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 squarely within the exemption of an existing building and construction of up to six new units. these are classes he of project the state has determined do not ray the risk of environmental i patctiontion.

the appellants have the burden of demonstrating otherwise. you need to show substantial evident the cause will be cowed by impacts and impacts will be [speaker not understood] unsubstantiated opinion or simple changes in views don't cut it. that is largely what the appellant has presented. they claim there will be a million deliveries. that's based on the vehicle applies to construction vehicles. it does not, conconstruction utility vehicle are tempt between the late lin ip of what the appellant estimates, something on the order of 6 to 9 trucks each day over a period

of 3 to 4 months of excavation of concrete pouring. the city feudctionv [speaker not understood] do not have significant impacts. the same has to be true for a [speaker not understood] that said we have put considerable effort into the convenience of construction. our plan call for building a pad on the site as the first step in the project that allows trucks to pull onto the site and be on load and had off loaded there rather than blocking the street. there will be a pedestrian tunnel over the stairs so pedestrians can safely walk up them and the stairs will remain open throughout. there are a number of other conditions that we have agreed to which are included in the conditional use. i understand that there are some concerns from the school board regarding concrete staging at filbert and kearny street. to be clear, this was a change that we had made to get the concrete trucks off of

telegraph boulevard and to improve the situation there. it was made in response to things that we heard at the first planning commission hearing and we did not have time to outreach to the school and the project's approval. we are happy to do that and be willing to commit to a condition requiring us to meet with the school before construction starts. next the alleged impacts of excavation, which are 33 feet -- which is 33 feet of its deepest point then it gets shallower as the slope falls away. this type of excavation is relatively commonplace and can be carried out safely. more importantly, the building code mandates that core excavation for any purpose shall not remove support from any foundation and compels the disapproval of the permit that would create unsafe conditions or would increase the likelihood of hillside instability. but also outlines a rigorous process including an independent review of

geotechnical and geo logical reports by dbi for ensuring these standards are met. the courts have specifically held that an eir isn't required to address issues of proper construction technique. rather the city can rely on enforcement of the building code to ensure that impacts do not occur. if that weren't the case, small projects throughout the city could not be exempted from ceqa review. there is a map of special seismic zones that were put up on the map on the overhead that encompass most areas where construction is happening in san francisco. again, small projects in these areas are routinely exempted because the building code is adequate to ensure safe construction. the appellant's evident of impacts, a letter from lawrence carp is not credible or fact based. carp has not been on-site. he has made statements completely unsupported or contradicted by the facts.

he draws conclusions based on properties more than a thousand feet away that are geologically speaking quite different from the ones here, properties close to the edge on stable cliffs. he claims there will be de watering facts but he hasn't put anything in the water where it would occur. [speaker not understood]. so we don't see any reason why we should expect it here. in any event, dewatering is common and can be handled safely without causing damage. the quote on the overhead isn't from this project but does go to mr. carp's credibility. quote, in his report mr. carp misrepresents the rio logical representations before construction begins at the site. draws inaccurate conclusion about construction methods that will be used and indirectly describes construction on nearby properties and

groundwater tables. so, you don't have to take my word for it. take the mtas. mr. carp plays loose with the facts and conjuring up the worst case scenario here doesn't require us to do an e-i-r. next up is [speaker not understood]. under state law, esthetics are no longer considered significant for infill projects. that's within designated areas that include this site. and even if they were abused from sidewalks or stairs are not protected views. views from parks are. as you've seen, park views are not obstructed by this project. finally, this is not the first project to be approved on this site. the city actually approved a 7-unit project here in the 1990s and they found that it, too, would not have significant environmental impacts. we're dealing with the same site, the same geologic conditions and very similar environmental condition overall. there simply isn't a need for a full environmental review and

the appellants have not provided credible factual evidence to the contrary. with that's correct i'll ask that you please reject the appeals and uphold the decision of the planning department and the planning commission. we believe they're well reasoned, well sound. this is a very good project that we would like to see go forward. our entire team is available here for your questions. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions to the project sponsor? supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. you heard some of the members of the public school. they came today to talk about their concerns and what i heard you say was that you would be committed to sit down with them. you heard their concern today. for me to just hear you say you're committed to sit down with them almost means nothing.

you could be committed to meet with them, but are you committed to modify your plans so that the safety of the children would be taken into consideration? >> yes, absolutely. as i said before, the reason we have not outreached to the school before is because these changes in the construction plan were made in a short period of time between the first and second planning commission. we're more than happy to meet with the school to show them the construction plans to figure out maybe if there are certain hours where staging shouldn't happen because it's during their pick up and drop off times where we're more than willing to accommodate to make changes to the plan to accommodate their concerns. >> may i ask a question of the city planner, i guess?

is this a commitment by the developer to meet with the school district -- i'm not saying what you're going to do, but let's say they don't do anything to mitigate that situation. is there something we can put in there to make sure that that happens? >> supervisor yee, annemarie rogers through the chair. yes, the whole conditional use authorization is before you. and a such, you can modify the conditions of approval or add additional conditions to your liking. you could require that they meet with them if you have specific things that you think are important for the staging, you could add those into the condition of approval. so, anything that's within the realm of what the planning commission does, this board can do. >> would you be able to help me come up with some language to

add that in as a condition? >> supervisor yee, i just want to mention, my staff had worked with the school district and the project sponsor to suggest some language and i'm happy to share that with you so that hopefully we can put something in that would make some sense. if you want to work with the planning department in the next few minutes to see if we can work on that, that would be great. >> okay, thank you. >> and i think annemarie roger has something more to add. >> yes. i did look into the supervisor's previous question and we looked into that now. >> [speaker not understood]. it includes 12,200 square feet of residential space in the project. >> and this one has how many? >> the new construction includes 11,777 square feet of residential space. >> i guess really the question i had was the original buildings that were there, do you know the square footage of that? >> i believe the original building were on the lot before

they were demolished before that project was approved. the five existing buildings according to the previous use were 5,500 square feet. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other question? why don't we now hear from members of the public who wish to support the project sponsor. please step up. my name is louis sill cox and i live six doors away from the property ~ and i've lived on telegraph hill for about 30 years. i just, you know, obviously there are a lot of opinions here. i would just like to say that i also represent a couple of neighbors who could not be here who support the project as i do. and a few of the people who have spoken today, and i pulled this from tax records, live in quite large residences replete with parking and i think it's

quite unfair that they should tell people how high their ceilings can be and whether or not they can have parking. the building to the immediate east owned by dr. rudder is 6,127 square feet, not including a six-car garage or a full basement under the garage. the building to the left of that is two condominiums with about 4,000 square feet and has four parking spaces for two owners. the building to the left or east of that is 345 filbert and that's a total of 5,610 square feet and has parking for each of the owners. there's a building next to that, which is a total of 4,9 58 square feet which was actually built in 1988, and it ha four-car parking.

so, again, this design completely fits into the context of the neighborhood and there was a driveway cut there previously. i bear witness to that. and it does not impact views from pioneer park or coyt tower. the pedestrian views that everybody keeps talking about from the stairway and they currently enjoy when they're walking on the stairway were never there before the building were demolished because they were unsound. thank you. hello, everybody. my name is grant eskin. i've lived here in san francisco for about eight years now and i enjoy exploring the city and this is one area that i've been to actually recently and it's just kind of an eyesore walking around in certain places.

and seeing accumulated trash and just the fences and how it just looks running up the stairway, it just seems out of place to me. i'm involved in the architecture and construction world. i do like seeing new projects. from the renderings i've seen of the green roof, new material, looks like something that would greatly beneficial this area. not only that but it will bring green jobs and help sustain the economy. so, thanks for hearing me out. hello, everybody. my name is vincent trowel. i am a resident of north beach. have been for about a year.

i currently visit coyt tower quite frequently and as a resident and visiting there often, staring at the current fence and the state where it is now has not been the most esthetically thing i've seen. so, after reviewing some of the plans and the project, decided to see that something positive will be done with the current space that it's in right now. so, thank you. good evening, my name is john stewart. i'm a neighbor, immediate neighbor about a block away. my day job involves managing and developing mostly affordable mixed use housing including north beach place on bay street. my wife and i