[speaker not understood]. they did the design, and we did fund-raising for -- it was a seven-year project. we had to lose a million dollars and lose another million because the costs kept going up. but pioneer park at the rear of coyt tower is our project. it exists because of us. it's a public-private partnership. the city solution to the erosion of the park was literally falling down. we still put a chain link fence around it. we said, wait a minute, this is icon i can, we have to take care of it, so, we did. we also did studies on traffic, on the coyt tower bus, tourism traffic and we worked with the city to re-route the coyt tower bus so it would stop at fisherman's wharf and take people on the bus instead of in cars. i think we've been a very cooperative group as far as enhancing that part of the

hill. the driveway that would come from the proposed project is just 40 feet maybe from where there are tiles on filbert steps they have my granddaughter's names on the steps. so, i have a great -- what shall i say? great interest in keeping that project safe. i have a great interest in keeping it beautiful and letting everyone enjoy the view. i am concerned about safety and [speaker not understood]. please, plea uphold our appeal. thank you. >> let me ask if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak on [speaker not understood]? okay. at this time why don't we hear from the planning department with the presentation as to their analysis. >> thank you, president chow,

honorable members of the board. i'm annemarie rogers, senior planner for the planning department. i'm joined by sarah jones, jessica range, planner for the project, liz, the project planner and [speaker not understood] senior preservation planner. as you have heard, there are two appeals before you today. the conditional use authorization and the categorical exemption. we sent this board a memo responding the 10th and a memo dated november 17th responding to the appellant's supplement letter. additional materials have been submitted to the board [speaker not understood]. so, the decisions before you today are twofold. let me first tell you a bit about the property. if i could have sfgov-tv turn on the projector. this is the south side of telegraph hill. ahx you heard, between

montgomery and kearny streets at park tower, what what once the filbert street from the froth of the lot descending west to kearny street. the property is indeed steeply sloped. it is zoned rh 3, residential house for three units. and the lot currently contains a one story, 844 square foot single-family house which we'll call the cottage. the history of the lot is part of the story. in 1993 there were three lots in in this location that were merged with this lot and street frontage. there were four buildings, four of the five buildings were determined to be unsound and were demolished in 197 ~. at that time the property had been approved for a new building much larger than the one before you today containing six units and 7 parking spaces, but that was not built. the lot has been vacant with

the exception of the small uninhabited cottage since 1997. i've got one more picture on the overhead. thank you, sfgov. the commission approved a new project, three-unit building with three parking spaces and a renovation of the existing cottage. part of the [speaker not understood] includes removing a small addition approved in '95, but which was never completed in final inspections. the new three-unit building will appear as three separate single-family three-story dwellings with one garage door to accommodate the parking for all three units. there will be a three-fold separation between each of the units but will visually provide access as you go down the street to downtown. that's the project that is before the board. now let's dive into the specific responses of the appellants concerns. first jessica range will describe the determination and liz wady will go over the conditional use authorization.

>> thank you, annemarie. i will address the ceqa appeal. 9 ceqa guidelines provide a list of classes and projects that determine to be exempt from environmental review because they would not have a significant impact on the environmental. the determination whether it would qualify for exemption is based on a two-step process. the first is to determine whether the project meets the requirements of the exemption ~. [speaker not understood] an existing structure under the class 1 exemption and the project includes exemption of three new dwelling units exempt under the class 3 exemptionsv the second consideration is determining whether there are any unusual circumstances at the site that present a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. significant effect must be supported by substantial evidence. the department ha determined that there are no unusual circumstances at the site and that the project is appropriately exempt from

environmental review. the project's issue could be four main points. first it there are unusual circumstances at the site that could result in pedestrian safety impacts. the appellant claims that the site is sensitive because it is in route to coyt tower, a destination for many pedestrians who would need to cross the project's driveway resulting in hazard. in san francisco it is commonplace for roadwaysand sidewalks to be heavily traveled whether by tourists or commuters. all sidewalks must cross a driveway. so, therefore, there is nothing unusual about a driveway crossing a pedestrian path of travel. specifically in this location before the -- where the driveway is pro poed, there is both a stop sign and a crosswalk ensuring that vehicles -- ensuring the driveway will be traveling at slow speeds. this is there is no [speaker not understood] for pedestrian

safety impacts. the second concern is that the project could affect slope stability. the appellant you've heard from today, geotechnical engineer, mr. carp, ha provided information saying that in his opinion the project is likely to result in significant environmental effects. so, i'll begin with noting geotechnical report was prepared for the project done with the project, receivable from a geotechnical expand point and included specific recommendation. these recommendations are then taken into account during the department of building inspection or dbi's permit brie view process. dbi reviewed the report [speaker not understood] in compliance with the building code. dbi may require additional reports, surveys and monitoring to ensure shell stability. the site is also subject to slope protection act of 2008

which created more heightened review procedures in this area. specifically, it established a structural advisory committee to review permitted applications and should that committee determine that the project could result in unsafe conditions that cannot be addressed to their satisfaction, the building official must deny the building permit. while it is important to note these are not -- this is not a standard approach as mentioned by the appellant, but this is existing regulation. so, with implementation of the geo tech report, we [speaker not understood] full protection act there is [speaker not understood] for geotechnical effects. the project could step rate the stone wall fen [speaker not understood] claiming the wall is historic. also the appellant claims the project could affect the

historic contents of hyatt park. staff is with us today and they will determine there what no impact to historic resource. the historic resource under ceqa, most importantly the project does not propose any change to that stone wall. and then with regards to esthetic impact or views in general, the project meets the criteria of the residential infill development project. so, instead of impact [speaker not understood]. i would like to note that with regards to the effect on the hiss ar, the appellant has provided some visual renderings to democrat on extra that coyt tower would continue to be a

visual landmark in part because it's protected by pioneer park which is elevated around the [speaker not understood]. these are not mitigation measures. a construction plan is being developed, again, in compliance with existing regulatory requirement and even without thea measures, the department would not find the construction of this project to be significant impact under ceqa. construction noise impacts are addressed by the police code and construction [speaker not understood]. so, there wouldn't be anything significant in bags or to the school. i will note inconsistencies are not in and of themselves an impact under ceqa. rather we look at case to he see whether there would be any

physical environment at effect. finally before i conclude, i would like to acknowledge the testimony today. the testimony provided has not provided any information that would change our conclusion. the class 1 and 3 exemption and there are no unusual circumstances at the site that would present reasonable that would [speaker not understood]. thank you. good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. i'm elizabeth wady, assistant director of planning. [speaker not understood] planning code section 303. [speaker not understood], this is a modest amount for the size of the lot which would allow up to 7 units through the approval of a conditional use. section 303 criteria are outlined in your me have owe from november 10th. they ensure any project subject

to a conditional use be found necessary and compatible with the neighborhood and the community and not be detrimental to of projects themselves can be consistent with the general plan. primary concerns [speaker not understood]. the commission found just that. the project is both necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the commission found the project to be desirable because it provides high-quality well designed infill housing and a residentially zoned neighborhood. it provide contextual housing on a lot vacant 13 years. the current [speaker not understood] low density market rate housing, many with off-street parking that will relate to the topography of the

hill. this is compatible with that pattern. the project meets with [speaker not understood] section 101.1 of the planning code. with regard to the second concern, the planning commission found the project would conserve and protect existing housing and neighborhood character. it will renovate and restore the existing vacant cottage. the project will improve the dilapidated vacant lot with high quality residential development. the new building is compatible with the density, scale, and massing of surrounding properties. the sponsors are also commit today working with dpw and other relevant agencies for the landscaped area to the north of the sill bert street stairs. and the project will be setback to add landscaping and public value to the stairs. the residential units that will be added to the market as part of the project will not generate substantial commuter traffic but impede transit service or restore overhead parking. by providing three off-street parking spaceses, [speaker not understood].

lastly, the project will not adversely affect any public parks or open spaced. the project site is located significantly below coyt tower and telegraph hill and not obstruct the public views within those spaces. the a [speaker not understood]. the scale of the proposed building is compatible with the height and depth of the surrounding buildings. the new building will be designed to appear from the street as three single family dwellings. each of the three -- this is consistent with the whiping, and scale of [speaker not understood] relative to the hill just as the general plan ask. each [speaker not understood]. further reducing the mass, the three previously proposed stair penthouses have been removed from the project. the building also respect thed

made [speaker not understood]. the project includes numerous ark [speaker not understood] architectural character. [speaker not understood]. the project consistently follows the general plan's urban design element especially the [speaker not understood] consistent with telegraph hill. it featureses flat landscaped roofs. the lateral sloping topography are reinfoetioned with the movement of each unit. the texture of the neighborhood is enhanced with the neighboring progression of view to downtown, contemporary to the owe poem brief [speaker not understood]. if development is appropriate,,v it can frame and

accentuate the space at the top. this project does just that. the commission found the project to be consistent with the residential design guidelines and general plan urban designs. that's the concern. the housing element emphasizes the need to provide house he [speaker not understood]. it also does not remove any existing housing in order to do this. rather the project rehabilitates a unit. the property is substantially vacant and given the size of the lot and the skill of the hill the commission [speaker not understood]. the legal condid youtionses is not on the lot or the. it rather is a matter of

[speaker not understood] there is no documentation [speaker not understood]. clearly not meeting life safety goals. in conclusion, for the reasons stated in above, the planning department [speaker not understood] uphold the planning commission decision and deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions to the planning department? okay, supervisor yee. >> just a quick question. the buildings that were there, i guess 18 years ago, do you know the square footage? >> through the chair, i don't have that in information in front of me, but we can see if we have it in from the file and get back to you. >> would you be able to get it

like within the next 15 minutes? >> i should be able to. >> thank you. >> i've got a couple quick questions. there have been a number of contentionses raised around the blocking of public view corridors. i know you alluded to they have, but i'm wondering if you can address the specific project on views. >> sure again. elizabeth wady with the mr. th. the residential plans and guidelines do not protect private views. thea are view we see throughout the city from one property to another. it also does not protect property. it does protect view from within those open spaces. it's our opinion that both pioneer park and coyt tower views are not being

significantly obstructed of these views. it progresses he down the hill as the general plan instructs. furthermore, lang is quite important is the general plan does identify telegraph hill as an outstanding and unique area. what i think is most important, the general plan identifies some of the special characteristics in this area to include, and i quote arm [speaker not understood]. and we very much feel that this project as designed by providing the three setbacks between buildings and a five foot side setback on the west side does just that as directed by the general plan. >> we also heard some testimony today from the geotechnical new jersey ~ engineer [speaker not

understood]. it leaves a late it condition that irreparably leaves lateral and adjacent support to pioneer park and leaves hazard. you responded to the park. could you respond to the objections that were made regarding the stability of the hill. >> what was prepared for the project was basically a geotechnical report that is used to a session whether the project is even feasible from that standpoint and what we use that information for is to determine there could be any secondary effects from the type of film. other than the effects.

but the review of the geotechnical issues is strictly within the purview of the department of building inspection and they have established regulatory procedures. and even a hide ened requirement in this area of the safety construction. there is established regulatory program that addresses geotechnical concern. as the project moves forward toward the building permit stage. >> and a final question, i think obviously the entire city we're concerned about pedestrian safety. this is a project that could [speaker not understood]. wonder if you could summarize on that. >> it is proposing a three-page

parking garage. that is a low volume of vehicle that would need to cross the pedestrian path of travel. in this area i do believe it is very safe, any vehicles entering and leaving the driveway would need to make a full stop before doing so. so, they it is not uncommon for driveways and much me havely trafficked areas with larger number of parking spaces. >> and what about construction impacts, safety in the neighborhood? >> yes, construction impacts are through existing regulatory program. the department of public works, the mta and the transportation advisory staff committee ensure that construction activities are done in a manner that

maintain public circulation in the right way while also [speaker not understood] there are some specifically to protect pedestrians. >> thank you. colleague, any questions to the planning department? okay, at this time why don't we hear from the project sponsor or a represent >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the project sponsor jeremy ricks. i want to thank you for your time today. we started working on this project three years ago. it was transformed and evolved from all our neighbors i met with over the few years. as well as the comments from the planning commission the few hearing. i believe what we have today is a much better to be on the project and proud to be presenting it. i want to talk about the support we have for this project.

47 written letters that support our concept and design, the majority of our supporters express strong opinions on [speaker not understood] massing, view corridors and the beau if i indication of the bill board steps, plus the comments from the planning department as well as taking into consideration the opinions of the opposition has been quite a challenge. i feel it has definitely made for a better project. before lewis butler presents the decision that went into it. [speaker not understood] once design take its conditional use from the neighborhood. massing and number of units are feed from that, the commission as well as [speaker not understood] into a few units that cascade nicely down the hill. each unit should be

distinguished and [speaker not understood]. we now have created separation in each wider setback on the property line to achieve that. including a view corridor that can be seen from both the filbert stairs and telegraph hill boulevard. these have not been painless change. as the project lost over 1,000 feet. however, i believe the project is better for us and give us the unique benefit no other property on our street provides. the property has sat vacant 20-year. i think we're all in agreement it is in the best interest of the development to agree with it. [speaker not understood]. i thank you for your time and consideration. i'll hand it over to the architect louis butler to present the design. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors.

my name is louis butler. i'm the architect for 115 telegraph hill. i want to give a quick presentation on the site, the views, the massing, the parking and garage issues and also some pedestrian improvements. the site as you see on the screen is marked in blue there. you can see its relationship to coyt towers on the left in the telegraph. i just want to give you an overall for the site from the hill. this is one of the few areas you can get a few through the hill. the next slide, the photograph you saw what taken from the foot of the steps. if i go further up those steps. i arrive at pioneer park. the to be image you can see where we built the buildings on the right. this is a degree of the site from pioneer park.

[speaker not understood] coming up the filbert steps, thea are the steps that i come up. i get to the stop of the -- i looked at chain link fence phil: [speaker not understood]. it's not particularly attractive in my opinion. it is "er goal to do something about it. here' a view from the site [speaker not understood]. the assessor's office this is a 6,000 square foot building larger than the one we're proposing. here's a site plan of development. you see the four units, one, two, 3 across the page. 14 in the back. you can see there's there 5 feet plus three feet nice aye. nice corridor on the side. the separation as you had hader

, again, three-foot separation between the units on the west and seat, and eat feet of the ruse and the way we pick up a scale to the larger to the east and drop off to the west. [speaker not understood] applies to the north facade of these buildings. this is a prospective looking to the youth east, the materials of these buildings, wood paneled, wood, other adornment. they are modern pedestrians. we've used planters at a smaller level to relieve and enhance the access and experience up the street.

we feel that is predominantly the experience. this is driving up telegraph hill boulevard. the passenger and the car you can't walk here. we have set the buildings towards the east, preserve the view of the transatlantic [speaker not understood]. here's a view of the southern side of the building. we've broken up the buildings into a glassier top. we landscapes very nicely at the bottom. want to talk about the parking situation. this is a three-car garage. it has a car elevator. the advantage of the car elevator is the car always goes in facing forwards and comes out facing forwards. unlike some of the garages. [speaker not understood]. the car comes outgoing forward. that driver, next slide, that

view it is excessive than most garages in san francisco. this is an extremely safe garage. this is not a substandard garage. this is as safe as you can achieve. we use electronic buzzers and other devices to make it safer. like to talk a little about the pedestrian improvements. here i am walking up the steps facing each and [speaker not understood] a proposal is to maintain this garden, provide a very nice pedestrian experience coming up the filbert steps which has not been very nice now for quite a few number of years. thank you very much. i would certainly be available for questions later on in the proceedings. >> good afternoon, supervisors. dan paton with reuben, junius and rose. this is a four-year project that falls