>> good evening and welcome to the february 20, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by vice president rick swig and commissioner lazarus and we expect commissioner tanner shortly. to my left is deputy city attorney rod russcy who will provide the board will legal advice. at the control is board legal assistant. i'm julie ros rosenberg.

we will be joined by representatives from the department. we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing department of building inspection, chris buck, san francisco public works, bureau of forestry and we also expect the project meeting. the board meeting guidelines are board request that you silence all phones so they will not disturb the proceedings. the rules of the presentation are as follow, appellants are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no

rebuttal. please speak if the microphone. to assist the board, you're asked but not required to submit a business record or business card to board staff. speaker cards on are the left sideside of the podium. please speak to board staff during break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on s.f.gov tv. the video can be downloaded from sfgovtv.org. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony t please stand if

you're able, raise your right hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. we'll now move on to item number one which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. anyone here for public comment? no. we'll move on to item number two. this is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? moving on to item 3. discussion of possible adoption of minutes february 6, 2019 board meeting. >> president fung: any comments? >> adoption of the minutes is submitted. >> we have a motion from

commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes from february 6, 2019. that motion carries. minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item 4. this is a appeal number 18 had , richard hall versus san francisco bureau of public works forestry. approval request move two street trees adjacent to the subject property. note on february 6, 2019, the board voted 4-0, commissioner tanner absent.

given we've heard this, we'll hear from urban of forestry first. you have three minutes. >> good evening commissioners, chris buck for san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. i provided a brief late last week, covering some of the details. i figure i hit the key points. it's part of the follow-up that you requested. to confirm a few of the things that we wanted to discuss, the size of the replacement trees will be 36-inch box size trees. that's what the project is planning to plant where any trees are planted and removed and replaced. also the species that will be planted is magnolia. i did talk to the landscape architect, he planned for little gem magnolia. which much smaller trees. there's some overhead power

lines on 16th street. we want to plant a large tree. he said that's not a problem. it's not going to require change order. the other item, bigger picture item is the funding. sfmta confirmed they have the funding to fund the replacement species. also public works does have the funding to replant these trees at the this particular site. we spoke last time about mixed message in public works presented that we don't have the funding to plant street trees citywide but we are prioritize replacement trees. another item is creating a fact sheet and more information on the website. to really outline all the steps we're taking to address this issue with the potential removal of lot more cities citywide.

we maybe before you. we will be here in front of our own department and we want to be able to provide more information to public about those funding sources. at this point in time, public works does seek move forward with the two trees. we'll remove the trees and replant them with our own funds because the project likely wouldn't get to that point until late this calendar year or early next year. one other item is few of the commissioners questions about overall numbers. of the 61 trees proposed for potential removal, eight of those trees have failed. two trees were very small. what we'll be doing initiating the removal of 53 trees over the next several weeks. i did meet with the project

manager with the m.t.a., she was planning to be here this evening. i do ask if she appears late, if you have any follow-up questions, make her available to answer follow-up questions. that's my three minutes up. want to give you more background about the information you requested. >> president fung: can you guarantee a time for replacement? can you put a parameter on that within 30 days or 90 days and make it part of our finding tonight? >> yes, commissioner. i meant to outline that we will commit to replacing the trees within the three months of the removal of the trees. >> president fung: 90 days. >> that's90 days for replacement trees. >> president fung: i thought your brief said 60 days. i believe i stated three months,

90 days. >> we've been doing is to cut the 6-month time period to into, threinto half t three mon. center what' >> what's the growth rate of magnolia. >> growth rate is moderate. it's a fast growing species. moderate growth is the sweet spot. it's not overwhelming. they will acquire size in overtime. it's not a fast-growing tree. as it gets it close to building, trees sense. they don't have the sun light

there where the building physically exists. lesser problem to prune tha. >> thank you. we'll now hear from appellant, mr. hall. >> just to remind you, they are very important big trees. i'm sad that d.p.w. seems to have effectively separated our two trees from the 61 trees being removed under sfmta

fillmore project also known as red lane project. i'm sorry sfmta isn't here tonight tell us why they're removing 61 trees as part of this project. in particular, about the overheadlines. because the overheadline have been a long time. i'm really curious as to whether this is to accommodate double decker google buses. i'm sorry, they're not here. i believe that if these trees have to be removed, that we need larger stature, at least 48-inch boxes and if there happens to be and electrical wire -- there maybe as one of these trees, a street light. if that counts, i think we ought to consider moving the street light so we can get trees back that approximate much as we can,

as soon as we can, what we have now. i would ask you -- i don't know how we do this -- i would ask you to direct them, d.p.w. and sfmta to stop fragmenting the program and give community a hearing on the timing of the removal for all the 61 trees that's part of sfmta project. direct sfmta to be at that hearing. i guess i ask you -- i don't know how to do that. do i have to file jurisdiction appeal or something to get this real project heard rather than just the split off our two very

important trees i'm also not happy about the moderate growth rate trees. the idea is put in anything as big as you can gets on that sidewalk and let it grow fast. i think that's it. obviously, i would like the removal of these trees denied until it's heard as a complete mission street red lanes project hearing. if you allow them to remove them, make the replacements big and fast-growing. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. commissioners this matter is >> president fung: commissioners >> vice president swig: go

ahead. perhaps a question mr. buck, i know you mentioned, discussed this several times in the past. but the growth rate between the 36 of the 48 isn't all that great. isn't that correct? >> correct. i stand here before you for development projects where trees are being lost due to the addition of new garages or signature trees due to development where there's a private profit taking place. that's often recommended. that can replace that canopy size. in this case, one thing that m.t.a. it's three to one replacement. it's true that the larger the size of any plant, the longer it

takes to actually acclimate and transplant. the smaller the size plant, the quicker the acclimation period. if feels good to start with something really large. i understand that. within a few years, the younger plant catches up and surpasses the larger tree. i point out that we're not looking to move the trees for development. we trying to address public safety concern. i know i answered your question. of these 53, not 61 trees that will come up and be part of the public hearing with public works, there's really only two out of the 53 that are really conflicting as part of the project. 51 are really just poor structure that we want to move because there's a project on the

street. just circle back and address that question. >> vice president swig: you're picking on these two trees because they are dangerous and risk of causing public harm. you feel the urgency is such that you can't wait for it to be part of the project? >> correct. we feel better to move forward with these instead of waiting up to another year or another winter season to risk that. they do concern us. i only have three minutes. i didn't rehash all that. i still stand -- our department stands firmly they meet the criteria for fica trees. they are very large and majestic. that's regrettable. also our representative from sfmta just arrived if there's

follow-up question. >> hi, i apologize, i was running late. parental duties. i'm project manager. big picture of the project is the scope of the project is we're improving the safety, mainly transit and draft safety aspect of that corridor by implementing additional traffic island as well as additional traffic signals per community's request. due to multiple development and increasing demand of population in that area. additionally, it's one of the most accident-prone corridors that was the reason that we came up with improving that corridor. the reason public works joined in removing the trees was two

main reasons, these trees have been hazardous to public and vehicle and transit over the period of last 10 years. especially during the wet and windy season. additionally during the survey, we heard a lot from the public that they feel unsafe under these trees during the day because creates lot of shade and cross sections, they feel unsafe during the day, hanging around or passing that. these two main reasons, especially talking with chris and folks at public works, those are our recommendations. i realize out of the 61, 8 of them have been remove and some of them planned to be are moved in the near future before the project starts. phase one is from the overall project is only along 16th

street from church street to 3rd street. first phase of the project is to third street which is in construction. we just started construction. the second phase from church to patreo, we expect construction to start in september of this year. >> president fung: the remaining trees are not an issue tonight as far as this hearing and we're going to rule on. i will just pass on to you. i will suggest that we put a time parameter on the replacement of these trees that are under consideration. just an advisory what we've heard, because you have not been here, i would think of safe to

say that some of the public do not trust that the trees will be replaced if a timely fashion because there's some history of trees being torn out and not being replaced. that we can anticipate and preclude you from being in front of us before. maybe your take back from being here tonight, you put into your findingfinds the assurance and d time lines with regard to the replacement of those trees. if you choose to move forward. >> if it's any assurance, replacement of these trees is part of the contract that the winning contractor would have to implement. it's not only the removal is part of the contract. removal and three to one replacement is part of the

contract. within that time period, they are obligated to not only remove the trees also replace three trees for each tree they remove. >> vice president swig: thank you very much. >> president fung: planning trees is always at the end during construction process. >> at the end of the duration of the construction, correct. we don't want to damage the newly planted trees if some additional work needs to happen. it will happen during that time line of the project which the first phase is only 12 o 12-monh period. at the end of the project, all of those trees should beplanted. the contractor obligated to do

this. >> president fung: is your construction sequencing where you're giving entire data phase onely tone to the contractor. is he doing it in piecemeal. >> the scope of the work is much smaller than van ness and duration of the project is only 12 months, especially for the first phase. van ness was a big three-year project. we're not expecting anything remotely similar to van necessarness tohappen.

i don't know the tree requirements for van ness. i don't know what that is. as part of our project, to accommodate d.p.w. and fund their needs, we took that work on to assure that the trees will be replaced end of the construction. >> president fung: thank you. >> i have her information. >> i like to move this forward. which means i will -- >> i would need four votes to condition the permit. you can continue it to next week week. >> president fung: i want the 90-day guarantee in our motion. i don't think it being in

mr. buck's either verbal statement or written statement that it is affirmed. i like to make sure for the public sake, the promise is adhered to and condition placed upon d.p.w. performs. >> president fung: or we could wait for commissioner tanner to arrive. >> since she wasn't able to hear it portion of the hearing. she won't be able to vote. i'm not sure what president fung or commissioner lazarus wants to go with this. if they want to continue it, we can put it on the calendar for wednesday, the 27th. if they wanted to impose conditions. >> vice president swig: i like to condition it.

sorry, continue it. i move to continue it until we have a fuller board that can condition a motion. >> would that work? we have a motion to continue this to february 27th next week. i apologize, we don't have sufficient number to grant the appeal with conditions. we have a motion from vice president swig to move it to february 27th. on that motion, president fung and commissioner lazarus. motion carries. commissioner tanner is very close and she's here. mr. hall, this matter will continue to february 27th. we'll put you at the beginning.

i apologize. >> president fung: i would accept the commissioner swig's motion. >> it's been continued. you're free to go. >> vice president swig: we're not going to hear any testimony. we're going to go straight to -- >> president fung: i think that makes sense. >> we'll continue it for just the vote. okay. thank you. welcome commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: good evening. perfect timing. >> we are moving to item 5. this is appeal number 19-005. anna mar versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. property is 663, 21st avenue.

this iwe will hear from the appt first. is ms. mar present? ms. mar, you have seven minutes. you might want to go to that microphone. it's little shorter. we can adjust that. >> overhead projector please. good evening president fung members of the board. i'm appellant ann mar, project sponsor was granted with the

understanding that they will continue to communicate and work together in making sure our trees will not be damaged. as outlined in my brief, this appeal is about project construction and the undisputed excavation damaging our redwood trees roots. we're project sponsors have reached this agreement by not communicating by not providing plans about how they will not damage our redwood trees roots. by law, project sponsor does not have this right. experts determined at least 25% of our tree's roots will be excavated, damage and loss permanently. experts confirmed our trees

structure roots will be severed and our redwood trees health and stability will be compromised. this will create a dangerous situation. this created a safety hazard where these trees have to be removed. our redwood trees are at least 60 feet and 40 feet in height with diameters of 33 to 36 inches with lateral, root system that stabilizes and support the health of our trees. project sponsors agree building close to our redwood trees is not safe. the option to remove trees was considered where project sponsor

consulted. accordingly, experts stated the only way to eliminate risk of living so close to trees is to eliminate the risk. project sponsors consulted with several more experts such as arborist wheeler and arborist altman who directed us to his tree killers. after project sponsors research, project sponsor provided arborist with incorrect measurement multiple times. despite these incorrect measurements, these experts

project sponsor concluded our redwood trees, critical, establish roots will be damaged and lost permanently from project excavation. these experts recommended this will rare us to take aggressive and extensive measures to nurture and care for trees survival. the city's urban forest ordinance section retires removal of hazard trees. this is based on studies by experts where more than 350 trees fell throughout san francisco. in discussion with planning department and planning commissioners, project sponsor

stated, they intend to protect both trees but have not provided us with plans about how this would be accomplished. in consideration for granting a building permit, rachael and brandon rasmusson agree to obey the law, to continue working together to making sure our redwood trees are not be damaged as discussed during our discretionary hearing. project sponsor have breached that agreement. i'm requesting issuance of building permit be overturned or suspended indefinitely for reasons stated here and in my brief. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the permit

holders. you have seven minutes. >> thank you commissioners for taking time to hear this. i want to be clear what this is about. it is the about the trees in our backyard. it is not about construction or proposed permit application. we all want the same thing here and we want the safety of trees insured. we don't necessarily want this tree falling on our family either. to ensure we understood the risks, we are not expert. we did consult multiple arborists as we try to work out our differences. it became clear we needed to hire an expert who can really give us an official tree report. we were referred to by multiple

people in the bay area. she has 18 plus years of experience, 10 specifically dedicated just to protecting trees during construction zones. her approach is very scientific. she measured the tree distance that we'll building to. shellack ashellack at theshe log area. there was a mismeasurement when we first gave her the report.

we had measure from the edge where the addition are end forgetting about the spiral staircase. we had her remeasure and give second opinion. the conclusion remain the same. the limit of work is closer to the tree than my original measurement, the closest point is so well outside the limit. she gives the reasoning for what that element is in the report. the conclusion is the same. i can go further in our build. this tree would be able to withstand it and maintain it. in terms of the communication that we haven't done, we haven't gotten final permit from the building department. that's been put on hold. there hasn't been anything new to communicate about. there is well-documented recommendations from ms. shea in her report, recommending how to

protect the trees. we plan to follow that. talked about giving a certain distance and no additional construction material can go there, covering the trees if needed on our side. there's a lot of recommendation that you put there. we said we plan to do it. there haven't any movement from a construction standpoint we don't have final permits. i guess i want to reiterate that we do also want the trees to remain safe. we have gone through the proper steps to get a proper tree report. it's the same type of tree report entry protective zone information that would be needed this were a city protected tree. even though it's not. we do like the tree and want to make sure us and neighbors and family safe. with that, we ask you uphold and allow us to move forward in our project. >> thank you.

>> vice president swig: ma'am. appellant indicated that diameter of the capi o -- canopy of the tree is around 33 feet. >> i don't know about the canopy. i think that was for the trunk of the tree. >> the canopy of the tree. >> i don'i don't know if that ws included in the report. that might be an estimation. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the zoning administrator. >> good evening president fung, commissioners, cory teague. this is my first time buffe befu in 2019. happy new year to you all. private trees are tough. this comes up in the planning

department. you see these from time to time. planning code does not really provide any control specific to trees like this. we generally regulations and protections around significant trees which are in the public right of way or landmark trees. the trees in the rear here are none of those. but the property in question here is 663, 21st avenue. it's in r.h.2 district. the department determined the project to be consistent with the planning code and the residential design guidelines and the appellant who owns the adjacent property to the north filed review on the permit in april of 2018. the planning commission heard the case on july 12, 2018 and

decided not to take discretionary review and approved the project as proposed. after additional review, the permit was issued on january 4, 2019 and subsequentsl subsequen. it's really just an impact on the one maybe two trees in the rear yard. it's not generally addressed in the planning department review, this issue was brought up. it was the primary issue at the discretionary review hearing. this was considered by the planning commission as mentioned, permit holder did provide an arborist report, that they discussed. final conclusion was no root will be affected by the excavation of the project. planning commission determined

there will be no extraordinary circumstances and they unanimously voted to not take approve the project as proposed. they did not impose any additional condition of approval regarding continued communication in coordination related to the two property owners. i think there was discussion there at the hearing and general understanding that's that's a good idea. the property owners have a pretty solid interest in maintaining safety to their own home and family by making sure the tree is maintained. again, that is the process this permit has been through. it was consistent with the planning code and the residential guidelines and i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> mr. teague, it's interesting the transcript of the commissioners on the hearing indicated that they on the look at buildings. i seem to recall redwood in

glenn park. it was subject of quite bit of staff discussion and commissioners. why is it this time they have no interest? >> i don't know which example you're referring to in glenn park. i don't know if that's significant tree or landmark tree. i don't think there's anything prohibiting planning commission to consider. i think generally speaking, when it's a matter of where we are, traes that's not coming in play as much as maintaining there's going to be adequate safety or or if there's maintenance issues that there is adequate provisions in place even if

current law or add to make sure the proper steps to taken. i think it is within their purview to take this up if they feel it's appropriate. but generally they do not. >> vice president swig: i think the glenn park have designation. either it's landmark or significant tree. help me here. i gtt little lost sometimes. today we're hearing site permit. isn't this more -- are we not just setting ourselves up to -- is it more appropriate to hear this one, the building permit -- right now, site permit is fairly conceptual based on a plan which is yet to be completely leading

to the building permit. the spiral staircase might move or something may move between the site permit and the building permit process, which would change the project. even though we might do whatever we do today, aren't we going to come back here when the building permit is done and hear more of the same? in fact, that's when the real map of the building is going to be up for approval? >> i won't disagree the way the city treat building sites is confusing. my understanding for the purposes of the appeal, first site of the building permit is opportunity to appeal the permit.

generally projects of this size don't have other addenda. they may but they don't have to for smaller projects. the site permit and building permits or one. >> vice president swig: it was very clear from what we heard from testimony from the project sponsor, this is a site permit. we don't have our building permit yet. that hasn't been refined. >> addenda is not appealable. >> thank you. we'll hear from department of building inspection. >> to finish on that point. if they change the location of the spiral off the permit is issued, that will be a revision permit which is appealable.

this is the building permit. addenda has gone through some review but has not been approved yet. the building permit, site permit itself was looked at by pla planning, d.p.w., issued by central permit about our and then suspended pending the appeal. the building -- we could require -- does come up. we leave it with neighbors to sort it out. it's more of civil issue. as far as the building code is, if we can wait for inspection and there's a root in the foundation, it's not allowed to remain there. the permit holders took out a

few permits since 2014, 2015. got them all completed in timely manner. got good permit history and there's no complaints on the property. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. we'll move on to rebuttal. ms. mar. you have three minutes. >> thank you. overhead projector. planning code 101 states general plan is designed to promote and enforce responsible future growth. the planning code is adopted to promote and protect the public's health, safety and general welfare. the rasmusson's official tree

report documents our redwood trees roots will be damaged and from project construction. this report recommended measures for us to help trees recovery and survival with no guarantee that our redwood trees are not be hazard trees. arborist documents, her assignment is based uponnal point by the rasmusson. this point not correct. the rasmusson requested arborist to redo assessment based upon remeasurements performed by the rasmussons. arborist documented her assignment is limited to construction damages located at one small corner of stairway concrete space. arborist documented it small

area is not meant to represent total excavation damage. therefore, contractors documented projects excavation will damage at least 25% of trees rat roots. rasmusson document state arborist concluding, construction will not cause danger to tree's survival. this is not true. arborist documented, there are many risk from construction damages to tree's roots. arborist disclosed she iced her education to recommend measures to minimize construction damages to trees rats with no guarantee our redwood trees will not be hazard trees. thank you. >> thank you.

>> commissioner lazarus: ms. mar i have a few questions. arborist's report recommended measures to ensure the survival of the trees. are you not comfortable with those measures? i believe water it twice a month and couple of other measures. did you read those measures? >> yes, i did. >> commissioner lazarus: what did you think? >> those are unjust burdens for me. watering the trees twice a month two hours a month will accumulate over 2000 gallons of water per month and those are not the only unjust burdens there are liabilities and risks. as noted, the project sponsors were the one who provided the measurements for the arborist assessment. those measurements are not correct. >> commissioner lazarus: i believe the abrecipienarborist k and measure again. you feel the measures

recommended is a burden for you and your concern the trees would fail. >> the risk of trees becoming hazard trees. >> we'll hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> i guess i'll show so we have a clear picture. if i can get the overhead. this is from the report. it showed the detail area where the roots are. it's like place -- it shows this small tiny portion of this is where we're going to be doing work. the other diagram, we never understood where that came from. there was no official report that we can compare this to. i don't know where that came

from. the mismeasurement was, we said this is where our house are end. we looked at the plan and gave her the new numbers. in both cases the conclusion was the same. it was simply -- i don't know, lack of thinking. i think the only official report included in here, the only one that has scientific information is from ellen. we intend to follow what she says and we feel confident in her ability and her job from three different people, i was referred to her separately as being expert in consulting tree arborist in the bay area. i like to put additional stamp on her word that we believe these trees will be fine given

our construction and the plan she's laid out. >> president fung: is this tree on the adjacent property? >> technically there's two trees. it's right on the property line and in the report, ms. shea notes they probably living one organism with their trunks connected at this point. >> president fung: are you assuming the neighbor has responsibility for her tree? >> we haven't talked about that at all with her. it's never come up until now. we're happy to talk through that if that's the unjust burden that we need so sort through. let's make a plan there. >> commissioner lazarus: when you received the report in

talking with the arborist, was that the water for both trees or the watering for the root system on your property? [please stand by]

[roll call] >> that motion carries and the appeal is denied. thank you. we will now move on to item number 6. this is appeal number 18-150, peter wilson versus the zoning administrator. subject property, 140 to 148

jasper place. appealing the issuance of a letter of determination regarding whether the installation of the garage in the proposed new construction of a three-story over a over basement single-family home would be permitted in the r.m. two zoning district in the north hill district. this is --, commissioners, as a reminder, the standers of reviews or refute -- abuse of discretion. we will hear from the appellant first. >> hello, my name is davis. i'm here on behalf of peter wilson, the project sponsor. there is over ten years of history on this project, and i don't want to go through it all tonight, we don't need to do that. i want to allow the time for other people to speak. i will summarize what this issue is about. it is really about permitting

three parking spaces to continue where they are in an enclosed garage with two units above them. that is all this is about. we have been working on this for some time. the letter of determination that the zoning administrator issued in 2018 is different from the letter of determination that was issued in 2014, which approved three parking spaces with three units on the site. part of the confusion for this is subsequently in 2017, and in 2008 -- a new ordinance was issued in 2018. it was adopted, which opposed some inconsistent policies and inconsistent statements to what should be permitted in the north beach special use district. i want to point out the inconsistencies for this, and

that is because -- and that is part of the reason for the confusion. first of all, the purpose of the ordinance that was adopted was adopted to prevent the addition of off-site parking. this is a statement from the front page of the zoning administrator's letter of determination. you will notice it refers to the prevention of off-site parking. that is not what we have here. we have on-site parking that exists, that has been existing there for over 80 years, which was acknowledged by the zoning administrator and the letter of determination in 2014. it has existed there, and we know it is there. so that is the situation, but the ordinance then talks about preventing new parking and removing any accessible parking.

these are inconsistent policies, and it is a dilemma for the city attorney, and the zoning administrator. i think that is what we have. i want to also point out that it is a problem for the zoning administrator here, is that this restriction, this new restriction that was added in 2018 is a violation of the housing accountability act. it is a whole new standard being applied to a project that's already been determined to be acceptable to provide four units , four units on a single lot. i should describe there is -- in fact, what i can do is hand out -- here are some pictures of the lot showing -- >> we can put it on the overhead maybe. >> i think there is a set for everybody. you can see there is a two unit building that is presently on

the lot, and there is an adjacent driveway, at a vacant portion of the lot where the two units would go, and you can see that those three parking spaces would easily be accommodated here. so this cannot have a new restriction without it being shown that the proposed project would have a quantitative, direct violation or threat to the health and safety of the public. this restriction shouldn't be applied to this project at all, and again, there is inconsistency in the statements. so as i mentioned before, zoning -- of the zoning administrator has been hamstrung by the confusion and inconsistencies in this policy, but this board does not have to be this board can interpret this correctly. i also want to point out that

providing two more units, with four more bedrooms, and removing pre-existing parking spaces makes no sense. there is no planning policy that suggests that make sense. there is been two environmental reviews of this project, two categorical exemptions that have determined there were no significant impacts. there are no environmental impacts for that ordinance, so no environmental analysis that would show that there was going to be some harm by creating these additional parking spots. i want to leave a few minutes for mr. wilson to speak so he can tell you about -- i can be available for questions. >> good evening, commissioners. i am an architect -- >> can you please assist with the microphone, maybe