zealand christmas tree. so in san francisco, i'm a bureau of urban forest rei's site, in fact it's listed as a possible street tree to plant. in fact, they're not being planted in san francisco anymore. that was the 1980's when they were planted in huge numbers. but apparently not very much since. vice president goh: it's more of a comment than a question, dr. kantor and that is it this board were to order a 48-inch tree replacement, that box would be -- you know, huge. normally i think people figure 15 gallon or 30 gallon, that's sort of the stuff that's been proposed to me about replacing it. >> but the gallon size of the container that the tree is growing in. so i haven't heard of this 24

and 36 type box thing. vice president goh: that's what this board often does when -- if a mature tree is actually taken down. but i don't know we're going to go there anyway. thank you. commissioner garcia: dr. cantor, your plumber when he was photographing your sewer line, has he suggested whether or not he thinks it's the city's problem or yours? >> i know it's not the city's. commissioner garcia: even though it's on the street -- >> it's under the sidewalk, it's not out in the sidewalk. because we're really looking -- commissioner garcia: it's ok. i was curious for your sake whether you'd be saving money if the city were to get involved. >> of course i would. i even called my insurance company and said could you help me out here? that's not in list of things they do. but we went straight down from that sidewalk, that's one of the ways into your pipes is to go straight down from the sidewalk, that's even mine and

that was full of roots, just the vertical. but then when we went on the horizontal down between the building and the sidewalk, there is one location where the guy said the roots seemed to be -- and it's just where the pipes join. president peterson: dr. kantor, on that note, if this board were to reverse the urban forestry's position and denial, would you be willing to fix your sewer so that -- i mean, obviously you've got a problem whatever tree gets in there, if the roots go through that leaked area. >> i actually don't think the sewer is terribly broken. there's one area where there's a little leakage at the junction and the sewer pipe is quite intact the rest of the way up from what i can -- i'm not aware it hasn't collapsed, you know, it hasn't --

commissioner hwang: but i thought that's where the roots invaded the pipe. >> the roots apparently go in, the guy told me, where the two pipes meet -- roots really grow wherever there is new water. and what i -- you know, replacing the whole sewer system is something i would really love to avoid. i mean, this is huge. this is eight feet under the sidewalk. commissioner hwang: i'm talking about fixing the seal. you've got sewage leaking somewhere. >> you have to get a backhoe to dig down under. 's commissioner hwang: so no is your answer? >> i would much prefer not to. it's a tremendous job i would like to avoid. commissioner garcia: i am under the impression there is a system, a plumbing system whereby you can put a sleeve within existing pipe which would obviate the need to replace the entire line of pipe. do you know about that? >> i do know about that.

commissioner garcia: not every plumber knows that. >> i was told it is not ideal and like a condiment of these sewer systems, and in fact one of the things that was recommended is simply a huge access line so that i can bring a wide rueter in easily because the way the house is made now the rooting has been -- the access has been all the way from the back of the house and a single long thing has to go up many, many yards to clear those roots. they can't get around from the street approach. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president peterson: i'll start. i have a lot of sympathy for dr. kantor and expense and annoyance of these big mature

trees. i have one, also. and in spite of that, i would be inclined to support the department because we have a 26-year-old tree that is likely to live to 60 years and we've heard from the department that somehow or another we've managed to wipe out 99% of our mature trees in the city, so where the tree is not preventing hazard to life and we've seen some cases like that, i would vote to save the tree. pending comments from my fellow commissioners. commissionter fung: i've been consistent in these cases and i always lose. this particular species, and i said it's my least favorite.

you know, the issues of whether existing canopy i understand, the nature of mature trees but i think there are other aspects to which i've said in the past and that is the question of renewal of our natural resources, recognizing at some point there is a lifeline to this species and to adding species that are more appropriate in the long term for sewage. and this particular species was was a relatively cheap species that was utilized, and i think it was utilized for the wrong reasons, so i would support overturning the department. commissioner garcia: i find myself kind of all over the board on this. hopefully not whimsically.

but i think i would be more inclined to support a replacement tree, particularly since dr. kantor is willing to put in such a large tree. but the fact that she has no intention to repair the sewer line only makes me worry it can happen again. so i'm going to wait and see what other people say and i haven't really made up my mind yet. president peterson: i'll go next. i have sympathy in that no good deed unpunished in these neighbors tried to plant trees and it appears we as a city failed in educating them or perhaps we didn't know at the time. i, too, have been all over the place on these cases but i would support a removal, but it would have to be replaced with a significant tree.

commissioner hwang: i have a lot of sympathy for dr. kantor's situation. i see, though, you are a landlord, and you know, not to advocate for passing on costs to tenants, but this is something that is sort of part of the business of owning a property in san francisco, and i think that the tree is -- i have a tree, i have several trees, actually, around my property, too, but i think it's a tough call. i think if we have only 1% of mature trees in the city, i think we need to preserve them and i agree with commissioner garcia, i mean, it was the line of my questions there, if you're not going to fix the sewer, it's not going to ultimately prevent this from -- whatever tree it is from coming back in. i agree that this particular

type of tree sounds excessively aggressive. but if the problem isn't the -- that it broke through our invaded, it sounds like it's coming through in places -- in a please in your sewer line you're not willing to repair do you to cost. so i'm inclined to uphold the department's ruling. vice president goh: i'm going to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the department and see where we land. commissionter fung: commissioner's, may i last comment? one is i think before it creates a life of its own, i believe ms. short indicated 1% was something she heard, it was not a confirmed study. that's ok. i don't need a response to that. would we consider two smaller

trees? commissioner garcia: and you remember we had a case where we're no longer able to require two for one, it would have to be something by -- commissionter fung: if volunteered by the appellant. commissioner garcia: i would consider that. i don't know the dimensions of the property, whether or not it was four or -- you mean two extremely large trees or two 36's or -- commissionter fung: i mean, trees grow. [laughter] vice president goh: so i think there's a motion. >> we'll call the motion, then. commissioner garcia: can i hear from commissioner fung before we hear the motion to what size trees he's offering? commissionter fung: i would probably in deference to the

department , recognizing that we need to have them a little bit bigger, i would say two 24-inch box trees. i don't know the appellant wishes to consider that, you know. vice president goh: you want to ask her? commissioner garcia: if she's willing to respond. commissionter fung: in answer to that question. vice president goh: you have to come up to the microphone. >> you know, if i'm advised and if i know where to put them, sure. could i also say that by no means did i say i would never replace the sewer, but i would prefer not to and i will if it has to be done. commissioner garcia: i'm glad you're bringing that up. i'm curious about that because if i -- >> if the sewer has to be replaced, i'll replace it. commissioner garcia: if your plumber when he photographed it

found root invasion, i don't know what else you would think -- >> they don't recommend you replace the sewer when they find that. that's so common. they're not going to tell you to replace your sewer. they say well, you can replace your sewer for 25,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 or we can put in a larger access thing and you can root it out. we see it every six months you call us. they don't tell you to -- commissionter fung: thank you. vice president goh: commissioners, there's a motion on the floor. i don't know we should call the roll if there's a friendly amendment being offered. commissionter fung: i don't think she accepts my amendment. vice president goh: we'll see where my motion lands and then if there's a subsequent motion we can discuss those things. >> we'll call the roll. >> the motion from the vice president to uphold the denial?

mr. fung? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> no. >> president peterson? >> no. >> commissioner hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 2-3 so absent another motion, the department files. [inaudible] commissionter fung: i'll move and we'll see where this flies. that we overrule the department on the condition that two 24-inch box trees could be selected in consultation with the department be planted. vice president goh: i have a question i guess for the

appellant . could you approach? how wide is your property? >> oh, i think it's 25 feet, the standard. commissioner hwang: is there a driveway? >> no. commissioner garcia: maybe you would want to phrase your motion, commissioner fung, to state that you move we accept dr. kantor's offer to put in two replacement trees? commissionter fung: i thought that's what i said. commissioner garcia: i apologize, i thought you said we require that. >> so there's another motion on the floor. we'll call that motion, mr. pacheco, when you're ready. commissioner hwang: may i amend the voluntary offer that the leak will be repaired? that i would -- we moo move -- the motion would be to accept the appellant's offer to

replace the tree with two 24-inch boxes and repair the sewer. it's a voluntary offer. she said she would do it. commissioner garcia: she did say she would do it it. commissioner hwang: she didn't want to but said she would. that's what i heard. i'd like to make sure i didn't put words in your mouth. >> i think you did put words in my mouth. commissioner hwang: ok. then please clarify. what would you offer here? >> well, i will plant whatever, you know, i'm advised to plant. but if the sewer can be cleared and my plumber doesn't tell me i have to replace it, i'm not -- i wouldn't want to replace the sewer. commissionter fung: commissioner hwang is not saying replace but repair where

you have damage and the leak which you're going to be required to do by the city in any event. >> this -- i'm sorry, i guess i don't understand, but if there's some leakage where the two pipes join, i think that the whole thing would have to be replaced. d

appeal overturn. the department on the condition that we accept the appellant's offer to plant two 24-inch box trees. the question i think i have is still whether there's an element regarding the plumbing on this motion or not. commissionter fung: i accept it on the amendment that any leaks be repaired as required by the department of public works treats and plumbing. [inaudible audio] commissioner garcia: we rely on the integrity of dr. kantor. which we know to be sterling. >> so can you call that motion, please? >> i want to be sure that's something dr. kantor is willing

to do, she will not have a choice but i want to hear it. commissioner garcia: if it's determined you need to by a plumbing inspection from d.b.w. . [inaudible] >> to overrule the denial, two 24-inch box -- [bad audio from mr. pacheco] >> coulding chosen in consultation with the bureau of forestry and the sewer leak shall replace if required. sewer be repaired if required. [bad audio coming from mr.

pacheco] >> on that motion, the acceptance of that offer -- [ [inaudible [? vice president gore? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> aye. >> president peterson? >> aye. >> ms. hwang? >> aye. >> it is -1, the denial is overruled with -- [inaudible] >> president peterson, shall we call the next item? you want to break or -- a break has been requested, a short break. we'll have a short break. >> we are now ready to call item number 7.

>> calling item seven, appeal number 10-047. the property is at 4209 24th street. this is appealing the nanaimo on april 28th, 2010, of the permit to alter a building, 3rd story vertical addition, one story horizontal addition to the front, two-story horizontal addition to the rear, to an existing single-family house. >> do we need to wait? >> no, we can start now. >> scott sanchez, planning department. this is the denial of an application that what is submitted in 2009.

the residential design team recommended minor changes. there is also the stairs at the rear of the building. as this relates to the project sponsor, the project sponsor respectfully refuse to make those decisions and the recommendation that the project be modified in those it the ways. it was a difficult decision for the residential design team to

make. there was a tremendous amount about reached that the project sponsor had done. there was low or no opposition to those projects. one thing that we do want to make clear and two proposals were said to the planning commission. i think that everyone would agree that the project should move forward. there is the project that was initially proposed, there was the denial of the building permit but we would like to

approve this with the planning commission's revision to allow them to build a project along those lines or if you believe the arguments that they put forward to you tonight, the request to overturn the department and make the request that they proposed. they have relatively minor changes. we would like to show those to you on the plans. these are the initial floor plans. the building here at the second and third levels would come up to the property line. they also have the stairs which extend into the rear yard. what the proposal of the design

team was to have the property line at the second and third level so that this is set back at 3 feet. also to reduce the length of the stairs as long as they are within the buildable envelope. that is the change that is before you this evening. the residential design team made this decision based on how we apply to the guidelines. we are tasked with implementing the guidelines and the residential districts and doing so consistently. other projects that would come in, we would have the 3 foot setback and have the stairs in the buildable area. despite the fact that the

adjacent property owner is supported in the project and there might be some public support testimony or testimony and support, that was a testimony that the planning commission supported the residential design team that the project sponsor disagrees with. we would like the commission to be the final party that decides this. >> if we were to -- that one with the stairs and exterior to the buildable envelope, did you say that would require aids variants -- require a variance? >> yes, this must comply with

the planning department's decision. if this board overturns the decision, then i would say it could be built under the authorize the variance. >> it could be? >> yes. that was in the final decision letter. we did have a decision. we were under the impression that the letter would be appealed to the board separately. we did not realize that until this evening. >> mr. sanchez, i cannot follow what you just said. >> we had issued the decision and we understood that the appellant was going to file the letter separately. this was before the board.

we are trying to review this and see if it would authorize something in the envelope of what they are requesting. it looks like what was approved was not the stairs but actually just their rear addition. the existing building does fall under the required regard. the stairs, that would be outside of the scope of the variance before you. >> they would need a new one? >> yes, they would. this has expired. what of the board could take action on would be related to the side sat back in town -- side setback. >> mr. sanchez, i would like to share my interpretation. the way this there engages the deck in any of these situations

still does not conform to the rear yard. >> the decision letter allows the inclusion of the approval. that is a permitted obstruction. under the proposal, -- >> this there is only moved back a couple of feet. >> the issue is the height of the couple of stairs. for these last few steps, there actually below the 3 ft. in height allowance. what was allowed was a variance for this. this does not require a variance