rom 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