shoulder with a view cone about a third of this size, in tourist areas and over bus stops. so what we are presenting is a situation where you have the lightest kind of vision you can possibly have from the drivers seat with the hood of the car not yet in the public right-of-way. we can generate more space. >> would that change the facade, how would that

change the look? >> it would not change the overall look, but would deepen? >> is that a setback from the front line? >> you see that overhang across the top, that gets deeper by two 1/2 feet. i'm not sure i would call that a game changer. forty-two -- from a design? >> well, i think it's a balance. >> he's trying to create as much breathe ing room as possible. >> commissioner moore? >> i appreciate the architect's attempt to respond to the challenges posed during the last hearing. i feel that the solution still falls somewhat short in addressing particularly the public's

interest -- value and preserving the setting as it is which is kind of an iconic setting. i would like to ask the architect to take the board on which you are explaining how the five 5-foot johnck -- joining property creates that. could you go through that please, as i understand it correctly, at this moment there is a door on the adjoining property that faces the steps. are you suggesting that that door be removed? >> yes. >> and you have an agreement with the property owners to do

so? >> i believe the 3-foot separation between the buildings is a way of differentiating whether the building is not exactly typical for the setting, but it doesn't really create any view corridors. i would like to ask the commissioners to really look at the drawing on 3.1 and realize that there is a major retaining wall in addition to the fact that on unit one as the garage track on the

stairs as well as on the landing you are not seeing a view corridor, you are seeing a lot between buildings, there isn't any. the three 3 feet don't really do anything to provide views particularly if you would go into pioneer park there is no way on being on the down slope to look through those lots anyway. it's a mute point that those slots should be responding to any view objective. the other thing, there was a lot of question of height and massing. i believe that your building judging from the individual room heights could all be about three plus feet lower unit no. 3, has ceiling height of 11, 11, 10.5, unit 2 has

11-foot sealing hooit on all three floors and that track unit one which is one or two floors are still 10.5 and 11 feet. in a way i don't believe that the attempt of reducing massing and still providing really very strong ceiling heights is really properly addressed. i am continuously concerned that 1.6 to the crew cut is a safe landing in residential design as well as in public stair design. you have to arrive at a 3 -foot level landing before you can do something else, ietsz

-- either go up another stair. is that correct, mr. butler? >> that generally can be corrected. where are you applying the rule? >> i'm applying it over the width of the stair because i see people coming up the stairs, it's not one individual by itself. you often see up to three people coming up the stairs. my requirement for a level3 -foot landing on the entire width of the stair would be a minimum that constitutes public safety. >> okay. i'm afraid i'm not understanding this perfectly. we'll put up a graph of the stair. >> the top of the stairs before you take your curb cut

you indicated and i appreciated you moved it off a little bit but still not having a complete level is surface at the top of the last step. >> the three 3-foot rule is one that is predominant in stair construction. i don't see that applied to construction on drive ways, i see stairs like this all the time. i'm not sure the three 3-foot rule applies here and because we have chosen for a lot of very large reasons that we can attack, we've chosen to keep the stairs as is, and the conversation with commissioner hillis and between 8 and 9 feet. >> you are talking about for a car to stop and view? >> correct.

>> but i'm talking about the safety of a pedestrian basically to a blind landing. >> understood. >> we all know the challenges of walking on level is surfaces have become more difficult since we have accentuated handicap curb cuts but you see it happen. when you come to the stairs, you are stepping into a blind landing and all of a sudden you are cutting into the curb cut where there is a change in grade. i'm just pointing out what i believe is a potential unsafe spot at the top of the stairs. the what it is, but i want to point that out to you and it is a concern to me. >> i will just add that in many projects and we do a lot of garages and we deal with a lot of city sidewalks by garage doors.

most of them incorporate planters and railings and small items to keep people away. they do not and i'm not going to say this because i don't have this section in front of me, i don't think the three 3-foot rule applies, i think what applies is a more general one that where one is safe. given we don't tv option -- have the option to move in the east to west. but i think we are with what's allowable. >> the traffic doesn't take the apex of the curve. you talk the curb cut at the straight of way. actually in right angle intersections the distance for the first curb cut is i think 50 feet. her here we are in

an accentuated cut. i don't want to be labor that point but i think there is a public safety issue. >> understood. >> could you talk about viewing of slots coming up the stairs? >> i live in a victorian on broadway street. they were built in 1883 and they all have slots in between them. i feel it's a very significant part of the block. i suppose it's a little bit of an inflation to call it a view corridor but it is a light corridor especially when the lights coming into the steps as you go down the fill bert step, there will be slots coming through thchl i there. i don't know that i would call it a fabulous view corridor,

but the differentiation is significant in the design. >> i appreciate you explaining that. i agree with you the light corridors, the public concerns are about the view corridors. we have a slight interpretation here but i appreciate your saying what you did because there are light corridors that create a certain amount of openness beneath the height of your rooms is an issue. i would probably want to raise. i know your skills, i have seen you work in other projects. i would hope that you would have come up with alternate mapping proposals than just the one that you were able to come up with in your last meeting. i regret that didn't happen. that was my personal feeling and i do regret you couldn't take that further. >> thank you. >> i want to add a couple of thoughts, i think

commissioner moore and hillis raise this question about public safety. i share those concerns. in particular i believe this site is in the north beach telegraph special use district that requires for parking and more weight to address whether or not there are pedestrian safety concerns. i want to ask a follow up question, thank you commissioner johnson for her comments. i want to ask the city attorney for especially on a private agreement, if there were a private agreement to make improvement to the fill bert stairs or land escape area across from it, what would you advise about whether or not that were a condition? >> deputy city attorney, susan cleveland knowles. the stairs in the public right-of-way in the direction of dpw. i would advise that a finding that the project sponsor has

committed to work with dpw on an agreement in that area or conditional approval that they use their best efforts to work with dpw on such an agreement. it definitely seems the project sponsor has committed to doing that and that could be on the record and your findings, but ultimately dpw would need to approve that. >> thank you. i appreciate the comments, i appreciate the design changes. i think there have been improvements made since the last hearing and i think it's important to get this all in the record. i'm challenges about the mere fact that this is a cu and necessary and desirable. the most recent housing pipeline, we are at 197 percent of