mr chris just mr christianson and augmented by what he just said? >> yes. >> second. >> clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. recognizing the plan stated april 13th posted here. 2018. and adding findings acknowledging the private agreement. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners cat that will place us under a discretionary review calendar. item 20 has been continued to july 19th. placing us on item 29 fricke -- 21 for case number 16. at 521 loss almost drive. discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm here from the planning department. presenting the d.r. 4521 las palmas. this is an abbreviated yard for a project which is located on the south side of the drive between burl web drive at bella vista way in the westwood highlands neighborhood within the rh one zoning district. the proposal includes a third story addition and a second store -- second-floor remodel which includes replacement of the existing second window sunroom. with a walled addition with dark. the third floor addition is setk 12 feet from the existing rear and includes the additional footprint of the addition. the requester is the adjacent neighbor at 517. the department was advised that the requester will not attend today it was just hearing due to a conflict at a court proceedi proceeding. so i will read some of her issues -- -- issues into the record. we did receive three items of public comment in opposition after package. whicwhich i had to pass forward. let's see. the d.r. requester indicates that unfortunately she was a native -- unable to attend the hearing today and she would like me to convey to the commission that her inability to attend in no way indicates an eight munition and her opposition to the project. she also wanted to note she was contacted by the architecture team for the project sponsor yesterday. but it was such short notice and she did not have time to meet with them in general. her d.r. concerns are at the proposed height of the addition. it is at a scale with the herat door site -- height of surrounding homes and that the depth of the second level of the property is already at a sale of the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. closing off the existing solarium and extension of the second floor. it would exacerbate and add scale as surrounding -- as compared to surrounding homes. additionally, the third story would negatively impact privacy light and views. the initial architecture of the project was relieved and the new architect was engaged after the d.r. request. the residential design team and the senior managers and the project coordination meeting review to the original proposal and had subsequent modifications. the project sponsor has amended the plans to address those modifications and finally, they have advised staff in the section drawing in the packet is incorrect. all the rest of the plans reflect the comments. the department recommends that the commission does not take d.r. and approves the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. ok. we do not have a d.r. requester. >> rate. >> do we hear people in support of the d.r.? >> we should. >> anyone here in support of the d.r. request please come up and comment. seeing there is no one, i guess that is close. so we now will talk to the project sponsor. >> thank you. i have copies of sheet a nine here that have been corrected to show the third floor deck copy. it reflects the previous design that has been amended. i apologize for the error. good afternoon commissioners. i would like to begin by trying to put this proposed project on this discretionary review in perspective. the proposal is an extension to an existing third story. the proposed addition adds merely 158 inches to the height of the existing structure. the proposed addition is set back over 12 feet from the existing rear wall of the building. the project site is on a steep downslope which extends from mount davidson to half a mile from monterey boulevard reporting exit -- magnificent views of the bay at the homes below including those on the avenue. this view is enjoyed by all neighbors on the south side of the dried. in addition to those above. these attributes of the local environment is something that has existed for some time. presumably before and since the current residents made their decisions to live there and purchase their homes. the request for discretionary review by margaret murray, the owner's next-door neighbor, was filed in may 26 of last year and was based on previous drawings authored by others. significant changes to the design has been made since then in response to requests by the owners and the planning department. we have not received any further comments on these changes from ms. miss mary as she has consistently refused all attempts at negotiation. however, in response to the claims enumerated in the application for discretionary review, i would like to point out that regarding scale and form, there are numerous adjacent homes of similar height and depth to that which we are proposing. i.e. number is 527, 501, for 75 and 471. this is all in close proximity. regarding privacy, this is not really a reasonable expectation for anyone on the north side of the section of melrose avenue due to the topography. she confirms this in her own submittal to the commission by asserting that, and i quote, we have to leave our drapes close because we have no privacy. our proposal will not change that. nor will it exacerbate the condition. we look at the section i have here. >> could you speak in the microphone please, we can't hear you. >> sorry. this up here is the deck that is proposed. this is the area of the addition that you can see this as the existing consist -- configuration and you of the addition is mostly concluded by the existing structure. the change in the privacy issues are negligible. if not nonexistent. if you look from -- this is a picture taken from the location on the roof where the proposed deck back the furthest south extent of the proposed deck would be. you can see the roofs here of the homes on melrose avenue below pack all you can see is the roof. you can't even see the back of the house, much less the backyard. the view, the existing view from the existing deck is where this photo was taken from. you can see their rear yard. that is an existing situation. we are not exacerbating either. regarding light the only increase in shade of the addition is the roof of the adjacent building and a somewhat shade to the light over ms. miss murray's home. our design includes the light while adjacent to hers in order to mitigate that impact. the views -- >> president hillis: thank you, your time is up. you will have a two minute rebuttal. >> can i have my two minutes now? >> so if there is any public comment in support of the project, please come up now. no. ok. >> president hillis: you have to do within the five minutes or this two minute rebuttal. >> since the d.r. requester is not here to rebut, and there is no one to comment, i think you can come up and give your two minute rebuttal. >> i have one more thing to say about the views. there is negligible effect of the views. this is a submittal by the neighbor below who scent in a comment to the commission and you can see this is the view from her backyard. this is the existing building and the proposed structure would be something like this. above the existing building. it is almost negligible. i just think it is absurd to claim that there would be a significant or unusual impact to privacy calculate, or views. thank you. >> there is still a minute while on the clock if you want to come up and say something. >> hello commissioners. i am frank and this is my wife stephanie. we are the owners at 521. we have been living there for 15 plus years. i am an educator here in the city for that central unified school district. my wife works for a nonprofit. we have three grown kids. two boys pack and a girl who share a small bedroom. the boys have a bunk bed while our 6-year-old daughter is still in a cot bed. with all careers, we cannot afford a bigger house. throughout this whole process, we have always been sensitive to our surrounding neighbors. we went to the homes of our neighbors and we spoke to them and i personally offered our addition. they were supportive of our plans. at that time pack they shared that she had thoughts of doing the same addition. >> i'm really sorry. your time is up. >> but we have modified in, you know, all plans several times and made numerous concessions. >> thank you. ok. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i consider that the project in front of us to be very reasonable. it is a family with three children. nothing was excessive about this square foot addition. i just simply would say not to take the approval as proposed. it is as simple as that. >> there is nothing further. there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and take the project as proposed. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously 4-0. that will place us on item 22. at 66,321st avenue. this is also a discretionary review. >> i am here again. this is a project that is on 21st avenue on the west side of 21st between balboa and the two neighborhood in the outer richmond. the scope of work as a two story horizontal addition at the rear with legal rooms down at the ground floor including a bedro bedroom, full bath, and lower down. an extension of the upper dan at office and addition of a roof deck on the second floor. finally caught a spiral stair in the rear yard as a permitted obstruction. for a previous design request, the project sponsor has pulled in the guardrail 4 feet from the south property line either proposed second floor roof deck to be flush with the building extension. the d.r. requester is a neighbor to the north of the subject property and claims the extent will come close enough to the roof of her tree to damage it. the project sponsor hired a certified arborist to study the proposal and found no evidence that the extension would damage the tree. the residential advisory team reviewed the project on june 14th and found the project is compatible with that and the case does not just -- demonstrate an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. in terms of public comments. staff has received 12 comments in support of the d.r. at -- a petition signed by neighbors and a letter signed by the neighbors. [please stand by] >> where project owners state, quote, based on commission report, there is no risk to trees in out lying plan. our initial commission report, we had a mistake. we had commentary from ellen shea that confirms in both measurements the trees are not at risk, end of quote. arborists did not state there are no risks, instead, she stated her findings are from scientific studies where there are many risks in construction damages. an arborist uses their education to reduce these risks. in d.r. response project owner states that they forgot to include the landing. arborist states landing is included in 4-3-18 report where arborist even added an additional 1 feet to landing for concrete forming and pouring. arborist states mistakes are due to incorrect measurement personally performed by project owners. for project owners to state to us there is no risk is irresponsible and harmful to the welfare of the public. we can only conclude these repeated mistakes are project owner's attempt to shift these risks and liability onto us. it is well settled and arborists conclusion, if site plan is accurate, then at least 25% of trees' roots would be lost and this will be serious injury to trees. in closing, i would like to note in memory of dr. bazer that last month, a free fell onto her -- tree fell onto her car and she died. yes, there are root damage where there are talks about construction damages. therefore, i am duty bound in requesting for commissioners to take d.r. and do not issue building permit until these serious issues are resolved between project owner and i. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. is there anybody who'd like to comment in support of the d.r. requester? [inaudible] >> good evening. i was asked to read a letter from dr. fong who could not make it today. dear commissioners. my name is dr. fong, and dr. basner is our friend who was killed by an uprooted tree on june 11, 2018. we, the neighbors, in the richmond district, do not want another tragedy to happen. we are neither for or against the proposed project at 663 21st avenue but do request commissioners to take d.r. and do not issue the building permit until project sponsor and adjacent neighbor resolve the project excavations to the critical roots for the safety and welfare of our neighbors. thank you. and this is a letter from the neighbor's contractor. my name is david galloway. i am a contractor specializing in trenching, pipes, and tree roots, consulting with terrence mcmann, construction designer at 655 21st avenue. on thursday, june 28, 2018, the neighbors asked if i would measure the distance of excavation from neighboring redwood trees. permission was given to enter 659's back yard. reviewing the site plans for construction at 663, we measured a distance of 15 and 16 feet. excavation at this extent will remove a good quarter of tree's roots, which is very dangerous for the trees and neighboring properties. green builder david galloway. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? project sponsor? >> hi. >> hi. thank you for your long day. we proposed this remodel. we're a growing family. we had a second kid in the process of in the time it's taken us to put this all together. we're hoping to stay in the city, and we're hoping to build in our space. we've reached out to the neighbors, we've set the plan in place, we've hired an architect. as you've heard, this d.r. is about the health of two trees that are on our property line and us building closer to them, and we're aligned on the issue that we want to make sure this tree is safe. it's in our best interest that this tree doesn't fall over in five years from infection on our house, as well. so we're in alignment. there is confusion across the stacks of arborists, if you will. so i want to address just what anna has mentioned, but before getting into that, i did want to get into prior to submitting our plans to the city, we sent our post plans to both our neighbors to the north and south. to the south, we actually made extensive changes over many months to address our concerns and change their plans and adjust accordingly, and there is an approval letter from them stating this. and in the process, to our neighbor to the north with anna, the d.r. requester, it was a little unclear what she wanted us to do with the actual tree. we weren't sure if she wanted us to cut it down or not damage it. there was a lot of back and forth as you saw from some of her materials as we tried to work with her to try to figure that out. realizing none of us were the tree experts, we reached out to multiple arborists and eventually commissioned a tree report from a professional tree arborist -- or commissioned -- i don't know the exact -- you know what i'm trying to say who we were referred to by three different arborists in the city. she has 18 years experience, ten years specifically focused on protecting trees through construction zones. her report did basically state there are no -- her report is included in there, obviously, and we have a couple of things that she said, her overall report basically indicates that she doesn't see concern with the trees being harmed at the depth we are, so we really do want this report to be the source of truth in trying to understand where anna has been getting her sources, there has never been something sent our way that we could help counteract it. so we're hoping that this unbiased party, ellen's report can help support our factual source of trees here. i do want to clear up some confusion before yielding the floor. around the measurement miscalculations, the initial person she mentioned that we reached out to was very early on in this process and more of an estimate because we didn't realize we'd be getting this far. i casually mentioned to an arborist, we're building 15 feet out, would you be concerned? her answer was i would not be concerned. you'll be fine. i would be concerned if you're disturbing established roots, but if you're not, you're fine. once we hired ellen, we measured the first time -- honestly, i want to bring my husband, who's no longer here. he had to go -- to the edge of our proposed building site, forgetting about the five by five concrete pad for the staircase. it was not to mislead anyone, it is not to be malicious, it was here's where we're going to be. we've since cleared that up. ellen redid the report. in both cases, she determined the tree would be fine in either one. and then in regards to the petition she had signed, you know, our intention is to protect the trees and keep them safe. we've spent a lot of effort here trying to show that, and we think, you know, we want what anna wants and what our neighbors want, and that is to keep the trees safe, and we think that neighbors were maybe misguided in shigning this opposition and not seeing this report. and i'm happy to answer questions if you have them. >> president hillis: okay. let's finish this up. is there any public comment in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. sponsor, you'll have a two minute rebuttal, and then, project sponsor, you'll have a two-minute rebuttal. >> former san francisco zoning commissioner walter passmore once said there are no 100% in the tree business. if you get ten arborists, you will get 12 different opinions. here, we have at opinions from at least four arborists and three contractors whose opinions are consistent and project excavation, from shrinking rear yard, this will damage tree's roots. [inaudible] >> -- and where these commentaries are not conducive in breaking resolution about project excavation damages to tree roots, but rather, this case is about the agency's regard for the public safety and welfare, the rightful role in the review and decision-making process that are guaranteed by state law, the general plan, and the planning codes. there by, these laws require the planning department to engage as partnered with the public in evaluating shared expertise, disclosing agency's analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter proposals. in this case as outlined in d.r., project is lacking and is not in compliance with governing laws where project will have a devastating impact on our redwood trees root zone which lay impact of projects where these critical roots will be irrepairablely destroyed. this will cause respect repairable harm to redwood trees. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor, you've got a two-minute rebuttal. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> i guess i would just like to have you guys take a look at the report, and i'd love to answer any questions about it. a lot of the material she's brought up with trees falling over in danwood. she's mentioned contacting a park ranger in redwood city. none of those people have been on our property nor has she prepared or given us any sort of official reports from any arborists she talks about. we've spent close to $1,000 working with ellen as we would have to if this were a protected tree in the city. this isn't a protected tree and we've still gone to all these lengths to do this and we haven't received any official reports or written information from any of the arborists she's talking about. so i'd just like -- i guess i'd like that noted that -- that's it. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so we'll close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioner questions, comments, motions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i mean, it is obviously -- it doesn't take much to say that we all love trees. we appreciate their enhancing our living environment, individual environment and qualities. however, this is a d-r -- d.r. that deals with building and planning issues that are particularcally the parameters of things that we are looking at, and the health or survival of trees is not particularly a d.r. thing per se. the building expansion is within its proper rules and guidelines. it's a compliance expansion, which is reasonable. the issue of health and safety regarding the potential future impact on the tree, i do not think can be a d.r. issue because it falls outside our own expertise to believe or judge on the accuracy and completeness of the various tree observers here. and i would have to ask mr. -- miss jonckheer to give us some guidance in terms of what you would suggest we do. we can obviously approve the project with the condition that the applicant, prior to construction, find a tree treatment plan that indeed protects herself as well as the adjoining owner because trees affect more than just the property on which they grow. so with this being a family with children, i assume it's in their interests to be safe as well as everybody else in a 360° radius. is there a precedent by which you would guide what we do? >> yes, commissioner. you could add a condition to the d.r., but, again, as you said, it's not a protected tree, and this type of issue is not covered in the residential design guidelines so that if you do take -- i would say that you can maybe make a suggestion, but it's not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, so i wouldn't -- we recommend that you do not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed, but you should -- you could add that comment in the rec

. >> commissioner moore: so we are approving the conditions read into the record by mr chris just mr christiansond augmented by what he just said? >> yes. >> second. >> clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. recognizing the plan stated april 13th posted here. 2018. and adding findings acknowledging the private agreement. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners cat that will place us under a discretionary review calendar. item 20 has been continued to july 19th. placing us on item 29 fricke -- 21 for case number 16. at 521 loss almost drive. discretionary review.