>> welcome to the board of appeals. the supervising president is supervisor goh. at the controls is the board's legal assistant. we have representatives from some of the city departments that you will hear from this evening. we are joined by lawrence korn

field. we will be joined by scott sanchez, the zoning administrator who will also be represented in the planning department and the planning commission. please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones, beepers, and pager so they will not this third the procedures. 5z5q/, permit holders, and respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the allotted time. members of the public or not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish

to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to board staff. penn's are available on the left side of the podium. we welcome your comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a hearing, rules, or schedules, please speak to board staff during the break or during the meeting. this program is broadcast live on sfgtv. at this point, we will conduct a forswearing in process. if any of you intend to testify,

please stand and say "i do." do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. commissioner peterson needs to leave at 6:00 and in order to hear the appeals before she leaves, we will reverse the items. if you can call the first appeals. >> , 1 a and b, the appellant and the first the appeale isdwin hardy, and the second appeal is

is antonio massa and fred bullock. the substance of both the appeals is an order for a tree removal permit of two trees. >> we will start with mr. harding or his representative and you have seven minutes. please step forward. -- we will start with mr. hardy. >> good evening, commissioners, i am ed hardy. i am appealing the agreement which allows for the removal of two trees to the south of me. last friday morning, the day after i delivered the reply, i went to the street outside of my

house and moved it across the street for street cleaning and discovered a heavy gauge nail in my tire. this appeal is not intended as a fight with a neighbor. we encourage and support his request for a new garage. we are seeking a win-win situation. the bureau of urban forestry previously denied the request to remove the trees. and we request a compromise which allows him to build his garage and for the neighborhood to retain both trees plus an additional parking place. a well-known architect through careful study has jointly contributed to the achievement

of a detailed solution which achieves the goal by reciting the grosz approximately 7 feet 6 inches to the south. please see the detailed architectural drawings as attachments to the appellants brief and an 11 page report as an attachment to the brief. blñ'z]!i am asking that you ple remove the permanent and enable them to remain as a familiar complement to the proposed rosh -- proposed garage. the bank tthank you. >> i was asked to review this project and to see if there are any primary solutions that we

could use to maybe save the trees and come up with a more cost-effective method of producing the garage. this is down here closer to the north. this is mr. hardy's driveway. what we are proposing is to put a garage which is further to the south and moved it so that maybe we can gain an extra parking space. by so doing, we are able to preserve the juniper which sits on top. we are also looking to preserve the two street trees. but the juniper and the one street a tree that was requested to be removed would not be

removed. -- both the juniper and the one street tree that was requested. the highlighted portions of the car raj -- of the garage is the location we are proposing. what happens here is that we are trying to pick up the retaining wall so that it is supported by the main wall of the house. what they have right now is a been coming across to pick up the main wall of the house and then a secondary been for this portion in the front of the house. by doing this, we are not eliminating existing retaining walls at the property line. there is cost savings. there is also cost savings in the section because of the

excavation, the highlighted area is the applicants garage and also this sits higher. so, there is about a 4 ft. 6 or 4 ft. 10 savings underneath that could be saved. everything in both in the walkway, i see that that has to be demolished anyhow in order to retain the existing walk away. our proposal is to raise the front wall by about 12 inches. this would say if -- save the removal and replacement of the trees and also maintain a driveway between the trees that would hopefully save -- >> what is the differential

between the cost of what you're proposing and the cost of these -- >> i know that there is $10,000 just for the trees. >> leave that out. >> if i look at the removal of the existing retaining wall, about 4 feet 6 inches of excavation and about the forming of beams and such. i estimate there could be as much it as 30,000 in savings. >> you say this is a net gain? >> that is the way i see this but i do this in regards to an architectural review. i think it requires a little bit more investigations to look at the cost savings.

>> i am the consulting arborist. i know you have my report and you have reviewed that. i would like to impress upon you with a significant importance of these trees to this particular block in this neighborhood. the street tree that is just left of center is one of those that is approved for removal. the hollywood juniper is where the new construction would occur and it could not be saved under the additional proposal.

the excavation would be clear by 5 feet. this would allow the retention of the tree. these are not insignificant trees. they are important to the neighborhood and contribute significantly. thank you. >> i am ed personal attorney. we are trying to turn this into a win-win situation. we can come up with a better solution for everyone's situation and also save a very important parking spot.

parking is a premium. thank you. >> have -- seen these plans before? >> yes, they have. >> we can hear now from massa and bullock. the >> good afternoon. we plan to have a garage. it is frequently difficult to find parking adjacent to our homes. when antonio returns home, he is often unable to park near our home. the places that he does find it

requires walking up and down steep hills. he is actually disabled. we plan to install a garage underneath our home to guarantee parking for antonio. this requires the removal of two trees. and you can see on the right hand side is the sidewalk tree and behind it is a tree on our property. so, we actually received approval to remove both of these truce on september 27th. -- both of these trees host. it could become a significant tree which is the way that the

juniper is currently defined and how the building code works. the removal of the sidewalk tree is necessary to provide car access of the street. removal of the tree on our property is necessary to enable activation of the garage which would be at the front of our house. after evaluating approaches, we decided the only practical way to install the garage involves removal of both trees. we do plan to replace one of those. mr. hardy has proposed an alternative approach. this is the goal of leaving the two trees in tact. his goal is similar to solutions we have already evaluated but does not meet our needs. in addition, one of the evaluate your states that there is no way

to excavate and install the garage without removing the juniper tree on our property. mr. hardy claims that this is a win-win for us. this is not the case because it does not meet our needs. even if it is feasible, his approach would require considerable time to go through the planning and permit processes to get approval for plans which we have been developing over the last 12 months. it would also create added expense as well as on wanted change to the character of our home. he claims that removal of the trees would create a dramatic whole and would be a major loss. this is quite ironic sense when he created his property, and he actually removed two sidewalk

trees. you can see one here and another one here. he is tried to prevent us from moving trees to build ours but it was fine for him to remove two trees on the sidewalk and also other trees on his property. we find that very ironic. in addition, the findings about the tree said they play a small role in adding to the green space. mr. harvey is trying to say that the removal is very significant. in conclusion, please consider that mr. hardy removed two sidewalk trees as well as trees on his property in order to build his home. we feel that it is unfair and inconsistent to deny the same thing granted to mr. hardy. we request that you deny the

repeal and reinstate the permit to remove the trees. thank you. >> the reason why is that2 been disabled and therefore when i come back home from grocery or have dinner or even for therapies sometimes, i find it it to bba it difficult job. there are many people with dogs off leash we don't need a --

there are many people dogs off leash. i need a change to improvedt;qy quality of life. here, we are facing a very important issue and life. who is more important, to have the trees there or the life according to myself. this is the only thing i would like to say and take into consideration the fact that i will plant a new tree as soon as i have the garage. mr. hardy is very unsympathetic towards my case, it is not because of the tree. i feel that my rights are

violated not only as a disabled but also as a gain in san francisco. he does not talk to me. i did go to the meeting. one day he cannot actually organize a plan that has been working for more than 12 months. >> i think the department's perspective on this case is that

we are comfortable with two solutions. we would love to see the trees preserved if that is possible. we are not architects so we cannot weigh in on the feasibility of these plans. these trees were found to be good condition and the initial condition was to tonight the removal. i think the department of supportive of having a replacement tree if we can confirm that there is sufficient volume for that to become significant. ideally we would like to see both trees preserved but we cannot of body weight of the merits of the alternate proposal so we would refer to the board on that and request that the initial finding is upheld and

would be imposed for any tree which cannot be replaced which at this point would just be the street. >> this would be the number tree, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i have one quick question, did you have an opportunity to read this brief? >> no, we did not receive the entire appeal. there is a parallel building permit application that is currently being reviewed by the department and we are waiting for materials from the project's

sponsors so that the notification has not been performed yet for the associated garage. >> when there is a hearing on the garage, will it necessarily happen that the alternative will be reviewed? >> that is something that is considered is a discretionary review is filed on the commission. we need to make sure that we can get everything permitted appropriately and that is something that the commission could consider. i've not had a chance to determine whether they are code complying under the proposal.

they can have it in the front set back in that cannot be higher than any 10 feet. as long as they comply with that requirement that they could probably go forward. >> are the members of the public that like to speak on this item? please step forward. >> i just wanted to bring up the issue that from what i have seen here, this is totally justice. the gentleman remove his own trees and now he does not want his neighbor to do the same thing. i agree that we should try to preserve the trees but there is first human comfort to preserve. thank you. >> are there any other public comments?

>> good evening, ladies and gentleman. my name is joe and nelson. i live the second door down from the applicants. i have lived at my residence for over 40 years. i have enjoyed the tree-lined block yet -- that my husband and i live on. the contention is not the building of the garage. environmentally, i would think that everyone or most of us would like to preserve what is healthy, green, and at the same

time creates an inviting ambiance. you have been introduced to two architectural drawings. comparing the two, we favor the -- design for reasons that are three definite advantages. first, still keeping an open space, and open public parking space, two, no street removal is needed cents there is still ample space between the two street trees to enter his grosz -- garage.

i would be delighted to continue to enjoy the view from my living room of both streets with their lovely canopies. in conclusion, this efficient design is not only cost savings but also environmentally sound. there was a project built in that house and there is no way that they could build his house without a removal of the street trees. thank you very much.

>> thank you. any other public comment? please step forward. >> i am the designer. >> you can speak under rebuttal. >> thank you. >> is anyone else who would like to speak under public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. three minutes. >> with regards to -- andth