we do ask for some modifications in the letter that we're sharing. small things like safety concerns making sure these are not directly next to a bar. one last note, one of our neighborhood organizations recently did a family survey. it's really fascinating. one of the questions in that survey, do you believe that city officials are doing enough for families. 70% said no. i think this is a small step forward in correcting that today. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional public comment? we'll close public comment. vice president melgar: thank you. thank you for excellent work and

excellent presentation to supervisor yee and thank you so much for the excellent presentation and all your great thinking about this. i have a few questions. some of them related to the legislation. the first question that i have is for mel. are these units going to be in a lottery? is it going to be a finite pool of folks who already been vetted business wise? >> yes. the lottery will be run as a lottery. the pool applicants will be generated by the office of early care and education based on people that are already licensed and operating small family child cares. we have a list all those operators.

vice president melgar: my question is, how do we know those folks are looking for housing? i want to make sure that this program works. >> i think the legislation leaves the ability for the mayor's office housing community development and the office of early child care education to develop program guidelines for we'll implement the details. we do prefer to use a referral system that we currently use for support of housing units. that's not through a lottery process. we would be -- we would like for the always of -- office of child care education to be vetting child care providers and making referrals to us based on their

employment. we would be creating an application process not based on a lottery system but based only system of referrals. vice president melgar: that makes since. if somebody has been operating and got evicted, they may need a home and business. >> that's something for our office and ece to work out in the system of how we may want to prioritize folks who have been displaced and looking at their years of experience operating their facility. vice president melgar: you'll be developing the policy? thank you so much. other question that i had was about -- this is for rental bmr. did you guys consider doing this

for ownership bmrs or was that too complicated? >> we did not consider that particularly because we did a small survey of the child care providers seem to fit within 80%. we are willing to look into expansion of that. we wanted to start with the bmr rental unit. vice president melgar: my other question, are you s it in the legislation to have some kind of look to period to assess the data whether or not this is working as intended? just with our experience with it. >> we intend to have hearing or some type of report back to see if there's any developers that opt into it. one of the legislation we think that's important, we do need to market this. not only to the providers but the actual property owners and developers that might want to opt in this so that a big component of this program.

i don't believe we have anything dictated in terms of a report. i'm willing to put that in there with supervisor yee's consent. vice president melgar: thank you so much. >> commissioner johnson: i think in the city, we often about the real pressures that families are facing to stay in the city and usually the conversation goes to affordable housing. then right after it goes to child care. i have so in friend who is in position one of the parents can't work because they can't find child care. that puts enormous pressure on them and they have had to leave the city. i also just think that so often, part of reason a child is being in a village where you can raise a child and districts like mine, we do have quite a few neighborhood in-house child care sites that i think really make

our neighborhood feel like a community for the families that can have their children go to those sites. as we look to the future of making sure that every child has an opportunity to have child care, especially in that crucial 0 to 5-year-old period, i'm grateful for this legislation and grateful to supervisor yee's office and to planning staff for working on this. i would echo the comments. one question i did have for providers who have already been displaced or who want to step in that role what options there are. it's great to hear that. you are thinking about that and the other question that i had was just around making sure that we attempt to talk to a variety of stakeholders in this

including the developers about what would incentivize them. i hear that difficult choice that we had to make around the bmr units. really look forward to both the look back and see whether that incentive does spur the production of these units. >> commissioner moore: thank you to supervisor yee andesque who worked, do everybody who worked on this. we're talking about this at this time of year. i think there's something very gift-like and hearing about it and i'm delighted to support it. i hope that in the creation of these ideas, there will be some geographic equity with respect how it spreads over cities. there are neighborhoods where is

deficiency in facilities like this. i see people in my districts that's spending tremendous amount of time, friends and colleagues, taking their children in the morning and picking them at night from these facilities. this is important because people with children live everywhere. they are not just confined to a particular area. >> commissioner fong: support so much i move to approve. >> second. [laughter] >> is there a second? >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to approve ta this planning code amendment.

[roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. in places item 13, residential care facilities planning code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioners. before i give the department's presentation, i believe kyle is here to speak on the ordinance. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm here behalf of supervisor mandelman who is requesting your support. i want to thank supervisor norman yee for shedding like on this issue and to the plank

department for their guidance throughout this process. the technical details of the minnesota will leave to -- ordinance i will leave to planning staff. in our first few months, supervisor mandelman has been focused on addressing homelessness which is the top priority for district eight and city at large. we started by taking a wide ranging tour of our city's homeless services including nonprofit and district service providers. what we've seen is a serious long term care crisis. we have a shocking number of seniors and people with disabilities living in our shelters without a guaranteed path to housing. more than one third of the 4000 homeless clients are seniors. citywide the most recent point

in time count showed that 32% of our homeless population are age 51 years or older. the numbers tell a story when you meet the 89-year-ol 89-yeart becomes all too clear we need to be doing more. over the past five years we have lost 19 board care facilities. that hearing has laid the foundation that the ordinance before us today. the intent which to clear a path to bring more facilities online and to take sure that women are in need of care and shelter. this ordinance will eliminate the conditional use requirement for board and care facilities of seven units or more in certain residential districts and certain mixed use districts and neighborhood commercial

districts. it will remove unnecessary hurdle in the approval process. making it easier to get fewer facilities up and running. thank you. >> again, the proposed ordinance would amend planning code to allow residential care facility to seven or more persons. the above the ground floor in all neighborhood commercial districts. residential care facility designed to provide long term care in which population it serves considers the facility their home. they are not considered a health service use. residential care facilities do not offer outpatient services.

may or may not have medical doctors on staff and designed to treat patients of specific demographics such as the elderly or those suffering from substance abuse. the department recommends that the commission approved the proposed ordinance. in 2016 san francisco recommended expanding opportunities for residential care in san francisco neighborhood including residential care facilities for the elderly. the limitation that maybe allowed is required or before not permitting the use all together. as a number of skilled nursing facilities in san francisco continues to decline, residential care facilities are one way of filling the gap in long term care. as long term care continues to shift, residential care facilities are also an increasing demand. the amendment will provide more opportunities to establish

themselves in san francisco. that concludes staff presentation. thank you. >> we may have questions. with that, we will open it up for public comment on this item. >> good afternoon commissioners. we believe we should have health in all policies. we like to move it back into the centre of city planning and get our city planning caught up with what people are think being and what's the latest and how we're thinking about health in cities. i want to say that housing is healthcare. this is something we're going to realize. the silos that we put them into, they need it break down. new models is called continuum of care. ed as a we --ed as a --ed as a we go throug -- as we go thro,

we'll need different needs of care. for the building codes this is a residential occupancy. we love what this ordinance does in allowing in places where we allow housing and above the ground floor in our neighborhood commercial districts. it kind of moves our city towards city that we really in every neighborhood can accommodate all age and all needs. diversifying the housing opportunities in each neighborhood. whole lifecycle for every resident. there was a child care item before us. i think this is kind of maybe for lot of us the end of life. lot of us will end up in a housing when we're seniors. it's not necessarily in the same

building. there's a few things reached out to staff about. never heard a response about. the first is floor area ratio limit. lot of districts, there's a limit of two stories of nonresidential use. if you think about it, you wanted to do residential care above the ground floor and you want to do retail on the ground floor, if you only have an far of two for your nonresidential, that means you only have one story of residential care with retail ground floor. you might want to relaxing in the rc districts and the limitations on f.a.r. the other is non-residential use limit. it was over 2000 square feet.

other thing is rh1 and 2. might not make sense it keep those restrictions. if the building fits on the lot, can pleat all the requirements of the code. thank you. vice president melgar: next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm a senior activist. demographics tell us that we seniors are growing population that has different needs as we age in terms of long term care. for example some people need skilled nursing, others don't. the element is useful.

with this in mind, it's regretful san francisco lost 19 boarding care facilities in the last five years. the record says there was 96 today the figure has been down to 77. it seems that no harm will be done with the removal of the present conditional use requirement. the benefit maybe that parties will move more readily to invest in boarding care where they not faced with at least a year's investment in filing applications and hearings is required. i hope there are no evictions in order with this doing away of the cus. that will be a horrible contradiction. i recommend, therefore, as a senior, that the commission remove the cu barrier that stands in the way of further growth of board and cares.

thank you very much for listening. vice president melgar: thank you. any other speakers on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: thank you. i think it's great that we have these two items back-to-back. young san franciscans and mature san franciscans all living in the city together. i'm in support of this. this is a huge sector of growth in the nation and the world. san francisco i home just like we've done with child care, takes the leading edge here creating more opportunity and not senior homes. but opportunities for the folks to maybe get in little bit earlier and enjoy life the way they have. i'm in full support of this.

i like to hear other comments. >> second. >> or not. >> there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this planning code amendment. [roll call] that motion passes 5-0. item 14 permit review procedures planning cold amendment. >> good afternoon commissioners. diego sanchez. i like to provide supervisor tang the legislative sponsor

with time to present to you. >> thank you planning commission. this might be my last time appearing before you. i want to say thank you all all your work. the item is building upon that our board of supervisors passed having to do with district 4 and 11. trying to make it easier for small businesses open up. when the legislation passed we heard from so many merchants

they love this idea. we proposed it as a two-year pilot i like to make it permanent. that is the item before you today which is simply that we're going to make that previous legislation permanent instead. i wanted to reiterate that the last time i was here on this item, all the different conditional use authorization requirements would still apply for uses such as formula retail, massage, cannabis and so forth, entertainment permits will be required for entertainment uses. liquor licenses still. and innovations required for those uses would still apply. i think this is pretty simple and straightforward. >> commissioners do the

department support the ordinance reducing time frame that are permitted or identified as economic growth is beneficial to the commercial districts. further individually tailoring the land use control the notice requirement, allows them to respond to the changing needs and preferences of residents. together this helps assure the city's retail corridor remain vibrant. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thanks. i got one speaker card. >> as there are supervisors in the twilight of their tenure on the board, i would urge the commission to continue this item until the new board is sworn in.

supervisor, you will be missed. thank you for all your tame and your service. the question, can you briefly describe to us with respect to your district, what success have you seen since initiation of the pilot? >> probably about a month or maybe less. event been able to have a good report for you. that was part of the original legislation. we tend to have office of workforce development track that level of success. it's just too early to tell.

>> commissioner moore: why could it not be done for a trial for two years? >> during my outreach process, during the legislative development as well as accurate past, lot of people said i wish this would remain in place or had been here earlier. i think that if for example, we found through owe study that wasn't really working out. it's always going to be

changeable. >> commissioner moore: with respect supervisor safai's district, did you have success with that? >> i can't speak his district. some of the stakeholders were part of our community outreach. hill vice president melgar: i'm little bit torn on this one. i supported it when i first proposed it. it seems that it was a pilot. we were going to assess whether or not it worked. i don't like getting rid of regulations that notifies the community. i think it has a place. i also understand what you trying to do. i want to see if it actually works. on the other hand, i haven't heard from folks. other than the one public commenter or the incoming supervisor that this is even an

issue. i like to hear what my other commissioners would like to say. i like to support you to do this. it doesn't make sense to me to have something be permanent that we just recently september with this pass. [please stand by]

>> i think that is uncompelling to me. we have not seen issues on projects that you are proposing. would often go down the pilot stage to make it sound like we are testing it a little bit, even though, i think you're absolutely right. if it doesn't work like we saw with the child care legislation or with home s.f., we make tweaks to legislation or you make tweaks to legislation and changes to legislation. it is still a pilot because we are new only doing it to district four and 11 and not

doing it citywide. is a good idea and we should look at doing it citywide. i like this idea in comfortable in knowing we can pull back in the future and make changes to this just like we see that happen all the time period i appreciate it. i am supportive. >> sorry. but i was going to say is i was really interested in the data. if, in fact, it didn't raise any issues, then it should be bigger than district four and 11. if that is the case, then the neighbors really object to cannabis and alcohol, the things that we all know very well happens, then meaty it is a strong case. and if we can see from the small business administration that this does increase the health of the commercial corridor is an decreases vacancy, then it would

be a good thing. we can also do that if it is permanent. the conservatives -- the conservative in me is shy about making something permanent that we implemented a month ago. >> may be we could ask for a look back. i don't know if that is there, but in two years, we can look back. if it change -- of change is warranted, the board could make it or we could make it. >> the original legislation had a reporting requirement in their >> we can recommend keeping it. great. >> as the lone district, i would like to personally thank supervisor tang for her service and wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours. i am supportive of what is in front of us today and think it principally permitted -- and i am comfortable with approving it i'm still not going to make a motion to sit. >> i will make a motion to approve with a one year look back.

give it a little time. a two year look back. >> second. >> thank you. if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning code amendment with the two year look back. wow -- [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and places us on item -- >> sixteen. >> sixteen as item 15 has been withdrawn. >> i ran into somebody -- >> thank you for your service. >> thank you. can we make the announcement again that items 19, 20 a and 20 b. and items 23 and 2417 green street have been continued. i know there were people outside

waiting for those items. >> very good, commissioners. item 16, 271, 273 upper terrace on 590 roosevelt away, three '03 upper terrace, and 45 '04 -- 45,004 17th street conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon planning commission. prior to beginning my conditional use presentation, i would like to submit a copy of the final mitigated negative declaration which i passed on already, which has been signed by the environmental review officer for this project. following the withdrawal of the appeal for case number 2015-004 297. that was withdrawn on november 28th. a copy of the withdrawal letter is also attached.

the project before you is a conditional use authorization or a see you for the proposed dwelling unit residential development at three existing lots in block 2628 including lots 032, 034 and 035. they are proposed to be subdivided into five lots that would result in the following addresses. 271 through 273 and 301 through three '03 upper terrace. 4500 through 45 '06 17th street and 588 through 590 roosevelt away. pursuant to the planning code, and application resulting in the removal of one or more residential units requires a see you for the removal and replacement of those units. therefore are pursuant to planning code section 249.77. r.h. two zoned properties require a c.u. for residential development on a parcel, on a

vacant parcel that would result in a total gross floor area exceeding 2,000 square feet. as well as residential development on a parcel that would result in a gross floor area in excess of 3,000 square feet. if that expansion results in more than 70 5% increase in gross square feet of development on the parcel and does not increase the number of legal dwelling units. in consideration of the c.u., the commission shall consider specific criteria establishing planning code section 317 and the review of the application involving residential demolition with regard to the proposal itself, the project proposes to demolish a single-family home and a remodel to a two dwelling unit building and construct 42 family buildings up to 40 feet tall. and has a total residential gross floor area of approximately 31,000 square feet comprised of 42 story over

basement buildings fronting along the uphill street upper terrace and 65 story over basement buildings fronting along the downhill street and roosevelt away. the project includes approximately 8100 square feet of open space and 15 parking spaces and ten bicycle parking spaces. the project includes a dwelling unit mix consisting of 22 bedrooms and eight three-bedroom units for a total of ten dwelling units. a net gain of seven dwelling units. the approximately .36-acre project site consists of three adjacent parcels located toward the middle of the subject block that would be subdivided again into a total of five units, five lots to allow two units per building per lot for a total of ten units. five lots, two unit buildings per lot. the project site friends three streets. upper terrace from the north, roosevelt way way and 17th street at the south. it is entirely located within the r.h. to zoning district.

the project site is situated on a steeply sloping hillside in which the elevation of the property line of the project site is approximately 95 feet higher than the southern property line. the surrounding properties are also similarly zoned rh two and composed of entirely single and multifamily residential buildings. the project site is located within the toronto -- that heights district which is to protect and enhance the use of neighborhood character and encourage new infill housing at a compatible density and scale and to provide for further assessment of proposed large-scale residences that could adversely impact the area and affordable housing opportunities. with regard to public comments and outreach, at the time of the packet mailing, the department had received 17 letters of support. nine letters of nonopposition and no letters of formal opposition. post packet mailing the department has received three letters of opposition and e-mail

from one individual concerned about the construction impacts to parking, and an additional letter of nonopposition from the corporate heights neighborhood association. the sponsor has prepared a community outreach and design evolution memo summarizing the outreach efforts during the review process which is contained in your packet. the department recommends approval with conditions and finds the project is on balance consistent with the corona heights su d. criteria. the design guidelines and the policy of the -- policies of the plan. although the project results in the demolition of an existing single family home, the project promotes affordable housing affordability by increasing the site or site housing by seven dwelling units. contributing towards an increase in the overall housing stock. providing 100% of the proposed dwelling units of family size

dwelling units including two portal bedrooms and eight three-bedroom units. the project is located within the zoning district in which residential uses principally permitted. the zoning district allows a maximum of two dellinger his dwelling units per lot. this is intended -- maximum of two dwelling units per lot. several of the surrounding properties reflect the ability to accommodate a higher density. the project meets all the applicable requirements and does not seek any discretionary modifications from the development standards. and lastly, the project has been reviewed by the department which has determined the project to be consistent with the design guidelines and the site design and building composition, mass and scale is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions i am available. >> thank you. project sponsor?

>> okay. hello, commissioners. thank you for your time and your consideration of our project. i am tim clinton and i'm here with paula dawson and we are the sponsors for the proposed project before you. i live here in the city and our company is a design build company that has been located and working in san francisco for the past 20 years. our focus over that time has been building high quality custom homes. i would design interest has always leaned towards the contemporary end of design.

projects that feel born from the time at which we live and our passion for architecture has always guided the direction of the work that we have taken on. with the lot supported by 17th d upper terrace, we saw a unique opportunity for our company to bring family size housing to one of the few remaining infill lots in the area. we did not take this opportunity lately, and set out over the last four years to work with our architects, the planning department and the community to bring in a project that will showcase elite unique location, integrate community input and provide the maximum number of new housing units that the site and the zoning would support. our current design has evolved over the years. both in scale and form. working closely through a multitude of meetings and presentations with neighbors and community groups. we have had 19 public meetings and presentations to date, as well as numerous one-on-one meetings with individuals and interested groups.

additionally, we have maintained a project website that has been updated with pertinent information and project modifications. this community engagement has led to a number of significant changes over the years, including the doubling of the density from 5-10 units, significant height reductions on upper terrace, the removal of roof decks, as well as numerous massing reductions that have not only reduce the overall square footage is, by that have reduced the amount of excavation by approximately 30% from our original submittal. we have worked closely with individuals and groups of neighbors and community jewish community groups to develop binding agreements that respond to their varying interests. most recently, we have entered into an agreement with the corporate heights neighbors to remove an additional approximately 10% of our project square footage to satisfy their concerns. while we were enthusiastic about the original submittal, the

current proposal reflects the project that makes us all the more proud. he maintains our design a static and does also incorporates the feedback and concerns of the community and the city while still contributing to the much needed family housing stock in san francisco. we would like to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our project, as well as the evolution and we will not let the architects speak in greater detail about the design. thank you. we will now let the architect speak in greater detail about the design. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for taking the time to let us present our project to you. to begin with, my name is reality. i'm here with my colleague. to begin with, we would like to orient you with the site and the surrounding context and some of the character defining features and complexities. it is a rugged site with a unique shape.

steep terrain and it anchors a prominent intersection. the two existing structures such set along upper terrace at the top and of three mostly vacant lots that are currently existing surrounding the site are five and six story structures. most of which are single-family and two unit buildings. subdividing two at the three lots allowed us to propose a 52 unit buildings and maximize the density of the site. rather than continue to street wall completely around 17th and roosevelt way which would have obscured to the hillside, we provided open space between the structures allowing the topography to reveal itself and flow in and around the architecture. street improvements such as expanding the pedestrian right of way, bulb outside walks along the entire frontage for 17th and roosevelt in a new crosswalk at 17th street will provide much-needed traffic calming and

pedestrian safety improvements and we are including that in the scope of the project. in perspective. we have an early study just to give you a little bit more spatial understanding of how the proposed buildings integrate themselves with the hillside and the surrounding neighborhood. the three buildings will outline the dose three of the buildings will line the curve at the intersection of 17th and roosevelt way. and open space is maintained between each building. striking a bit of a balance between the architecture and the hillside landscape. aligning the three frontages with the neighboring buildings and stopping the façade reduces the mass along the public way. each of the five buildings draw upon the neighborhood fabric for articulation of massing and subtle cues of architectural modulation such as a 20-foot module for the main building

element and including bay windows. drawing from the urban context, an expression of the hillside, all five buildings have modern, individual designs which differentiate themselves yet complement one another and are sculpted to reflect the organic nature of the hillside, but also blend in with certain elements of the neighbors. the homes on upper terrace maintain a horizontal and midcentury design, however, they are modified to have an open and inviting façade you corridors again between each building are provided for the public benefit and for visual relief of the street wall and with that, i will conclude the architectural and design presentation. i would like to hand it over to chris. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm from ssl law firm and the

land use council for the project i would like to focus on the required findings for you to approve this project as has been stated by staff, it is in the corona heights a special use district and there are four specific findings that need to be made. the first is a project increases housing supply which it does through existing units plus 7-10 as stated by staff units are family -sized with 3-4 bedrooms. the second finding has to do with maintaining the affordability of existing housing on site. there is an existing two unit building on site. three '01 three '03 upper terrace. the unit is subject to rent control. those units are not going to be demolished. they will be remodelled and after the project is completed, will remain subject to rent control. given that the existing small one and two bedroom units on the site are on really oversized lots, of the end result will maintain the affordability of the housing on the site pick the

third finding has to do with being compatible with existing developments. the architects covered a lot of that in their presentation already but i want to point out some highlights. this project has gone through a four your development process with meetings with planning staff, the rdt, and the neighborhood. it has gone two trips through rdt after the special use district was approved. the project respects the existing heights and setbacks and façades that are on the street in the area. you will notice in particular, the buildings up at the top of the hill on upper terrace are sent to very low and that height is very low so it fits in with the existing houses in that neighborhood and allows the views of the existing houses over the top. similarly, at the bottom of the hill, the buildings are below the maximum height level and setback as it moves up the hill. while the architecture is a modernist static, it does draw

from elements of the more classic buildings that are located in the area. each of the five structures, as we have said, will have two units. you will notice that unlike other projects of this nature, the buildings are different. this is not five cookie-cutter buildings all looking the same. the fourth finding is having to do with the through lots. in this case, the original lots, 20 of them were through lots with the subdivision. you now have street frontage and three separate street frontages at each of the street frontages, there is a maximum number of units which is two in this district. wanted to take a minute to talk about the project benefits when you come to look at doors looking at the cup findings. the necessary and desirable findings pick some of the benefits that will stabilize the hillside that has been historically problematic. there is a geotechnical report in your packet that details that

it will control stormwater runoff. it will improve security in the area by avoiding the types of problems that are inherent in urban, undeveloped areas. it provides much-needed traffic calming measures, streetscape and pedestrian safety improvements including a new crosswalk and accessible bus stops and sidewalk holdouts. it will maintain green space between the buildings that are there and maintain some of the existing green on the hill, but it will remove the invasive species and put in new landscaping. the sponsors have contributed to contribute does have -- committed to contribute with important resources. one example is working with the mount olympus neighborhood association to renovate the areas. i want to emphasize that there is a local firm operating in san francisco for over 20 years and their approach to this project from the very beginning has been transparent and open. they held more than 19 public community meetings, countless one-on-one and two on one meetings and developed a project website which has been up and has had all the project documents on it available to the

public. >> thank you very much. >> will be here to answer any questions that you have and we respectfully ask that you approve this project. >> we will open us up to public comment pick i have a bunch of speaker cards. >> you can speak in any order. i will ask you to speak -- line up on the screen outside of the room so we don't block the door. >> thank you. i represent a group that owns roughly nine of the properties along 17th street and roosevelt way. the primary concern of that group has been the geotechnical and shoring issues. there is a very steep hillside behind the 17th street neighbors. we are officially nonopposed to this project.

after extensive negotiations, we entered into, as a group a project modification agreements. we also entered into a tieback agreements with three of the four condo unit owners that are directly adjacent on the 17th and roosevelt way side. the agreements require the developer to take certain actions and in return, the group agrees not to oppose. these agreements address primarily, as i said, the geotechnical concerns. while the agreement does address all of these issues to the satisfaction of the group, we do respectfully request that the conditions that we specified in our november 19th joint letter with paul dawson and clinton be incorporated into these approvals. we feel that the additional protections we have specified in consultation with our engineer

will help protect the public. we really are concerned that the hillside directly behind the 17 th street owners remain intact. while there is an existing wall there, it certainly could use some additional assistance to make sure that there is no problem whatsoever given the amount of excavation. i appreciate your time and certainly appreciate all the time that dawson clinton and their attorneys spent with us to enter into these agreements. i'm available to answer any questions. i do also want to mention that the nine property owners were unable to attend here and that is why i am here instead. thank you very much. >> thank you. if you are waiting to speak and lined up over there, line up on the other side. that would be helpful so you won't block the door. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am the president of the mount

olympus neighborhood association which includes the upper terrace part of the project. the neighborhood association voted to support the project. the vote was overwhelming and there were no votes against it. there were a few extensions. people felt they did not have enough information. we had several meetings about that. we had a vote in favor of it before the environmental report and after the environmental report. it was very well -- people were very well informed. the sponsors were very cooperative from the very beginning. really addressing almost all concerns that people had which had to do mostly with construction mitigation, noise and especially traffic. because upper terrace is a cul-de-sac. there's only one way out which goes past the project. they have been very cooperative in talking to us about that. we were initially concerned with the height but they did lower the buildings on upper terrace and that fit in well. we were also very concerned about the hillside and they gave

us many presentations about how they would do this and how it would improve the hillside stability from what is now. right now, rocks fall from the hillside and there are barriers to prevent that from falling into the road. this will prevent that permanently. i think that is pretty much all of its. i really want to emphasize that dawson clinton was very cooperative and very helpful in answering everyone's concerns. they had many meetings and answered a lot of questions. sometimes the same questions over and over. different people. we support it wholeheartedly. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i have lived on upper terrace for 45 years. directly across from the project i am the one who is going to see

those upper terrace houses and i want to second what dan said. i think we are incredibly lucky to have dawson and clinton as the developers. because they have bent over backwards to listen to our concerns and to be available us and even went so far as to remove a large pine tree that the japanese beetles had killed that was in danger of falling down the hill side. though technically it wasn't on their property. so they have been extraordinary. i think we are very lucky to have had them as our budget sponsors. i can say wholeheartedly that i am behind the project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i've lived on upper terrace for

50 years. in all that time, they have vigourously challenged large scale multiunit developments. sometimes going as far as the board of supervisors to appeal. initially, we were cautious about this one. many of us attended the land use committee in favor of the interim zoning controls which were implemented. after many open public meetings with dawson and clinton and the modification of plans at the behest of the planning department and neighborhood groups, they became convinced that dawson and clinton will make every effort to listen to our concerns. the construction of most of the dwelling units in the area involve cutting into rock. in the 17th street between roosevelt and clayton, it cut through rock.

it is unreasonable not to see the economic conditions that now favor the development of this difficult site. we preferred that it would be done by this careful and considerate developer. we are fully aware that it will be a disruptive event, affecting much of the neighborhood. mitigation in the area his traffic, parking, particulate matter, et cetera has been promised. and we have to trust the city department which will be involved later to do the right thing by our neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> next speaker paley's -- next speaker, please. >> speak into the microphone right there. >> i live on upper terrace just halfway around the corner.

all of us in the neighborhood realize that open space act is hard to come by. not many open spots exist. we certainly have concern when we've lost neighbors through age , essentially into houses on upper terrace. we knew dan and we still know that the area will be developed, but i can't imagine another developer taking over and taking the amount of time. i've watched this and participated in this for over three and a half years and dawson and clinton has been so attentive to the concerns of the neighborhoods. they have made modifications, they have addressed every issue that i am aware of that has come before them and i sincerely hope that they will be able to proceed with this project. certainly we know what we have.

we know they're just our concerns have been addressed. we cannot guarantee that in any other situation when it comes forward to. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of roosevelt way i am just about six stories into the project or proposed project. this is a great opportunity for the neighborhood. dawson clinton have done their homework. they have crossed every letter and taking everything into consideration. in addition, this brings jobs, housing, which we all know is needed to, and supports the local convenience store business on the corner. like i said, this is a great opportunity. i fully support it and thank you for that. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. my name is stefan. i am an interior designer and i've also lived on opera terrace for 17 years. my partner and i moved into the area 17 years ago. we have always known that this property would be developed. in my personal business, i come across developers all the time. we work with them left and right with many quick projects. very rarely do i come into it project with a group of developers who are responsive to the community. they want to go the extra mile. eighteen meetings with the community. you cannot ask for more than that. also, they are taking a step to better the community, not only their own properties, but they are looking at -- it has been committed to put funds towards development of the community and the community area that is currently in need of help. i want to say i completely hope you would sponsor the project. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please.