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 -- and there

is a walkway entry that comes up at this point. the steps that do come up might have to be demolished under the applicants proposal. i think by moving things to the side where this becomes a retaining wall underneath the proposal to pick up the house, what occurs is that those trees could be saved. i think additional cost savings might be incurred. i think our proposal to make this work successfully is really to raise that front wall where it is highlighted at about 12 inches. i have looked at this again and a structural proposal from the

applicant and steadied the cross sections in order to come up with this. i think that we have a necessary cut and slopes that are allowed. this needs to be more steady since i don't have the opportunity to go on site to verify these things. we will see if there are any benefits while this project is being reviewed. thank you. >> how tall is the garage? >> we are less than 10 feet. we are about 8 feet from the high point from the top of our wall. their proposal is actually a

higher wall at this point and their proposal is about 11 feet from this point up. this is an existing wall. i think mr. sanchez would agree that either proposal would probably work under the code requirements. >> ok. thank you. í9>> your location is differentn that you have some reduced height there. your scheme is contingent upon being able to have the right height on the southern side of the door but also to be within the amount ofjé':@jylse the sidewalk and to be able to slope down. are you sure that works? >> i have studied that section. our condition is about 23% on

the southern end where we are working the encroachment at 23%. this gets reduced on the northern end and so this is a hyperbolic -- for the encroachment area. this is similar to what they have proposed with respect to their encroachment. thank you. >> are you finished with your presentation? >> yes. >> i am prepared to answer any questions for the arborist. given the location of your

proposed door centered on these trees, the trees would have to be pruned significantly? >> they would not have to be pruned except the secondary branches. this would be a normal pruning. the root pruning would be limited to a cut for the driveway and the height of the occurred at about 6 inches and it a triangle of 6 inches. >> we will move into rebuttal.

we did call these two items together so if you have comments you want to make about your request, you might want to include it in now. >> i am the designer. i just wanted to raise a point that the design proposals that claims that they would be raising the wall by 12 inches. they do have the situation and they would be raising this at a wall height by at least 21 inches or 3 7 inch steps. it would change the entry to the

front door by three steps, a claim that is not mentioned in their proposal. >> we have and plan that requires the removal of icky trees, one of which we will replace. mr. hardy is not want to remove the trees. we will lose the progress. we are working in the permit process.

if we have to execute the new plan, we would have to reset the contract with our contractor which is a fixed price contract. the cost of commodities has gone up significantly. there will be an additional cost for us. i think there are two factors here, one this time and one is money as well as the change was the new approach would make to the front of our home. again, we ask you to approve a request to approve the two trees and approve the project. >> i would like to ask one more thing, i am a person who is disabled and normally i stay at home and now i need to start looking people walking the street. the walls come down. have we built another wall? that is not a good idea.

this has the same amount of soil. the neighbor could enjoy the trees and everything. >> is there a reason why you object? >> it was a misunderstanding. when the paperwork was

processed, we understand that there was two things. when we actually applied for the permit to remove the trees, we understand that the fee for the sidewalk tree would remain. >> was this done all of the way? >> we have had structural

engineering drawings. >> there is the replacement tree potential. the initial application showed zero replacement tree but it also did not include a significant tree.

>> this would be $1,700? >> unfortunately, we cannot take the tree so we would rather have a tree so we would prefer to have the tree as soon as possible. >> you have some latitude for what you can request. >> you can do this at the discretion? >> yes. >> it sounds like if we up held this permit, that would mean the tree could be removed. the tree would be removed because of the importance of the grudge -- galosgarage.

it seems a little bit backwards said to me. >> typically, if the property owner does not have all of the necessary permits and then that is a condition of the removal so they would not be allowed to proceed with removal until they do in fact received the building and planning permits as required. add to the time -- that was a condition placed on the order. the documentation demonstrates approved plans and all required building permits and to submit a fee and then they would be granted a removal permits. this does insurer that of the trees would come out if in fact the garage goes nowhere. >> i have a question for mr.

sanchez. you mentioned at the height of the garage, could you talk about that? >> the code section this, that height to 10 feet. there is also required stairs and a to be factored as well which would not have the same limit. we were not party to this appeal so we have not received all of the materials. what i would say is that this is a concern that we would have, how much they might have to encroach right away and whether or not they would be resulting

in loss of two of street parking spaces. that is concerned we would pass. wheeler also have the planning code consideration and whether or not it meets the obstructions and that some of the process concerns. we have not sent out the neighborhood notification yet. we still have the permit. revisions could be submitted for what we have on file. i would imagine that if the board was to choose that the trees should be removed, they need to come up with an alternative. we have the permit and we have not sent out a notification. sut the board of vote -- the board is aware of where the processes. >> thank you. >> what about the historic facades?

>> in the staff reviewed the current proposal and felt that that wasn't adequate proposal. i have not reviewed any alternative proposal. >> thank you. bédj >> the matter is submitte. >> it appears that neither party is against the construction, it might be the location and maybe the trees. from a technical point of view, there is greater safety in aligning the foundation and the wall that will be constructed with the major structure of the building.

in these kind of instances, there is always the potential for settlement. >> if we were to uphold this in every way, we add to that placement and that would be put in at the discretion of the department of urban forestry.

>> i tend to -- i would like to save the tree but i take comfort that this does not have any impact on wildlife habitat or is a native species at issue. there is also an impact about the removal of the trees. it seems that this neighborhood has survived these issues before and i know that these are near delores park so i would be inclined to uphold the department. >> i would like to see an alternative expiration to save the tree. is there a motion? >> the action that commissioner garcia was proposing, does

require modifying the order and you would be allowing and replacement. >> there are separate appeals before you that each need their own code. >> i would clear up the first one. i would move that leopold the department. -- that leopold of the department. >> i think i might want to add conditions. >> i think the contingency on the building plan for approval is already in there. >> thank you. >> if you can call the roll on

the first item. the motion as from the vice president to uphold as it is. on the motion to uphold as is -- >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> the permit is upheld. >> i would move that we overturned the department on 1b because new information arose from the time the brief was submitted. the appellant would like to replace one of the trees so that would obviate the need