side backs this is a good addition so at the last hamburger the tree permit came up and dpw has approved the tree permits subject to the approval of the project at this point the city as has a high standard so obviously it's up to the commission but in my thought that's innovate a great precedence to refer to the appeals process for the tree appeal and one last point will supervisor wiener's legislation the roof deck shadow boxing we don't know what it is on speaking to his aid the intent to priority a provide a environmental review process and commissioner president fong can i finish on that point thank you it is simply a conditional use

process and not requiring new finding or the change it will be required to come to the commission rather than be subject to a dr proposal we think that is the intention so thank you we're here for questions. >> thank you. >> okay speakers in support of dr? okay. i'm chris wilson i live on state street what we're asking - what we're asking is what was asked for in 1985 a variance what denied the rules have not changed since 1985 the city is in desperate need of middle-class housing

deny the variance and allow the second-story to be built between the slightly home we'll ask you to determine the placement and size of the lots san francisco is growing in differences between the poor and rich this graphic from the article is is here sorry >> that's the two minutes. >> thank you. >> airbnb debris goldman we have two ways to reduce the size of the buildings first, you, shape the nerves to fit the context under the city's residential guidelines if you don't ask so

for this to be done the disgraceful disparity will become for widespread this will happy when you build only mega homes that can be purchased by a small percentage of people if you approve any building on state streets that we ask for the modifications the state street buildings westbound sect set back by 15 feet to accommodate two monterrey trees that had require the answer to engagement an arborist to do the measures for the preservation of the trees - >> thank you, ma'am our time is up. >> mr. marcus continuing

we've request the state street building behind the court be set back to maintain the open space and provide transition to the on building but the second-story that the design be set back an additional 10 feet so the impact of the building is identical to the existing building on both sides that the rear of the building be set back with the grade and the roof deck be removed because the cannon like environment that echoes the noise that includes cousin lower terrace and on that includes the condition presenting of the order court recognizing the new homes are only being approved through the variance procedure.

>> i'm mary ann i live on the court something not mentioned the fact that 22 order court has benefited from a variance that is the variance decision letter issued in 19984 the proposal at that time ware to second-story addition that was built 10 feet into the 11 foot set back the justification we based on the lot next door that has it's only parking what's the point of going through those variances if they're now granted without regard for the neighbors the same property owner has come back for another set back given 22 court was lutd to blt build f

we think the state street the old court building should not be permitted again the set back variance and huge rear yard variance. >> thank you ma'am our light is up. >> which only allows - >> thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> (inaudible). >> thank you. >> hi, i'm a resident on state street you may hear the interests are unhealthy and those are healthy trees with a life expectancy of many years in fact, we've hired a 50sh9 with the landscapers to do an

analysis they provided recommendations for the trees preservation through the construction that can be noptd into the approval i'm submitting a copy of the report and the sponsors report that on the frvrj having to do with damage and the analysis and that, of course, is a negative conclude the officer talked about could not be removed in other words, the trees are not a hazard and healthy and you mandated they remain i'd like to say at the last hearing the zoning administrator said i'll be he the opportunity tenant to use this as evolution for removing the trees mraunz b please deny the variance or

require the retention of the trees and we'll withdraw our appeal and he relationship to the two trees the sponsor submitted a check list that will not result in the removal of trees and if this is an honest mistake not only the site plan but the one in front of you today, the plan shows not only one tree that is graphically indicated but two trees both under the threshold of trees that are significant where did those numbers come from the numbers that the actual dimension they indicate the trees are both. >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. >> thank you for your time and

consideration. >> judith commissioners the hearing - the tree hearing decision the recommendations you know what it was it was not to approve the removal of the trees it doesn't say it it says on the condition only on conditions there are necessarily approvals have been observed from other departments this decision doesn't diverse the approval to remove the trees this can only that mean the possibility of constructing the trees something that protects the trees must be considered when no plans have been submitted you don't have the base are for a decision to approve the proposed plans i ask

i continue this hearing and direction the pardon project sponsor to prepare alternative plans. >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm kevin rear i own a property on state street. >> the other mike please. in summary we'd like a reiterate if you approve any building 0 on intrastate state street building near trees that are cigarette and adjacent buildings and second floor set back 10 feet from the front facade and the eliminates of roof deck and prevent more buildings from being enlarged as a condition

for approval thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm derrick i live an order street with our permission i'd like to revisit the circumstances of the variance request the arguments that were presented in short of establishing an extraordinary situation as i see it the developer delivered the risk when we entered an stunt if we step e accept this for variance were encouraging more business and poor judgment for further development that will subsidize - if we handle those the way their intended today, the planning commission has an opportunity to hold the

correct parties account accountability if it is granted we respectfully ask you continue this hearing. >> thank you. sir, your time is up. >> okay. >> hi, i'm david i live on state street i have two small apartments and i walk out of my building my apartment is seven hundred square feet i see this monster condominium and an airport hardening on the left i don't know who the hell approved those things for us to say this is contextual design i presented this in first year architecture class i would have been told to go back i tried to get a variance in the back of my house

i was told it was hard the golden rule that applies in this case the people with the goal make the rules now i mean, i find it outrage who's responsible for protecting the trees and birds and the sunshine and the fresh air on our street. >> thank you. sir, your 7, 8, 9 is up. >> any more speakers in support of dr requester. >> okay speakers in support of project sponsor. >> seeing none, public comment is closed arrest commissioner richards. >> i want to thank the pardon to make the changes i think one thing you've left out, sir the trees are also a censure for us

on december 4th which is one of the reigns we'll called this hearing as i look at the photos with the people and the impact of the trees is larger than i thought these sipping press trees there were 8 cut down on state street last year illegal the project sponsor was fined i applaud them for not cutting the trees down and asking for fivenl forgiven later we had two storms last week and the trees made it through the storm so other trees didn't make it i'm stipulated the dpw pushed the decision by

approving the project to us to make this decision i don't want to kill a significant tree i think the neighbors are allowing the developing i believe that's what i think i heard i think they're willing to gave me in give and take and not going to be all winners or legislatures what i'm thinking like we did in 53 states i ask you allow commissioner moore and i to meet with the staff to come up with something more in the middle and i would make a motion to continue this item. >> pending that outcome of those decisions for thirty days. >> second. >> a motion and second commissioner antonini. >> well, i'd like to comment on regardless of whether or not it's continued first of all, most of what we've asked for has been done by the project sponsor

removing the top level and dlaevent technically and reducing the parking i remember mention of the trees and i think it's important that those projects get approved because they have done what we're asked and i've read the report detailed from dpw and their talk about the trees not being the best their sandwiched into a narrow area of a deep slope they might survive it's going to be difficult you know for them to do so i think particularly with any projects that is built certainly, if we set back the project and allow an attempt to

save the trees interestingly enough mohammed nuru if you take the trees out he only thought you had room to put one new tree babbling back but those are smaller trees so i've been to the site i can see the trees will grow anywhere and stipz will grow anymore i'm supportive of project i think it's well-thought-out and it aweville's it's itself in a difficult space to build into its is an open space i don't evaluate open spaces it's a different thing mid block t is

shared this is someone else's property that is adjacent to our property it's a different kind of situation one that would be impossible for one to use for recreational purposes due to the depth of the space they're doing as good as possible, however if there's a way to set back something in keblgs to allow for an attempt to save at least one or both of the trees that might be a better situation i won't want to continue what you said. >> commissioner moore. >> while there have been attempts to minimize the consent of the height and massing i'm still uncomfortable the result

are so monolithic and particularly because each of us have supported the development of the scheme of the trees the trees are not as much as those trees that reflect public interest and civic value would that they take a long time to grow and not as amateur in our lifetime it takes 20 years for them to be that way they are. >> significant contributor and even if built in a bigger building into the street by eliminating that the massiveness and the buildings together makes those 3 buildings worse then be that they are i'm not fond of the lack of having more creativity in them that's a

separate discussion i believe one the challenges to come up with a mapping and the building variance that creates a solution where a larger building would be acceptable if indeed it meets the challenge of having to doling daily with the vegetation i'm not talking about a replacement tree and takes thirty years to be having a sculpture so i think the continuums will make it easier for us not to have the trees go i can't take that responsibility. >> i'm going to agree with the general direction this is a unique san francisco street this is a unique piece of street it would be on a be a nice attempt to work with them a cooler

smaller house with a tree rather than a smaller tree so i'm hoping that a continuance will be able to find middle ground to the project sponsor i've not heard from the neighbors they didn't want to see something done with the piece of property i see heads bobing upside down. >> that's the direction to think my thoughts are you'll know where i stand i'm not going to be in support of anything i we were very clear in our previous commission hearing about finding creative ways to integrate the trees into the housing one thing i'll say in terms of how you might shape

that one thing i personally said i'll be okay with more height they lopped off a floor if it works you can put that back on there i'll leave it to the commissioners. >> the devil is in the details on that one. >> to the neighbors? a give-and-take in terms of what will be the depth between the buildings but i think we hear you, you loud and clear. >> with regards to the variance i'll appreciative to the responsiveness of the project sponsor to address the concerns of the commission and the concerns at the at least last hearing i'm disappointed to see the trees they suffer from neglect from the past owners and

pg&e thankful been topping the trees to access the lines above it given that dpw has not out right said this trespassing tree needs to be removed we'll not have the two street trees as required by the codes they'll do one tree i'm skeptical that any variance will effect the trees and skeptical about the construction at all on the lot as part of the proposal they'll moved to do the development an order court want to see a tree protection how will they maintain that tree and heavy equipment down the hill i want it addressed and if i understand correctly the 22 order court

could be developed to not have impact on this trees; is that correct and we'll want the design to respect each other may be one could be approved at this point to continue them both to look at it closer. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask the zoning administrator lender us a helping hand when we meet with the department and applicants you're saying you speak from a lot of experience and taking into consideration i think it will require more activity than what we've seen because we have that buildings we can't use the same kind of materials and windows that's not enough creativity i think we're setting the condition it requires a new size and expectation in place and work with them the creativity will shape what we

get. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second - >> just i'll ask in case you want clarification. >> thank you commissioner president fong we hear where the commission is coming clearly we have more work i want to follow up on what commissioner richards and commissioner moore's process i think it is critical for the two folks to be involved we appreciate you're not saying back to the drawing board you'll be involved that is necessary in a situation considering the environment so i appreciate you - >> want to have the neighbors at the table with us. >> i would have to ask the cork on gowns that's not what we typically do i personally find it difficult the challenges are

earth and creative but that's your opinion there's a time of exploring i'd rather have mr. jazz listen or someone in the room than asking the broader representation i find that difficult saw commissioners it's up to you typically we have a design discussion at first and often a followup meeting. >> i understand. >> we'll take that subsequence that would be good. >> commissioners then there is a motion and a second to continue to march 12 and commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 78 to zero and places you on general public comment for which i have this speaker cards. >> new general public comment

tonight. >> seeing none, general public comment is closed. and the meeting is >> hi, my name is jamie hooper.

in this episode, we are featuring the romantic park locations in your very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special. our first look out is here at buena vista park a favorite with couples and dog lovers. it is as old as its neighbor and both have a significant forest a refreshing retreat from urban life. the pass that meander we do under a canopy of 0, redwood, pine, and eucalyptus. chill out and this environment and you might see butterflies, and dandelions.

blue jays fly between the eucalyptus. it is ada accessible. public transit is plentiful. six, 24, or 71 bus. we have conquered the steps we walked the dogs, and we have enjoyed a beautiful view the park has to offer. this is the place to take someone special and enjoyed a beautiful look out. " come to corona heights, located in the heart of this district. it offers a spectacular view of the downtown skyline, the bay bridge, and the east bay. the park is one of the best kept secrets. unlike twin peaks, it is hardly ever crowded. on any given day, you will run into a few locals. hop on a 37 bus to get there

with that any parking worries. locals can bring their dogs to run with other dogs. there is also grass for small dogs. >> it is a great place. it is a wonderful place for the city to provide these kind of parks. the dog owners appreciate it. >> take time to notice the wildflowers on the grassland. and keep your head on the lookout for hawks and other bird life. take your camera and be prepared to review the city in a way you will not forget. it is prominent with beautiful formations that are perfect to watch the sunrise from the east over the bay. this is another one of our great look out. we are at mount davidson. it has the highest point of elevation in san