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 dont cut it. That is largely what the appellant has presented. They claim there will be a million deliveries. Thats 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 conven
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. Thats 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 ver
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 granddaughters 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 dont we hear from the Planning Department with the presentation as to their analysis. Thank you, president chow, honorable members of the board. Im annemarie rogers, senior planner for the Planning Department. Im 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 conditi
Ark [speaker not understood] architectural character. [speaker not understood]. The project consistently follows the general plans 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. Thats 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
Urban designs. Thats 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 dont have that in information in front of me, b