mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not be if constructed in 1912 and some of the facts there would be legally two units the fact there's two exterior doors the permits subject to the jurisdiction request why is

there no exterior connection and the allegation it's removed don't have any evidence this is a clear a single-family dwelling dwelling and we rely on dbi and the report as we final record of notice the final records are not also correct. i'll note this was advertised and what we can tell the materials submitted on the overhead as a 5 unit in the front and 2 in the rear that was need in the record. so again, i think maybe department of building inspection can shed light but the additional research and the water department records they indicate there are that more

unit than a single-family home so this will be submitted to make an appropriate decision on the matter my mr. sanchez in terms of the definition the question of the executive order and how they denied the number of units i thought normally it would be the number of units relates to a lot. vs. i know whether there's multiple structures and the density is based on the number of lots >> in the inclusive directive it states the number the lots and not unit this is an appropriate interpretation one of the ways this is tied in its tied into the building code so once you have a 3 unit buildings

you're in a different classification if you're trying to legalize the third unit be it's a higher burden you have additional code requirement so the divisive says more than that two unit per building it's literally per building. certainly this could be discussed and certainly not something to remove did unit it could be subject to discretionary review even if we don't subject it ourself >> mr. duffey. >> commissioners when i first become a just reading through the brief and sticking i spoke with records management the

building department about the 3 r that says three units i was confused so i checked with the management poly i didn't and they basis this on building departments records the new construction was indeed and in the brief one single-family dwelling and this was in 1906 and so it's been presented to me at the building department there is other evidence that that building never got built this was something do you think it was built as a two dwelling from 1906 to 70 the new construction permit never got completed it has two addresses i saw the water department records and two family and the other records two

family. it's you ailing always you awkward we need more information that could come up as an appeal but there's questions about this building i have not been to the building it's a hearing request if i have to i'll have to look at it. we had a unit verification process at the building department and if i was doing one on this one i would have a hard time on the single-family i'll villaraigosa to look at it more that's my take >> did you verify the permit

history. >> on the t r report and only on the police station one family are believed that mr. involving visual said there was something done with the construction but other documents but not this passage maybe not documented properly those things happen we have a building in san francisco we're trying to think about what happened a hundred years ago so definitely i don't think was it unit looks like so i'm not sure.

>> in the cooperated study that the permit can't do i've visited the site and i'll do a quick summary it is for filbert and others there's an address at one thousand 18 it hits and burns the entire area down six months latter the moratorium was band they filed a permit to build a 50 foot wide shingled metal roof no job card never got built and as part of the reconstruction it going into the construction to one hundred and one hundred and 603 inches.

1912 the permits filed were to build a 5 unit building and it shows the whole house we're talk about that and he's planning on doing a lot subdivision and 1912 after a permit was ushered showing on the plans or actually application the old house he goes to the waterfront to build 5 water meters for units and he white light that 2 unit building so the 1890 showing the alley it goes away in 1909 the fire burns the neighborhood do you think that's the neighborhood the permit that everyone is relying on it is this permit for a huge earthquake structure that never gets built. the permit that no one's i

looking at is the permit to build the next door neighbors building they're the older house it's 4 hundred square feet it's not the 144 hundred square feet it's to earthquake reconstruction period put on the site. so clearly there's a 4 hundred square feet building and maxwell the property owner decides one month after the permit to build the 5 unit to build two more units so if you look at the 1913 and san born the building that's currently driver's license now is on a city street it existed in 6 it because no building until 1912 so mr. mark well decides to build his other two

this is a merger and it should be a merger with proper notice >> that's only if you assume. >> pardon me. >> only if you assume the two units were permitted it's not printed. >> the two unit building. >> it's to the permitted. >> there's 40 no permit. >> is there any public comment. >> she's not allowed to speak your time took up her 3 minutes. >> that's not part of our procedures. >> i'm going to ask the requester to clarify the initial statement. >> it's not a basement unit

there's two front doors and if anything my client was the only legal unit it's all there in 1912 and got it. >> it's not an illegal basement. >> got it. okay. the commissioners the matter is - >> i've got to a question for mr. duffey. >> okay. mr. duffey. >> wearing your permit hat. >> where's the permit? >> wearing our permit hat. >> oh, yes. okay. >> based on and we're picking up on what you said and others. the original permit never got built 14 one hundred square feet whatever.

the 5 unit permit got built. but there was no permit for the other two unit. i haven't seen one >> based on what was said so far. >> correct. >> how do that work to the structure in terms of the legality either as a single-family home home or two units or structure. >> that's like a lot of old buildings they're built so long ago and that was talking about through could be more information we went from 1906 to 1970 there's aol.com other addresses on the lot. i don't know what the housing

have listed we'll be doing inspections and the other card is a good record but to answer our question i don't know if there's a permit to build two other buildings >> around that time after an earthquake, you know. >> that's okay. >> commissioners this jurisdiction request is submitted. >> well, i move we grant the jurisdiction request. >> i have a question for my own ed indication i didn't hear anythingful from the requester naefts that leads me to do that. >> it's not brief. >> okay. >> it wasn't that clear it would be a better brief.

i have one last question what did you recommend we do >> who wants to come up first? >> obviously being a impartial the way i look like it there's evidence and san burn and there's questions there has to be questions about the building so i'd say indemnify a chance to file an appeal and let's look at that it is what it is and if there's more documents out there i want to see the assessors records there maybe other things there's 5 in the front as well and the market is right. i saw

a photograph the entrance it looks like a two unit building. >> that's part of the hearing. >> exactly. >> if the commissioners decide. >> just to follow up when where i was going if the request has not been filed planning and the other departments won't have recognized this. >> we having would have begun and done our inspections then we could look at it and resend the permit to see if it's issued in error that's another thing people request and you're right we would have just inspected it. >> something to add mr. sanchez. >> all right. i renew my motion to grant the jurisdiction

question. >> we have a motion to grant the jurisdiction request. on that motion. commissioner fung arrest commissioner hwang. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 5 to zero the jurisdiction is grand and she now has a 5 day appeal period and this ends this coming monday. >> thank you. >> this coming monday. >> okay. we'll move on to item 67 the next stacey versus the urban forestry protesting the issuance on march 6 to the orthodox of a tree removal permit to receptionist two

privately maintained trees. starting with the appellant you have 7 minutes >> hi i'm stacey we're representing in response 10 homeland security on the street at the 299 valencia street as concerned folks post of the case orthodox foundation we ask the board it the destruction of those trees is not necessary for the fruittion the church wants to see this done to reduce their costs this has nothing to do with the safety of the community and we shouldn't have to have the loss of those trees. the first argument the trees presented choke places for the

mrufrm it's the trees if they're preserved they'll have to do the smaller section and delay their projects and extend the number of days the vehicular and pedestrian project will not delay this on steven king street that's extremely low traffic. as seen in the briefs furthermore the concrete for the function of the parking lot authority harassing has been poured with the trees intact. we have pictures of that as well. there is more than adequate space for trucks not to be blocking the traffic on the street this is only a reason to cut down the property. all the steel will be delivered

on valencia street and lifted by crane they claim the trees need to be removed in order to have the 50 feet of structural elements are that the churches brief and the letter and sketch from the contractor they lack the construction site in the trees are preserved also i called osha to see if there's a problem and didn't say they think there would be. the church is capable of having the crane on the construction site and lift the trees safely. there's two traffic parking and turn lanes there's enough space to reroute the traffic. the act it's less convenient but

the neighborhood shouldn't have to suffer the loss for a private entity. there's also a third argument i'd like to present. >> i'm also a resident at the 380, 14th street the argument is they're going to be replacing the trees with additional trees that don't exist yet so they're to try to show you they care of about the urban forestry but the code they discuss the loss and recommend of trees it states if the allows the trees with an equivalent replacement value is in the place of removed trees if the board feels it's envelopes

to replace the trees it will include the trees 25 to 8 feet tall. and have can percent that are at least 26 feet in diameter. so far the church has included the size of the tree box and they'll speak about the size for the trees that are going to be removed if they're removed. and the additional trees that the churches is proposing to put in around the alley it has extremely low pedestrian traffic. i'm wondering in the san francisco urban forestry ordinance part of the purpose of it the says it green spaces are

vital to the san francisco life and bring boost to our residential sites and enhance the overall character how does this going to be done by putting trees on the side streets by cutting down two mature and healthy trees on the highly trafficked commercial corridor of valencia. eaten furthermore, if the church is stating how they're good about taking care of the community property in the past i want to show that the street in august of 2013, the department of public works they oishld a fine to the church for topping 10 trees and effectively he removing all branches and those

are the trees trying to good back they've levied the trees. so i would urge the bona fide before to consider that and do - 23 it is mauptd that the trees are cut down they provide for guidance in terms of size and subpoenas of the trees their replaced with >> thank you. okay. we can hear from the spit holder >> >> before he states i'll make a disclosure any daughter attends school across the street but won't effect my decision. >> commissioners i'm john goldman of goldman architects the architects for the cathedral. could we get this open the screen. great. so the - oh, okay.

so you see a drawing that was approved by planning and drawing and prauptd by dpw and the urban forestry. there's been no changes on the alley those are light green trees we're putting 7 new ones but the issue today is what's happening on valencia street. the tree in red we weren't originally removed but they want to replaced because of disease. those are the two trees with 3 large trees. the appellant failed to note the reason we're removing it two this is the curb cut of the driveway it services the

underground gag so we can't get into leaving the garage you'll be hitting the trunk of the tree we're going to plant a new tree a few feet of the west out of the curb cut and with a tree not as large and this tree didn't exist so there will be a new tree and we're proposing to remove that. there's massive steel there's beams 50 feet long we're talking about huge steel we can't get that off the site without

cranes. this shows one swing system and they require those two trees to be gone the concrete is to stop water from coming up the soil that's a mud slab there is no in structural concrete poured that's massive pumping rigs and two at once taking up the whole street yes, we're rovm them and are not those are huge trees we don't want to see mature trees in front of a church and now we want to see huge trees we want big trees but the fixing us

species is not only approved if we remove those would won't be allowed to put those species back they destroy sidewalks we'll plant an approved species and by one of the tree open the east literally we can't get out of the garage there's no question so the other one interferes with building so we're taxiing taking anti 2 owe putting in 3 and all the trees in the alley so i think their paying attention to the urban forestry that's why they approved it. there was talk about stevenson it's narrow we get the cranes

there we have to vw have the cranes even though up in front of valencia street so those tree removals t are necessary one the the east to get in the cranes and the west the construction requirement. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> did you say that one of the two is diseased. >> yeah. >> no, not one the two. >> that's what i want clarification. >> let me see the red one is diseased and actually, we weren't going to remove that it is diseased but we're going to replace that it shipping so that's much bigger than the one we're going to put the two trees that are huge that one doesn't

exist there so there's more trees in there. >> the structural steel is for the roof structure. >> for the framing of the church and the doom of the church dome. >> so when you mentioned the 70 foot span that's for the roof structure isn't it and the 70 foot is it 70 or 55 are 68 feet. >> for the roof structure. >> right. >> and what evaluation. >> about 50 feet the dome starts so we have a 50 photo right here so we're talking

about 50 foot treess here about 50 by 50 central square it supports the dome about a 50 foot dome. >> so did you see the appellants pictures rewarding h regarding the current trees. >> yeah. in my office we were upset about that somebody without permission did that. so >> you the church didn't higher to trim the trees. >> i know it was some church member that hacked them. >> we were very upset. >> next question if there's that's the way your teaching of the trees