Member that hacked them. We were very upset. Next question if theres thats the way your teaching of the trees youre the way the church it taken care of of them how can you have 3 trees. On valencia on stevenson was ridiculous those trees have been there since 1995 never a problem i think it happened they didnt consult with me. Very much arrest. Thank you, ms. Short. Good evening commissioners carla Short Department of public works i dont have too much to say we agree with both sides its usual unusual the two trees were denied by staff because of the condition those two trees were the microscopes of the department of public works not the church. They are healthy and have structural issues we denied them at the staff level, however, the hearing officer was presented with information about the construction needs and he felt they were suv convinced the trees were in the way of the project so the permit to remove the trees was granted subject to replacement with a anytime 60 inch box tree thats about a large of a tree into this location. So and im glad to hear the church wants to put large trees and theyre required to if the permit it up held. Thats the departments best effort to mitigate the public but we agree the loss of those two trees is substantial 60 inch trees is a good replacement it wont be 35 to thirty feet tall but depending on the species it would be 20 to 25 feet tall can you confirm i asked the tree be removed. Yes. There that tree was in decline. Your approved list of trees. Well, i would submit that the brisbane box on valencia is the fixing us fast growing. I have a question so if past when this board has allowed the development to remove trees and promise an x amount of trees and the utility water and cable and phone theyre unable to replant those trees has our department suv gone over the plans to make sure that isnt going to happen. I know state with conversation the replacement of boxes trees theirs sufficient room and as well as the third it tree. I have to admit the third tree the additional tree their proposing on valencia i dont think weve vested that the third tree would be an additional tree and it seems like every time they do that they cant do it because of a power line and phone so i think yeah. Id like it question answered personally. Ill get back to you on that. Thank thank you. Any Public Comment on that item . Seeing none, we have rebuttal you have 3 minutes. So id like to first address the access to the garage the proposed garage i add it is here where theyre proposing it on valencia street and this is tree number one as referred to in our belief. They say they must cut down but at the original hearing he spoke to them theyve looked additional options off stevenson street they want that because of the parking garage the community you shouldnt losses the trees because of a few Center Parking spaces. Id like to address the crane swing we only got this one diagram of where the crane is located. But when telephones up here he showed you another option for the crane in the middle right here. Which would provide a swing you know all the way around this way. So i want to say were not here to be unreasonable so the compromise needs to be made we care about the exultant so its absolutely necessary to remove one of the trees we would request that the one closer to our building maintain the one where the area where they want to put the driveway and theres adequate restroom room for the swing of the crane theirs 82 feet ton their side to the tree well, for tree number one and give, you know, 13 feet for the canopy because its 26 feet thats 69 feet of working space and at the end of the day its a convenience at the could bring them into steve son street or pour the parking lot before we put in the crane and have the mobility of the entire area to build its only for their convenience i ask you take into account its a private entity thank you rebuttal from the permit holder. Im an architect i do know as much as they know they contractors say they cant make the cranes work with the trees there, and, secondly, the tree on the east closest to the building i understand they want to keep that but thats the one thats in the curb cut of the criteria so leading down from the graerg also not true that an entrance from steve son would loss spaces an entrance from stevenson doesnt loss spaces theres only reasons on valencia street through hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction and fees weve studied stevenson but didnt have a loss of spaces. Basically, you know, there will be a short time no trees but bend were down there will be 3 trees and a fourth replacing a diseased trees a short period of time it seems the street is not as nice but were going to replace those with big trees happy to answer any more questions. Whoever spent hundreds of thousands of dollars designing the property project for the trees were they take into account. Yes. It sounds like i dont have a good understanding you glazed over why the entrance to the parking cant happen on stevenson. Its happening on valencia actually, the main thing when you enter the building the client wants to enter off a nice street instead of a teeny he stevenson were talking about a lot of traffic. Stein son is extremely narrow talking about sunday mongers and overloading the teeny street 0 so from a traffic standpoint we didnt think and some other people in planning agreed it was a lot of load on stevenson its a tiny narrow student and another thing it used to be the policy when we first designed that that the department would let you remorseful one tree automatically in the way you have a driveway. Apparently that policy is no longer the day but when we got our approved permit no one said heaving john your removing a tree because of the driveway no its a given maybe its changed but upper given would be tree removal im assuming there is no no course to the curb cut. Your creating a curb cut. Oh, i dont understand. Its a new curb cut but i was saying. A new curb cut to replace. Yeah. It was about 20 feet to the west it replaces the existing curb cut that will be a curb. Yeah. I see what youre saying and i have nothing further. Thank you hear from ms. Short any rebuttal ms. Short . Carla short i dont have much to add i thought clarify ive been a urban forester for most but i dont know when the plans where weve never had a policy to remove a tree when theres a driveway im sure in my 10 years, in fact, when in a basing boss had the prior position wed try to prevent the removal of a tree wed get a return to this body or at the departmental hearing but never a policy a given you can take out a tree for a driveway. Commissioners the matter it submitted. I guess ill start. Never been a huge fan of the fixing us and weve had many, many fixing but im concerned about id like to see did trees replaced with more trees that dont industry the roots or sidewalks but at the same time, i want to make sure they are held accountability to put the 3 trees in there thats my thinking at this point actually, i like fixing us that show us how everybody is different. Based on the pragmatic the reasons theyve brought forward i expect two but not all the issue the driveway is one i mean, ill accept his rational for the steel elements i dont accept his concrete pumping but ill support the demolition for the 3 trees im not inclined to go that way i found the appellants argument were more excelling rather than the convenience and sort of i think rather cavalier altitude u attitude toward the existing healthy trees. I think the compromise that was alluded to by the appellants i might be procedure and appreciate the effort to come to a middle ground but thats i dont think theres any type of life issues those are issues that could be and should be sort of designed around i think thats sort of the citizen ability that people feel including myself got a lot of money and a lot of talents should apply them in a manner that doesnt industry what exists and has existed can i try. Sure. Make a motion to uphold the permit subject to the permit holders supplying information to the Department Regarding this replacement of the 3 property tree and if theres adequate space to install the 3 trees. To clarify the permit at issue is for the removal and replacement the third tree will have to come under a new permit correct me if i am wrong unless the board conditions the replacement of an additional tree that could be done but not a separate permit issued. No. Well typically add any additional trees that wouldnt necessarily have been required as part of the removal our permit requires we typically add them to the stage u same permit thats okay. From our side. Okay saying the two uphold the permit for the or more of two trees and a third tree be added and the permit holder verifies with the department that the two replacements trees are able to be planned there. So your grarnt the appeal and on the condition there are 3 trees not 2. And that the two proposed that the permit holder verifies with the department they can place the trees there as indicated per there in their brief. The department indicated those two trees are indicated but the demolition of 3 trees and the replanting of 4 trees. On this permit its demolition of 2 trees removal of two trees. On this permit im indicating thats their intention. Im wondering commissioner honda if you condition you want to put 3 trees. They just provide evidence that the trees stated in their briefs can be put in. Since theyve done with with the third tree you want to confirm they work with the department on the location and species. Just the location to make sure the number of trees. Okay. So again to try to make sure were on the same page to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal 3 replacement trees and the pirate holder work with the departments on the location of the alleged itself third additional tree isnt that correct. Thank you victor. The order specification the minimum of 60 inch box 60 inch box. Thats correct. We have a motion to on the condition there are 3 replacement trees of a minimum 60 feet side and the kidnapping work on the placement of the third tree and commissioner fung. Commissioner hwang. No commissioner hurtado. Commissioner president lazarus. The vote is four to one the permit it upheld with those conditions. Thank you. Okay. So weve already voted to move item 7 and 8 now to item 4 which is the appeal janet curry vs. The city and county of San Francisco protesting the issuance on march 12 to k f and development inc. To rereck a singlefamily dwelling with ground floor area. Well start with the appellant 7 minutes commissioner president lazarus im jan curry on live on circle last year avenue adjacent to the subject property i filled the appeal. I outlined accident brief its out of character with my neighborhood and will cause harm to me and my neighborhood its important to state my objective has never been to stop the construction. Since moving here my desire is to have a neighbor detection t door not dying rose bushes ive lived next to but a nice house that is the size of neighboring homes will be a welcomed edition. My neighbors and i are observed to a 3 story house. A structure thats a full story tall and more than doubling the Square Footage the neighborhood weve met b with the developer and the architect and maintained the open communication. Our megs mess is consistent f this development is two large sunny side is a nice invade with smaller homes not a neighborhood to build American People numerous house. Mr. Mark video is being disingenious when he says hes reduced his project its to the reduced the size of the overall project. The original proposed 40 plus size this on this lot is ridiculous. Last fall i declined miss marry making video the project agreement, however, my moms health declined and i had to prioritize to get her care. Because of this i missed the discretionary review and i heard filing an appeal would be the appropriate step the Planning Department made a error they failed to uphold many of their design outlines and my primary conditioner is to address the scale of building projects. The guideline says quote design the scale of the building to be comparable with the height and depth of the surrounding building this project clearly fails and its a full store taller than the neighbors and it extend beyond the neighborhood. The negative impact of this failure to respect neighborhood scale is a significant loss of light in the neighboring backyards this will cause on negative impact on my quality of life of me and my neighbors. In addition to the immediate harm caused its a boarder cause for the neighborhood. The reason San Francisco created the guidelines is to insure the visual qualities remain intact quota single building out the context can be diserupt to the neighborhood. This is for the proposed building and while mr. G assured we those are guidelines and presumably not something to be followed it should be noted those guidelines are part of the guidelines and not optimal theyve taken into consideration the time to community to the city and mr. G about their concerns for the neighborhood unfortunately, the developer has demonstrated a disregard for the neighborhood. Their attitude has been dismissive and to maximum my neighbor i dont have the resources of the gentleman nor any experience working in San Francisco planning and working systems ive done everything i can to insure the voices of sunny side are heard therefrom im pursuing my last opportunity to scale this down by asking you to place the restrictions to reduce the size so its consistent with the scale and character of the sunny side neighborhood thank you for your attention okay. Thank you well hear if the permit holder now. Mr. Silverman good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners im David Silverman im working with the permit holder. The approved permit is for construction on a singlefamily home the proximately is gary g he was proactive in engaging with the neighbors during the design and permitting process. Our submittal to the board listed the substantial changes in response to comments by neighborhoods and accident appellants and the department which resulted in total Square Footage reduction of the home. The appellant didnt question the discretionary review and the appellant has failed to raise Building Code issues. The Design Review is conducted by the planning staff and if t a discretionary review is requested the Building Permit was approved by the Planning Department and the department of building inspection and the appellant has not claimed otherwise. The appeal doesnt raise any reason to invalid the permit and mr. G will make a brief presentation. Thank you. Ill use the overhead. You can wait if you want we can switch microphones for you. Does anyone else know how to switch the microphones . Dont break it. Is it working thank you very much. We dont have the screen right now oh. Thank you very much. This is 2 flight avenue this historic was a empty lot if he looking at look at the photo basically that the subject site and ms. Occurringries house on 92 circular and the