but at the same time, i want to make sure they are held accountability to put the 3 trees in there that's my thinking at this point >> actually, i like fixing us that show us how everybody is different. based on the pragmatic the reasons they've brought forward i expect two but not all the issue the driveway is one i mean, i'll accept his rational for the steel elements i don't accept his concrete - pumping

but i'll support the demolition for the 3 trees >> i'm 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 that's - i don't think there's any type of life issues those are issues

that could be and should be sort of designed around i think that's 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 doesn't 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 there's 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. we'll typically add any additional trees that wouldn't necessarily have been required as part of the removal our permit requires we typically add them to the stage u same permit that's 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 it's demolition of 2 trees removal of two trees. >> on this permit i'm indicating that's their

intention. >> i'm 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 they've 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 we're 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 isn't that correct. >> thank you victor. >> the order specification the minimum of 60 inch box 60 inch box. >> that's 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 we've 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 single-family dwelling with ground floor area. we'll start with the appellant 7

minutes >> commissioner president lazarus i'm jan curry on live on circle last year avenue adjacent to the subject property i filled the appeal. i outlined accident brief it's out of character with my neighborhood and will cause harm to me and my neighborhood it's 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 i've 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 that's a full story

tall and more than doubling the square footage the neighborhood we've 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 he's reduced his project it's 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 mom's 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 it's 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 it's 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 they've 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 don't have the resources of the gentleman nor any experience working in san francisco planning and working systems i've done everything i can to insure the voices of

sunny side are heard therefrom i'm pursuing my last opportunity to scale this down by asking you to place the restrictions to reduce the size so it's consistent with the scale and character of the sunny side neighborhood thank you for your attention >> okay. thank you we'll hear if the permit holder now. mr. silverman >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm david silverman i'm working with the permit holder. the approved permit is for construction on a single-family home the proximately is gary g he was pro-active 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 didn't 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 doesn't raise any reason to invalid the permit and

mr. g will make a brief presentation. thank you. >> i'll use the overhead. you can wait if you want we can switch microphones for you.

does anyone else know how to switch the microphones? don't break it. >> is it working thank you very much. we don't 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 92 freeway

this is the highway of the flood right there. this is a view of the front of the house with ms. occurringries building that's at the uphill site as you go up you'll see the top great deal of this is the flood avenue block faced to the north this is right here 8 flood avenue. this is flood avenue to the excuse me. circular with ms. occurringries house here again, this is a view from the rear of two flood you can see this is ms. occurring religious you how's and the deck and the gentleman's house the back of his building and this beyond across the street is the 280

freeway and this is our site plan showing you our footprint this is one of the notches to put this against 8 flood in our designing revisions. here again, this is the ground floor we were one of the concerns of the neighbors said they wanted more than one parking we've got enough parking for 3 cars and, of course, there's a large 15 foot driveway in the set back that allows for temporary parking and there's a guest room and upstairs a family room with a kitchen. this is a deck over the structure below. again and the third level is 3 bedrooms with two bath and one

of the features with the planning department they've asked us to no such that to open the staircase and they asked us to open the be masking to create the open staircase similar to the adjacent buildings and asks you to put a fwlat flat roof to match the front plain of circular avenue building this is the back the building we deliberating kept the profile low and this is the low deck. from is side drawing - it's not responding here. this is a profile of ms. occurring religious house and her deck is right where the doted lines are and our deck is

below the railing we're conscious in trying to keep our small property owner rear deck relative to hers ours is short than her deck in the rear. again, this is the how the grade goes up we wurd this floor into the hill. our neighborhood meetings was in january 7th the preapplication meeting we traded e-mails and drawing another on april 18th with the neighbors the appellant was there also in all the meeting and a separate appellant meeting we outlined this through the earlier letter how to come to scheme a, b, and c reducing the mask and height. after scheme c we filed scheme c

with the planning department. the planning department through the scheme d and e made a provision that went to the design to r t the residential design team and came back with responses. we responded to that we sent the drawings to the neighborhood and scheme f is actually a mass reduction of the rear done by the project sponsor he wanted to bring the building back on the deck back be more in line with the ms. occurring religious building and i don't know anything else we can tell you the proportions and materials we went through the with the staff we thought it was equatable i'll answer any questions you have at

this point >> okay. mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department the architect did a thorough job in detailing 9 process by which it was developed it's kind of confirming the act it's located within rh1 the single-family home zoning directed acrossful from highway 280 it's building permit was submitted last march and the preapplication process was implemented there were

provisions made and we were made aware of the neighbors concerns they redesigned the project i held two meetings to discuss this and a series the recommended changes and all the issues the design team pledged the designs and all were address regarding the map of the scale and the third store not uncommon for the planning department to recommend an approval where there's neighborhoods with predominantly 2 stories so the building is actually has maximum setbacks from the front set back from the location of the front set back that's a 25 percent rear yard and doesn't encroach and this 3 story set back from

the wall so 27 feet from the front property line it has a disabled roof but the rormdz were changed to be flat roofs there were other concerns about the garage door width and it has been addressed subsequent to that the nose was completed between september and october of last year the department was aware the concerns but no discretionary review filed has been note the permit was issued and primarily the concern related to the 3 stories it's currently a vacant lot it's a change from there having a 3 story building but the broad operation for the design line it's on a standard practice that

a third story predominantly where there's 2 stories may in fact, be okay not only from the front building wall but from the front property line so noting the top graphic of the lot the slight up sloping has she timed so from the rear it's more like a 2 story building. the floor plans are it is my duty i didn't and there's not a lot of extra space and the 3 bedrooms and two bathes on that third story it has a living room and half bath and 3 bedrooms and laundry facilities and the ground floor has a guest room a play room and utilities and the garage so in terms of if you

were to remorseful the third story it will severely change the little are we looking at perhaps a longer building to accommodate that family oriented plan so this raises some concerns if you don't have the third story to have the ability to have a single-family. i'm available for questions f that you have >> i have a question mr. sanchez so the lot if at the didn't get the third story how far can we build. >> they have they could extend back ten foot or so at the lowest levels and get the 25 percent rear yard their according to the plans they're

showing a 38 square feet lot conform and theres a 25 percent requirement. >> hardy towards the circle last year. >> the 8 flood as essential setbacks so it's at the maximum of the code requirement is 15 feet we'll have concerned about the building extending further and we prefer development when it's appropriate to be hire a third story rather than encroaching on the neighborhood space. >> mr. duffey anything. we'll take public comment. please step forward. >> this is my card.

good evening board of appeals i'm raymond changing we live on the left hundreds of the open lot as identified by skrerp my family and neighbors came here today to oppose k s m development for building a 3 story building for one thousand plus square foot this. the sunny side neighbors have been speaking to deaf areas all they did was turn a monster house to another monster size house 3 stories is too big and doesn't fit our neighborhood style because the house is 2

stories at all. the city planning guideline it's essential for a building scale to be comparable where decrease surrounding building to preserve the neighborhood character their 2 story at all the houses are only 5 hundred and 60 square feet and way less than the 4 hundred square feet. those are the buildings they're proposing and blocking the sunlight the city guideline demanded when permitted by the planning code building stenos can't be appropriate into the rear yard doorns the context of the other buildings and out of scale rear yard conditions can

leaving residents boxed in and the proposed 3 story building is at all and deep. into the backyard making the neighbors feeling boxed in and cut off our sunlight. we're afraid that the large construction will turn into an apartment building are multi single-family home they're for the resale they want to build the biggest building possibly and make the most profit and burden the neighbors they'll be the one to suffer that will greatly hurt >> neighborhood and please reject that proposal until