approximately half the block. and you have four different tenant entries. it is not a ramp, perce. -- per se. it is a continuous ramp. it does not serve just one property. if someone walking on clement street wanted to continue down that ramp, it would be fine. it would work. that is where we are today. commissioner fung: based upon the letter, it indicates a cross slope of around 10%. i guess i was trying to see if there was some way -- if we cannot handle the complete

warping of the sidewalk across the building, is there a way to reduce the split side walk, so the impact of this and the way we can treat that -- perhaps there is a better way to do with this. >> we would definitely consider something. i wrote the letter that was signed by mr. kwan. we would consider -- right now, the current design that was approved had these put levels leadfoot at 8 foot 8 inches wide. basically right up to the edge of the tree wells. we would consider a narrow width of the split will sidewalk, still living today -- split level sidewalk, still living --

still leading a pack of trouble. it would be a split level sidewalk within that 8 feet 8 inches, 5 feet wide or would ever is required for ada with that in access, with a wind design. the remaining portion, 4 feet minimum, would remain as the existing sidewalk for those that wanted to walk through. we would consider that. >> i -- commissioner hillis: i guess my concern is the 3 ft. 8 in the middle of the sidewalk. clement street is a vibrant commercial corridor. >> that was taken into account during my first visit to the site. commissioner hillis: we saw some pictures were this was done

before, it down on fisherman's wharf. there are huge variances. this does not have a lot. it is a pretty modest sloped sidewalk. for this to be a solution, my concern would be a solution throughout the city. we have dates in the middle of the sidewalk, where pedestrians are walking. it is wide, but it is not that wide to have that gate there. i would like to explore other options, including the property owner taking some -- like the appellate said, doing it inside. the ' 08 drawings show that vestibule. i think this is kind of -- >> you are absolutely correct. short of doing something within

the building, we could still allow some more been in the sidewalk. we do it all the -- some warping in the sidewalk. we do it all the time if a building is to take up 3 inches to bring it out into the sidewalk. 3 inches over a 15 foot sidewalk is a piece of cake. we have done that all over the city. if it is done right, you cannot even tell. based on the current design of the building, where the doors are at the property line, even though they swing in word, that still requires the 4 ft. lyndon -- four foot landing. you are taking up approximately 4 inches in the last 3 feet. commissioner hillis: people are

walking down the street, looking at the storefront, not necessarily looking at what is in front of them. who is liable for an injury that happens? >> it would be the building owner. under the minor encroachment, the city is fully indemnified. commissioner fung: one last question. based on your experience, if the design introduced planters adjacent to the doorways, would that assist, similar to the way -- i know that is a minor encroachment. >> i hear what you were saying.

basically, what would be required is if you use the minor encroachment, as noted in the code, you are allowed to encroach 25% of the sidewalk with. that would give you a 3.5 ft. encroachment into the sidewalk to game 5 inches. that would require some type of variance from the building department. commissioner fung: that, to me, would be preferable over a split sidewalk. >> that would most likely require an automatic door opener and a variance from ddi -- dbi, not having to have the level landing. commissioner fung: yes. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, the matter is yours. commissioner fung: i would like

to ask a final question of the architect. following along the same line of thought, speaking with the department representative -- i was trying to find a solution that would reduce the amount of split sidewalk. it appears, based on your analysis and their analysis, that it is going to be difficult to totally eliminate it. the question is whether we can reduce it. do you see any ways that could be accomplished? >> actually, yes, somewhat. at 11 clement, as you saw, in the warped sidewalk idea --

commissioner fung: actually, we did not see your drawing. we never received it. >> i have it here. commissioner fung: i never saw this. i am sorry. please proceed. >> at 11 clement, we reduced the step in the warped sidewalk so it is only 5 inches. we were able to do that because that portion of the building was raised up. that is like the low-hanging fruit. we do not have to lower the floor joist and cut into the floor there, because that floor was raised up at some later time, apparently. that is also why, if we were to change the floor inside of seven and nine, that would be more costly to alter.

we could reduce the length of the split level sidewalk where it is at 11 clement street, so that it is somewhat shorter, at least. commissioner fung: at that store front? >> at that store front. before, it was going up 9 inches. it would only have to come up perhaps 5 inches. so it would be four feet shorter down there. commissioner fung: that would put the split sidewalk in front of the two store fronts, 9 and 7 clement. roughly. >> well, actually, i was suggesting its still cover up 11 clement too. it is possible there could be some other compromise. i would have to look at it and

discuss it with the department of public works and my client. commissioner fung: actually, you know, i am leaning toward asking you to compromise even further. to have some partial cut into the storefront. maybe not fully. i am willing to accept the compromise there in order to reduce the split sidewalk. president garcia: reduce or eliminate? commissioner fung: i do not think he will be able to eliminate it. president garcia: can there be a combination where a burden is borne within the building to get the walked down to what is accepted by the city. what is it? 5%? commissioner fung: 4.2%. president garcia: i would like

to see a combination of you take pain -- you would be paying less. some of the pain would be absorbed because i think some of the warping at 4.2% is less than the warping at 10%. >> we did do that at 11 clement. we are cutting into 11 clement, or we would have to to put a ramp inside. commissioner hillis: 11 clement is the one that has been combined. >> correct. commissioner hillis: that was what i was expecting to see, based on commissioner comments in the last meeting -- some combination of looking at both the warping and interior modifications, and even doing away with the 11 clement -- to see if we can come up with a way to avoid the split sidewalk and the gate solution.

>> so, the biggest issue is, i think, having the level landings. once you have to cut into the store, you end up having to have a level landing inside the door, and some sort of a slope up. so there is a fair amount of cost is involved in doing that part of it. commissioner hillis: is that what i heard? you could get possibly a variance from dbi, which i think they would be inclined to do, as opposed to some of the modifications to the public realm and the sidewalk area. >> i do not know how they would rule on that. one more reminder. this is a barrier removal project. we were looking for what would be most cost-effective,

something that is readily achievable for the property owner. that was why we came up with the direction that we had. once we start to go into the stores, there is not just the cost of construction, but the loss of rent and other aspects that makes it less usable. commissioner hillis: i definitely appreciate that. but if you have traded that for a barrier in the sidewalk -- i consider that a public space. it is a trade-off between those. commissioner fung: i think that comment is correct. what i do not want to see -- by the way, let me back up. we fully support that both the sidewalk and the access should

be ada accessible. the problem with doing split sidewalks is if we do it here, it becomes done elsewhere. i would rather find better solutions than have these split sidewalks all over the city. i can understand where they are on a hill, in certain instances , splitting between a sloping sidewalk versus steps to accommodate the slope. in this instance, there has got to be a bit to solution. and it may involve a little pain for your client. but i think that is the direction i would lean toward. i am asking for what you would recommend, based upon that type of approach.

president garcia: in other words, the new elements would be to avail yourself of whatever variances are out there, take some pain so as to reduce the impact on clement street. i think you are clear on that. reduce the impact as much as possible on the sidewalk. some combination would take those elements into account. >> ok. i can look into it, yes. president garcia: are you in any way prejudiced by the delays we keep causing to this? i mean is your client still able to operate until some solution is reached? >> i have not received any update from my clients. i assume we are able to continue working with this. president garcia: i mean, he is

not out of business while all of this is being resolved. >> no. commissioner fung: would it make sense to give you a little more time to digest what we are saying and see if you can come up with something a little more creative? >> certainly. i do not know if we can continue the matter and we can talk to the client and see whether there is some -- commissioner fung: our next meeting is not until april 11. president garcia: but you would be free to take pretty much all the time you need, as long as it is not a violation of an ada regulations costing you or your client money. >> i see. that would give me a little bit of time to study the options, run it by the department of public works. it involves city planning and department of building inspection. there are multiple agencies.

we would have to see what it costs and come up with an alternative solution, if that is the direction you want to give to me. >> i want to caution you that the april 11 calendar has 10 items on it already. it is full. president garcia: it would be pretty quick. >> we might be better off having it in may, so we can take some time to sort it out. president garcia: do you want to do call of the chair? do you want to give them some date in may and let them alter that date if they feel it is necessary? >> i always prefer to have an actual date. commissioner fung: 99? -- may 9? and perhaps the department can assist you. i am sure they have a lot of experience to approach this, based upon the sort of parameters we insisted on today. >> i will avail myself of those

resources. commissioner hillis: i do not think we mean to put you through a big process here. just like he showed us those examples for sherman's war, our fear is that the next person on clement street -- this starts to bite away at sidewalks all over the city. we have to do our due diligence and see if this is the best solution. >> ok. president garcia: and it seems like there was some issue about miss levy did not feel something had been given to her? if we could solve that in may? >> i did not realize i had to submit a brief two weeks ahead of time instead of one week. i apologize. >> would you want additional briefing them? commissioner fung: i think we would want to see the proposal. >> i suggest the permit holder's brief would be due two

thursday's prior. that means your brief would be due april 26. the appellant and the department's response would be due one thursday prior, which is may 3. president garcia: i think it would be as simple as calling the board, if it turned out you needed extra time. >> i want to make it clear to everyone involved in this case that you also need to provide copies of your material to other parties at the same time provide them to the board. >> thank you. >> we need a motion. commissioner fung: i am going to move to continue this case to may 9. >> with the additional briefing as described. >> on that motion -- and again, it is to allow time for the permit holder to pursue other proposals. president garcia: aue/ -- aye.

commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the boat is -- vote is 4-0. >> ribble colorado item 6, reuter versus the department of public -- we will call item 6, roy versus the department of public works, appealing the denial of a permit to remove and replace two trees. we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> i wanted to make a request to change the order slightly. we had clearly mistakenly had the impression we would be on the agenda earlier, and i have two neighbors who had the good news to appear in support of my appeal. one has already had to leave because of time constraints. the other has to leave by 6:30.

i wonder if you would allow him to make a couple of his comments first, and then have me do my spiels? president garcia: i do not think anybody up here will oect to that. >> how much time for public comment? president garcia: give this gentleman three minutes. how many people intend to speak on this item? >> there are three people. there is a remaining neighbor, my partner who lives in the house with me, and an arbor is to did an evaluation. >> your partner and your arborist need to share your time. president garcia: we will let the gentleman who has to leave -- they can have three minutes.

>> i am a neighbor who lives across the street. from my point of view, the two trees -- steven horowitz, at 122 eugenia. from my vantage point, these trees are a nuisance. they are constantly being hit by truck traffic that comes up the street to avoid the mission and cortland light. the branches are constantly being knocked on the ground. the seed pods are quite treacherous. it is almost like a ball bearing. the sap that comes out of the tree when it blooms could be bottled as monkey blue. it is that sticky and pervasive. other than that, the trees themselves do not lend anything to the neighborhood. i understand the request was to

replace them with two other types of trees that i hope would be less invasive. that is about all i have to say. >> thank you. miss roy? >> i am beth roy. i have lived at 270 prospect for almost 20 years. it is a corner house. the trees at issue are the side street. there is parking on one side, not the side where the trees are, but the other side. i want to take one of the precious minutes to thank ms. goldstein for working with us on getting us here today. we were rescheduled for the later time and this date landed right in the week when we were expecting a grandbaby. there was a possibility we were not want to make it, but he appeared at about 4:00 this morning. we are here. we may not be coherent.

we did not get much sleep last night. but here we are. there are two issues about these trees. one is about the health of the trees. the other is about their appropriateness for the site and for the neighborhood. steve horwitz has already spoken to the issue of the appropriateness. the neighbor who had to leave also left notes and asked me to talk about how treacherous the footing is when the seed pods fall, which is pretty much constant. we are out there sweeping them up year round. i will say some more about the appropriateness, and let my partner and my arborist also say more about that. in terms of the viability of the trees, there has been a debate about that. the person who has cared for these trees over a number of years has been alerting me that there are overhanging branches that have been hit by trucks

constantly, over time. the street is so narrow that there is no place for the trucks to go except right up against the curb. even when there are no mishaps, they tend to wack those trees. they have been pruned underneath in a way that makes for clearance, but it is not sufficient. in addition, the little seed pods cause a good deal of skidding. we have had trucks hitting the trunks of the trees. i know that carl schurz -- carla shortz does believe the trees are viable. i am sure she will tell you that. there has been a disagreement about that. i want to start by saying that on sunday, in the midst of the wind storm, this is a photograph taken by a neighbor

in our absence sunday afternoon. the tree that was less at issue -- if you can see the bridge hanging down, the issue has been large looms that hang over the street. when they come down, but are a hazard to anything passing by, vehicular or pedestrian. this is the one that was the last their midst lamb. there is also a question on the larger and the work tree, which could show in the photographs you have already seen in your pockets. that limb is even more damage, more likely to come down. there is more question about the viability of the tree once it does, because of the balance on that slope. we do have issues about the health of the tree. even if we did not, there is this issue about their

appropriateness on this very, very narrow street with a very narrow sidewalk. they impede progress both of vehicles and pedestrians. it is very actively used by both, for his series of reasons. i will seedtime to my partner -- cede time to my partner. i will leave this up. >> good evening. i live at 270 prospect ave. i think all i have to say here is that as someone with an increasing visibility of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, navigating the sidewalk beside my own house is really hard. it is almost impossible for anybody with any kind of

disability aid to get up and down the street safely with these kinds of trees. my father was a forester. i was raised with a reverence for the green. we are not interested in not having trees in san francisco. we intend to replace them with more appropriate trees for this site. the are not the trees that should have been there in the first place. i really ask you to take our appeal. i am not the only disabled person trying to get up and down this hill. we are the main thoroughfare for commission and part up to burn oil. -- for mission and bart up to bernal. i have seen people fall on those sidewalks. no matter how vigilantly we sweep them. we are not asking to remove the trees in front of the house, where there is more room and

street parking so that trucks do not hit the branches. thank you. i am sorry. i brought a card. >> my name is roy, and i am a consulting arborist. beth roy asked me to evaluate these trees. there are a couple of points i want to add to what they have already told you. the canopies of these trees are a regular. there are gaps or openings within the structure. the problem with that is the wood is very brittle and limb failures like they've just experienced are common when you have breeches in the can of the for this type of tree. -- breaches in the canopy for this type of tree. the wind gets in there. because of the irregularitie