the precast panels. >> yeah, there is a time, we've been on a different timeline from the construction of the building. so we've kind of been following, we are a little bit behind on the schedule. they were able to develop some of their construction on it ahead of us. >> okay. >> okay. thank you. we'll hear from the department now. miss short? good evening commissioners, carla short department of public works. essentially we are here because the requirement that was imposed by this board on july 11, 2012, there was an agreement reached that the five trees will be granted for removal with the conditions that 10 trees would be planted.

because this was a board requirement, dpw doesn't have the done wave that condition. in some cases if a developer is not required to plant a required tree, we look at alternatives like additional landscaping to mitigating the loss of that tree. that is something that is available to us. what we are here is to get guidance from the board to pursue this. frankly i do think there is a dispute about what can be planted. definitely one tree will fill fit on 8th street and i feel we can work with pg & e to allow us to building -- plant an additional tree on 8th street. there was a tree proposed here. pg & e doesn't want the trees over their vault. if the tree

shifted at one side over the other, the concern is access. tapp at that time it can be pruned to access the vault. dpw's perspective is we don't want to eliminate some of the trees but also respecting pg & e. i think there is still plenty of room for access to the driveway. i think it's important to note that this is a really expansive vast sidewalk now. if you walk by it. i should have brought you a photo taken today. the sidewalk is already built out with no greenery. i think that is not in keeping with the city's plan policy. even though you might

end up with an -- alone tree. i hope that you grant the authority for an allowing to assess rather than the planting of a quantity of the required trees that we would try to work closely with pg & e and the developer that would get the trees would be assessed, but if you would be willing to grant a little bit of flexibility that you were not able to compromise with pg & e, then perhaps to remove these would be assessed. i really believe there is room for one tree. the other thing is these were larger tree replacement requirement as you may recall the department we reversed our opposition for the

removal of the trees because they were already damaged. the department would request that we would assess the value for the cost to plant and establish a 36-inch box tree. it's substantially more expensive. so we would be proposing in lieu of $3800. we are talking about three trees. we were able to find an additional site working with a developer on mission. but, again i hope we would only be talking about one and we could find a location for two trees. >> is that maximum penalty at a can be imposed? >> no. >> shall i be asking robert brian? >> probably. >> okay. mr. bryant? >> i'm sorry, i actually don't

know the answer to that question. as to what a maximum penalty is. >> so, given that we heard this case a while ago, do you recall whether the proposal to plant 10 trees in lieu of 5 being taken out, is that a proposal that the board came up with at that hearing or was it a proposal that the permit holder proposed to us? >> yeah, it was a proposal that the permit holder proposed. >> okay. thank you. >> how do you feel about one tree? >> personally i feel fine about one tree. i do feel that even one tree would soften the look of that sidewalk and there is an additional phase to this project. we are required to address the conditions on this particular project. so i think there is an intention to plant

additional trees. they will be required by the planning code as well. it will only be one tree, a lonely tree for a short time as that next phase gets built i believe they will have some friends out there. >> when did they come to you and tell you that they were unable to satisfy what they had? >> i would have to -- i can look in my file. what is very frequently the case is when the developer is ready to plant the trees, they will touch base with us and we'll walk the site with them to make sure that they are in compliance with our guidelines and it was on that occasion. it was a couple months ago, i think that we were notified that they didn't think they can plant all the trees and we weren't certain how to proceed. i contacted the director for service advice.

>> i'm trying to establish a time line. >> let me double check. >> thank you. >> i would ask you the question of from an urban design point of view a single tree doesn't quite make much sense. >> i think, well, again i would argue that a single tree can still have a softening i am -- impact. this would only be a sipping will -- single tree for a short time. >> they are showing the non-committal for the balance of 8th street. the other thing is you recall a phone call i made to you after the last case? >> vaguely, perhaps you can remind me. >> okay, i drove past there and

they indicated that they were having construction difficulties because they were putting up the precast. all right. as i drove by, immediately after that hearing, all the precaps on the ground floor on mission street were already up. >> that's right. yeah. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> none? okay. we will hear rebuttal from the appellant. >> we don't have any difficulty with what the bureau of urban forestry just suggested. i would caution going in with one tree because i know what the future construction is going to be and i know what's going to happen to that tree. it's going to get severely damaged and it's going to be very difficult. we are excavating

six floors below grade almost immediately to where that tree is. i have a new tenant that is coming in on the ground floor which is great news, a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. we are coming directly across the street in the neighborhood of where that tree is for new gas line that is coming straight across the street and go 32 -- through that area. if you require us to put the tree in, we'll absolutely do it. i will caution you that i know it's going to be very difficult. we have no problem playing in lieu of that fee if it's appropriate. i'm not quite sure why we get a boost on the in lieu fee and what i'm familiar with in the past with approximately $17 00. if that's what you require us to do, we will do it. we are trying to come up with a design for 8th street. we want to come up with

something very unique and something that the city will be proud of and that we will be proud of and show this project for what it is. we are investing 1000 000-0000 into this site. it is in our interest to have 8th street to look very attractive. we don't want it to be a baern street at all. what i'm willing to commit to and we will agree to whatever bureau of urban forestry wants us to do. i urge you to be practical in construction considerations and others involved. >> miss short, miss the rebuttal? >> just two 2 points i would like to make. carla short department of public works. i understand it's difficult to work around trees when you are building a building but article

code does require that developers must protect trees during construction. while that might add challenges, it is their responsibility to make sure it will not get damaged. the other reason why i'm proposed a boost to the in lieu fee to plant a 24-inch box tree and establish it 2005 a 3-year period because the requirement was for a 36-inch box trees, that's substantially different cost because it's a much bigger tree and installation and also requires more water to get established. i was advocating in lieu of fee recognize that there was a larger tree replacement requirement on this case. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> any comments?

>> well, i wasn't here during the initial meeting. i did not watch the tape. the concern here is that from what i have heard in this meeting is that the developer came to this board with specific plans to basically exchange for the trees that they were removing. and now, as their project is finishing, at least that particular phase, they are coming up to us and saying, oops, we noolger can do this. they definitely have broken a promise to this board in what the agreement was. >> obviously from my comments and questions to the requester,

the appellant, i find there are some credibility issues which feels something like a bait and switch situation and with a project as enormous it's difficult for me to believe that it could have not been researched. my view that this whole tree business was of great insignificance to this project and that the appellant would like to do just what it wants as to the trees, the landscape when ever it wants and get around it and also just hearing the comment commissioner fung also leads me to think that there are some serious representation concerns. very troubling. this is all very troubling to me. >> we did get an answer from the city attorney on the

questions of imposition of penalties and that is in the jurisdiction of the dpw. that wouldn't be in our jurisdiction to impose. dpw would be able to do that with it's own articles under section 16. any other comment? >> i'm probably not going to delve too much further into what might have been the rational and the in terms of what was being proposed. the question that still is in my mind is that from an urban design point of view, across the street is very large pg & e substation building. there are no trees there. there are a

number of parking lots on that street. there are also no trees there. here is a huge development and i didn't see a significant integration between the sidewalk and the planting with the design. that's not -- i'm likely to support the department's ability to try to work with the developer hopefully to get as many trees as possible there, at least to soften the nature of the buildings. these are fairly large high rise buildings, they kind of blocky, they go right up to the sidewalk. regardless of my feelings of the motivation as to what occurred previously because, you know getting pg & e to put in

substations takes years and the requirements are very stringent, very difficult to deal with. that's why they have pg & e expediteers these days. if you look at that sidewalk where these things are, there are a bunch of them. i think that probably the nature of that design has been known for a long time. i'm prepared to support the department in terms of them negotiating with the developer on where they can place trees and to extract the amount of money that they have requested. >> is there a motion? >> yeah. move to grant the appeal and condition it to allow the bureau of urban forestry to continue to negotiate with the developer on the number of trees that can be placed on 8th street and in the

event that they fall short of the 10 mandated then to collect the $3,000 per tree that has been removed. >> might i suggest since it's not within our jurisdiction and i think there is some questions about the amount of in lieu fee that we simply subject everything that you said to the issuance of in lieu fee to the department. >> let me rephrase it counselor. i believe in our previous -- we also specified 36-inch rather than 24 -inch that is commonly done. i will stay with whatever fees they would then assess based upon the 36-inch box.

>> we have a motion from commissioner fung. let me troo i to restate it. i believe it's to grant this appeal and to allow to work with the appellant on the planting of these three trees -- on 8th street and if that's not possible the board would allow the dpw to impose the fee pursuant to their own powers of the code.

>> that's section 807 f of the public works code. okay. >> okay. on that motion to grant this appeal an allowing dpb to work with the planting of these three trees -- on 8th street to allow the fees as they see fit under their code. on that motion, president huang, hurtado, lapis zarus,

>> become to the meeting of the board of appeals. item no. 7 has moved. we are going to hear item no. 8. >> item 8: appeal no. 13-036 chine hui, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 865 el camino del mar. protesting the issuance on march 14, 2013, to jennifer king & timothy fredel, permit to alter a building demolition of existing solarium on roof; interior renovation; replace existing windows as needed; repair and replace exterior shingles as necessaryy. application no. 2012/02/06/3645s. public hearing held on may 22, 2013. for further consideration today. note: matter continued to allow time for the planning dept. to re-calculate the height of the subject building; additional briefing is allowed.1234 with the president's consent we can give 3 minutes to each side

starting with the appellant. is the appellant in the room? i saw her here earlier.

>> good evening commissioners. i would like to start with this process. we started with this data after all of these months at the appellant's insist. i just wanted to walk you through the calculations. the height calculations start at the top of the curb which is 184 and you go up 30 feet and over at a 45 degree angle by 5 feet and as we've discussed with several planners there is an allowance for a jump to the count it average grade at a maximum of 35 feet. that is starting at 221.52. according to the revised plans that have been submitted, the project

applicant has drawn this 2.268 that does not follow the average flow of 58 percent. the average slope should follow this red dotted line whereas under with this additional 68 percent is jumping up by one point and using different data point to the data calculation. we have determined that the varying points take into account the average grade but add an additional 35 feet which is not what the planning code permits, it's the very starting point. it should follow a parallel line back. the result of this erroneous application

is twofold and has far reaching it packets. with the respect to this project, it has the allowable height limit by a foot. the project needs to be scaled back or adjusted accordingly or the applicant would have to apply for a height variance. as the larger over arching policy point, this could set a dangerous press precedent fought height. we propose that tht over than what is exceeded over the code. >> based on your calculation, what is the dimension at the front wall to your red line? >> so, the dimension at the front wall, do you mean where the property started? where

the proposed fourth floor addition starts? >> i'm assuming that's the proposed fourth floor exterior wall that you are pointing to right now. that one. >> on top of members of the commission, sam kwaung, on top of the no disagreement with the 5.2 of both sides of the building, that will be another increase of a foot and 2 inches. >> that was not my question. my question is from the third floor, to the red line at that exterior wall is what dimension? >> it would be six foot two

inches. >> okay. thank you. 6 foot 2 inches. >> okay, miss barclay. >> good evening members of the commission. the problem with the appellant calculation is that they totally ignored section 102.12 c of the planning code which defines height. what it says is the height limit as you start in this case we start with the legislative setback which would go up 30 feet and the 45 degree and up, but then this particular section set that in every other cross section of the building a right angle to

the center line of building set such point shall be taken of the average of the ground elevation of either side of the building of building steps at the cross section. the reason is because a slope that is not necessary and in fact they usually do not go on a straight line by connecting the point in front that they had and then got to the property line, the center line and connect it. what the code section said is that you have to take at the critical point of the building especially in addition on both sides and establish that at that point of the cross section. so in this case, the instruction by the planning department is correct. and that is at the point of the front of

the new floor. you have to calculate the height limit there by taking that point on both sides of the building at the ground level, then average it to come up with that point and then move backward the next critical point is anyone at the roof line here where it is to make sure the top of the roof does not exceed the 35 feet as you go all the way back down to the ground at the center line of the building. then, move back to the rear of that addition and then the rear of the existing building. that's how the slope is calculated and is not a straight line, but it moves up at different angles. >> what do you have for that dimension on that exterior wall

from the third floor? it is at that point it is 222.68, san francisco data. everything is done by san francisco data. >> i understand that. i heard that. my point is from the first floor to the sealing -- ceiling line is what dimension? >> 7 foot. let me look for the bigger drawing. it is 7, 3 1/2

inch. because it's at a slope, because you are talking about the minimum height under the building code. >> okay, mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott san she was planning department. as it was noted at the last hearing there were some inaccuracies by the appellant and i appreciate the board going back to view the accurate height requirements. they did a new survey and noted this is a project that has been around for several years and i think some of these