your standing back 14 feet away if you're looking at our angle of the ceiling would do you prefer the 2 foot planter or the trellis. >> i'm in support of the project except for the roof deck. >> it didn't seem like the commission is going to eliminate the roof deck are you preferring the trellis thank you i don't understand why the roof deck is part of the planned. >> right. >> there's a huge privacy issue an encroachment. >> the conditional use is i have spaces into my bedroom so thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> you've respond to the question. >> so i get it.

>> i think the trellis is a better solution if there's a motion and second. >> commissioner richards. >> i i guess my question is is the at that particular time to keep people 2 feet off the edge or to have a unclear view i think it's harder if we require a planter it would die and they could see through it i rather put the decks past two feet. >> the gentleman's concern is not the closeness of the deck but you stand back in whether direction and still being able to see so shortening the deck didn't help. >> the view lines are the further away the less i see your angle of the site goes off and

what i'm trying to do the trellis architecturally it is less desirable it could dark especially the shade a maintenance problem for the people that are remodeling the house and trellis one side is going to be whatever and it is architecturally not a nice solution. >> so. >> and in the interest of the person that remodeled the house with the planting and the green edge. >> is the planter permanent like 6 pots and put them together and call that a planter. >> i expect he'll build them. >> the decking will be removed and the planter will set over the roof structure it could be

attached. >> okay. please call the question. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to take dr and require a code compliance with the ground floor as a relative to the separation of the bedroom spades as well as the 24 by thirty inch planter on the south side of the kelvin edwards, sr., the kelly charge of the united methodist church. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson commissioner antonini commissioner moore commissioner richards. >> i want to make sure the planter wakes up around it and so it is on one side. >> on l-shaped planter. >> would you like to specify how far it wraps? >> that's what i'm proposing it is discussed on the drawing yeah. >> how far is that dimension that wraps. >> 4 feet. >> thank you

that's i so let me read that motion book cerebrothe record to make sure that the maker to take dr and have the ground floor as it relates to the separation of the grayish garage and bedroom with the planter on the ceda of the roof deck that wraps 4 feet around the west side. >> thank you commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that will place you on items 16 example and b and 17 a and b commissioners please note that

on december 4, 2014, after hearing and closing the public comment it was continued to february 5th by a vote of 6 to zero commissioner hillis was absent at that time commissioner hillis in order for you to participate. >> done i was absent. >> you were absent from the hearing but left earlier for this item at the end of that. >> i mean, i watched it and participateed in the hearing. >> okay. but i got it. >> so you need to acknowledge you have reviewed it. >> thank you commissioner hillis. >> commissioners that is the second time you're hearing this matter so the dr requester and the other party gets the same

time. >> good morning, everyone. tennessee i can't chang with the department staff the items are a request for you conditional use for three tree building applications an order court for a horizon single-family dwelling an order court and the other for new construction for the single-family dwelling at the rear and the third permit for a single-family home they rear of 24 order court on state street a 3 lot as commissioner mentioned the project was heard on december 4th and continued to today and commissioners requested several changes which i'll list as well as the conclusions from the be- the

removal of top level the proposed structure these 22 and 24 court the architecture difference between the proposed planning for the reduction of parking for the proposed new structures as an update the number of floors for the two new structures have been reduced from two to four at the front fraud and the off-street spaces have been reduced and an alteration from the front facade has been incorporated into the design at 22 order court to delineate it the commissioners requested that the project sponsor has also proposed an excavation of 4 hundred and 50 square feet to create two levels below grade resulting in a 4

level structure addition at the roof deck above the second-story will be set back and additional the department of public works staff had concluded they'll approve the removal of the trees pending the entitlement applications from the planning department and the building inspection so public comment over the last couple of days the department has received requests to continue this and its to be introduced to the board of supervisors the staffs recommendations and they'll impose additional permit if the projects exceeded a certain scope that will not halt the

department altogether it's not been introduced and not clear with the exact language is not comfortable with the pending legislation in order to proceed the commission must decided whether or not to take discretionary review and to the single-family dwelling and the new construction of 2 store an order court within anothers rh2 zoning within the district that concludes my presentation. and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you dr requester. >> sure. >> sleeping there.

>> mr. commissioner johns is there 0 any way in light of the fact there's significant changes and a dr request my neighbors and i might get two minutes. >> this is the second time you'll have 3 minutes and the dr requester 3 minutes if you want to comment there maybe questions we may have. >> can i get time back from n. >> good afternoon. i'm chris may i have the projector please because your time is constrained in my i my neighbors will continue i want to start with a picture of the neighbors and with the tree a surveillance in permit is required a permit is

required and a variance is required to cut down the trees we've requested a variance this is where our rear yards are by the rh2 zoning adds to the character of the street if you step back those same greens are x's you'll see what happens in if this precedent you'll be connecting those dots with lines state street is unique it gives us greenery it has a mid block state street has a character of the street we have today, the

planning go ahead the planning reviews those are projects on a project by project base it is getting mocked the the character of state state that will be like connecting the dots and the character will be lost forever when you guarantee go back by a to the street view you'll see the vegetation of the street and see what happens in the tree were removed this is really the character of the streetscape if you remove those buildings this is what the project sponsor proposed those are the parents that live there and we have videos of them and so we and the bird and the neighbors of this street ask you to please preserve the character of state street thank you.

>> project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor so, yes we were here last year in september and received significant feedback regarding the project design we'll speak to a couple of the procedural issues we listened to our comments and incorporated them into the project design if i could have the octavia boulevard this will remove the third floor legally two-story buildings we've redesigned the all of the evidence i facade and suggested we recaptured the floor area by reducing the san francisco transportation authority finance committee by two to one we'll

have our geotechnical engineer as staff has cleared up the environmental review we've included the roof decks the only open space are located at the second basement level we felt there should be some open space to the level that is having the occupant don't have to climb so the activity will not be seen by the street and we're using a hash design not to create new mass we look at order court were not able to maintain a 3 bedroom home if you take a look at the floor plan the bottom is basically because of the hill it is below grade itself

second-story has a dining and living area and the thirty-third bedrooms so it is set back 13 feet from the building and 18 feet from the property line and also 2, 5 foot 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