we would say twice a year they would shed, and not necessarily all year long. but i would not dispute they may have dropped pods at other times. they do not necessarily shed all their pods. they might fall later on. president garcia: i think the worst thing about the trucks -- maybe some of hit the trunk, but i think it mostly has to do with a limb problem. >> i would say those lines are not substantially damaged. that is probably because they have made an effort to clear them. the damage we saw was not substantial. but i may have misunderstood that also trucks had hit trees down the block. if i am wrong about that, i stand corrected. president garcia: i know you are bureau of forestry, not really dpw. it seems aside from these other problems, this should be a no truck street. >> i would agree with that, because also it is a t.

it does not seem like a logical truck route. i would go up portland. straight shot. very few stops all the way. i do not live there. president garcia: we do not have the commissioner -- we used to ask this question all the time. i asked it on behalf of commissioner goh. how old is the tree and what is its life span? >> i will attempt to dodge the question, as i frequently did. i thought the trees were 16 years old, which would not surprise me, given their size, since that are fast-growing. they may be much older than that. at the same time, a 16-year-old tree of the species could achieve that. life span is difficult to predict in urban conditions. these trees are native to australia and endangered in their natural habitat. many in australia are excited that san francisco has a

population. i think they probably get removed before the end of their life most frequently in san francisco. we do not know how long they could live here if they were able to live out their natural life span. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal. >> just one thing i wanted to point out is that bernal heights has a certain reputation for contention. we have a stack of supporting letters about this issue. everybody living up and down eugenia has been grateful to us that we have initiated this process. to my knowledge, there have been no letters submitted protesting this. for what that is worth. it is a unanimous neighborhood

project at this point. i do not know that there is anything else to add. one thing i would say about the truck route question is that roy explained as an ex trevor is a no-stop route. -- ex-truck-driver is that it is a no-stop route without a stop sign. i think that is the reason we get so many trucks. i had never understood it before. but there is something about the traffic pattern. we love the suggestion that it should be made in no-truck route. commissioner hillis: how long have you lived there? >> since 94. the trees were there. it is part of what i love about this house. it is a cottage. it sits on the corner. it has old-growth trees. it has a huge palm tree in the front.

talk about an inappropriate street tree, but it is beautiful. i love the tree. there is another flower in the wrong -- flowering gum on the prospect side of the property. i think that are beautiful trees. i have initiated this with some regret. i would prefer to have sizable trees on that side, and would certainly replant with the largest trees possible, but trees that can sustain a canopy that really works. the issue of the solar panels, it is true that there is an issue about keeping the trees pruned for the functionality of the solar panels, but when i put the panels in, actually made a decision to do it even though they would work at less than full efficiency because the trees were there. i did not intend to remove the trees, nor to groom them in a way that was going to do damage.

if that happened, it has not been with my knowledge. i am learning that for the first time. commissioner hillis: the trees across the street are the same species? >> yes, but there are cars parked under them, so there is a little more protection. it is also a wider sidewalks. both. there is one of these trees across the street on the virginia, and the tree in front of my house on prospect. i told the neighbor who had to leave -- there was a decision made within the neighborhood to plant a cluster of them, back at least 25, 30 years ago. that is my understanding. president garcia: thank you. >> ms. short? any rebuttal? commissioners, the matter is submitted.

commissioner fung: and anecdotal, -- i remember prospect street without many trees 50 years ago. i might as well give my opinion. i think that this species, besides my normal discussion in terms of the rights of owners to be able to replant in front of their homes, since they bear the responsibility for street trees in front of their house -- i would add, besides that, that in this particular location, given

the narrowness of the sidewalk and the street, the trees really need to be -- it cannot be full canopy trees without creating a lot of impact and disturbances. i support overturning the department. however, we will see where that goes. commissioner hurtado: in the interest of full disclosure, i am familiar with that area, and had the unfortunate experience with these types of knots, where you can slip very easily. i have in fact had that experience. i can sympathize with that concern, particularly with your partner having to navigate that just to get out of the house. so i would support removing the trees, particularly because i

see your concern about the trees and about replanting. to me, and that is personal and you have the right to do that. commissioner hillis: i think i normally would be against -- i would be for dpw in allowing these trees to remain. i am like you. i would not want to cut down a tree. they seem like nice trees. they add to the canopy with the trees across the street. it is great. i think it is wonderful. but i think your testimony is compelling, and the fact that your dad was a forester. i think you share the same sentiment that you would not normally want to cut down these trees. i value that. you live there, and i think you have made a compelling case. so i would support that also, although not normally in the case.

president garcia: thanks, guys. i think we are at this stage of negotiation. we have to have a discussion with ms. short as to what size tree she would choose to have them replaced these trees with, because i intend to vote with my fellow commissioners. >> a thank you for the opportunity to weigh in, since it looks like this is a losing battle, so to speak. i think, given the narrowness of the sidewalk, it is probably unrealistic to get anything larger than a 36 inch box tree. if the property owner is really willing to do some type of landscaping, there is no parking on this side of the street. the can maximize sidewalk when escaping. we would love to see 36 inch box trees go in there, if that is possible. but it is a steep street. that would potentially be a

bigger challenge than normal. a 24 inch box would also work. if they are willing to go for 36, i think that seems very reasonable. president garcia: could we get 324's - -three 24's in? >> depending on the species, we might. if the species was more columnar, there might not be a conflict between the canopies. it would be a little tight, possibly, but we could probably do it. president garcia: would a reasonable way to leave this be to have you agree that someone would measure if two 36's fit or three 24's?

when the decision be yours, assuming the owners would go for either of those options? >> that sounds like a nice compromise. commissioner fung: most columnar trees are fast growers. >> true. i meant there would not the competition. we could get them on in there -- commissioner fung: i understand. president garcia: i have no objection. >> the consulting arborist. i am only here to contribute on a technical level for the replanting. we are prepared to do sidewalk landscaping. that is consistent with the property owner's desire. the 24 inch box i think would be more practical because of the cross slope, the steepness of that street. the soil rootball within the container has a level surface to

it. we do not want to bury that down in order to create conformity to the cross slope. it would be harmful to the health of the tree. i would recommend that we go to a 24 inch box size, from a more practical standpoint. president garcia: do you think you could get three of those? >> i am certain two would fit. i am not certain about three. but i think if we had a smaller species -- i am not sure which species we would end up with. with a smaller species, there would be room for closer spacing. president garcia: i am going to assume that you are willing to assume that ms. short will be as reasonable as she always is. >> ms. short is always reasonable. we are happy to work with her again. president garcia: we believe those options open and as other commissioners have a different thought. commissioner fung: do you want to hear from the property

owners? president garcia: i think they are nodding vigorously. >> i am delighted to have the opportunity to work with ms. short and take her advice on what we should do. that would be fine with me. president garcia: i would move that we overturn the department and allow these trees to be removed, with the proviso that either three 24's, if there is enough room, replace these trees, or two 26's -- 36's. the final determination of what is best in terms of species and size rests with the department of public works and the bureau of urban forestry. >> a thank you said two 36 -- i think you said two 36's, but it was not certain that would be practical. president garcia: i know.

i wanted to give ms. short the opportunity to agree or disagree with that. >> with the department of public works' discretion. could we leave open all three of those options? there could be two 24's? president garcia: yes. and i have to justify why the trees could be removed? is that the glare from the city attorney? the reason is they provide a hazard to the safety of one of the residence in terms of nuts dropped from the tree that make it difficult to work on the street. the present a hazard in terms of the fact that there are trucks that travel on that street and have on occasion made contact with the branches, and possibly with the trunk. therefore, because of those safety reasons, we are overturning the department.

>> the motion is to grant this appeal, overruled the denial, and issue the permit, on condition the replacement be either two 36 inch box trees, three 24 inch box trees, or two 24 inch box trees. the size and the species are up to the department of urban forestry. commissioner fung: aye. vice president hwang: aye. -- commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the denial is overruled. with all those conditions. president garcia: even though i have a

>> welcome back to the march 21, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now calling item #7. beth weesner vs the department of building inspection with planning department approval. it is on seven -- it is on at 1753 beach street. protesting the issuance on november 10, 2011 to a permit to alter a building, remodeling a kitchen, bath, and laundry, adding a bath, removing a portion of the wall at the hallway, removing partition at a kitchen to dining, reconfiguring bedroom closets new furnace and water heater, new gas fireplace, new exterior stair to the new roof deck. we will start with the appellant.

>> i am representing the appellant in this case. first off, we think the board for continuing this matter at the last minute. we were in negotiations to settle this matter globally with the permit holder but never got a response. here we are, one week later, again going to the merits of this appeal. for the board members who were not here in january, the board granted a jurisdiction request in the mid-january based on improper notice to our client. this permit was originally called back in march of 2011. the permit holder waited eight months to have the permit finally issued and it was at that point that our client failed to get notice of the act will permit. we came to the board and now we are here for the mayor to be appealed. i and the appellant is believed

-- i believe and the appellant believe it is a simple issue before us. it is invalid. the permit holder has admitted this in a prior testimony because, basically, the roof portion of this permit is going to be revoked and remove from the permit. the permit holder attempted to do this after the jurisdiction request and now this matter is before the board again because this roof deck is still a part of the permit. the permit holder, during the jurisdiction request, his attorney and contractor admitted that this exterior roof deck with the stairs are not part of the permit that was issued in november of 2011. the second matter of notice that i want to talk about goes directly to notice to my client, who is the co-owner in this

building, a two-unit condominium unit. it did not have her lot number on the actual permit. as you can see, from this parcel map that was provided in the brief, there are two lot numbers, 34 and 33, that cover 1753, the permit property, and 1751, the appellant property. unfortunately, the condominiums do not have a lot number for the roof. that is a problem because that roof is common area. our client must approve anything that happens on the roof. again, she was not provided notice that this permit was going to be pulled back in march. and then finally issued in november of 2011. the current quarter has argued

that the roof is not common area. we believe that is incorrect. the roof can he turned into exclusive use common area if there is construction on the roof. we do not know if they are actually going to continue with the roof material or the work on the roof, in what it is our argument that the permit is invalid for not including our clients lot number. the one final item that i wanted to talk about is the last item of hoa approval. i submit that to the board knowing that what has to happen here is the roof deck, if it is removed as the permit holder says it's going to happen, the parties have to negotiate any sort of common area roof.

in order to get back to ground zero for the parties, what needs to happen is this permit needs to be revoked, any common area worked including the removal of the roof permit must go to the hoa because that is common area. the other item that has come up recently is an issuance of a nov for the work was intended to take place after the interest is a request. i would like to show the board that very quickly. >> you need to turn it. >> which way? one item that is on here in we believe might be a part of the permit that the applicant is

going to request is a water heater was part of the original plans that would go on the roof. it is not clear, in this revision permit, that the permit holder attempted to pull, if that water heater is going to be removed along with the steps were proposed in the original permit. if the permit holder is going to attend any sort of revision, this needs to go back to approval from our client. again, we are the co owner in this two-unit building. the final point i would like to address is the nuisance problem that has gone on since this permit was issued in november of 2011. our client owns the bottom unit in the building and this is an extensive remodeling of the

second floor unit. there has been extensive work to the floor as well as work in the garage, construction equipment has been in there so there has been blockage of both the garage as well as some of the egress to the actual condominium unit. i have pictures of that as well. this is one item that has taken place -- there is a port-a-potty on the right hand side that still remains even know the permit was put on hold. there are construction vehicles that have been blocking the ingress-egress, the brown rot on the left-hand side. -- the brown garage on the left- hand side. the final picture shows the usage pri is a little bit burglary. i am sorry for that.

this is the outline of a car and the entire garage area is being used for construction. we would ask that this permit be revoked. thank you. president garcia: when you come back for your three minutes, would you be prepared to talk about something aside from -- most of these are technical issues having to do with lot numbers and problems that you think exist with this particular permit. i do not know that you presented anything as to why your client would prefer this project not go forward aside from these technical issues and what affect it is having on her life. i would ask you to prepare to do that when you come back up. >> i will be prepared for that. thank you. >> can we hear from the permit holder

questioning to for hearing this this evening. i think the failure to establish any legitimate basis for revocation -- president garcia: could you please give your name. >> i am ryan soriano on behalf of the permit holder of. we addressed in the brief that this appeal has not, as the president suggested, focus on any issues of a practical matter that affect this project's impact on the neighbor. this is an urban setting. people have the right to do construction projects and the city has a procedure for making sure that things are done in a reasonable manner in and protect the rights of the german border as well as others who neighbor of the permit holders project a. everybody in san francisco deals with the noise and annoyance of a nearby construction projects. it is a temporary thing and there are procedures to make sure it is not unduly

burdensome. this appeal does not focus on that. it focuses mostly on a roof deck, which is not going to happen. and then it focuses on the lot numbers. he had just to be clear, any concerns on the roof deck are moved. -- are moot. he attempted to put a sinister spin on our attention to get a revised permit. there was no trickery involved in that. we said that we were abandoning that job. the board indicated a revised permit would be needed for that. after that, we got the revised permit. we spend four hours with the department of building inspection to make sure the permit would be appropriate. and that the procedures had the least amount of intrusion as possible. there is nothing sinister and i hope to the board is satisfied with that. that accusation is a very offensive to mr. specter.

he and his wife are here and there is a representative from dbi who probably has insight into the procedure. " we have is this lot issue. we are not asking you to overlook a technical infraction -- a technical imperfections. this permit established it is an imperfect way. the evidence is justice that the city has more than one manner in noticing a lot numbers on these permits. i spoke with pat, who offered an article in addressing this issue, suggesting there has to be some uniformity in the city's process and he identifies a number of reasons why uniformity is required to. you cannot do this ipso facto. you cannot make that decision now and start looking back at permits that have been previously issued as say they have to follow the new regime. as i understand it, no new rule has been adopted yet.

from the declarations we submitted, we checked with the central permit bureau. they said, we do not have a specific manner for how this is done. sometimes, we use the lot number were the primary work is done. a lot of times, we use all of the numbers. in this case, it was on a single lot. the roof deck is contractually exclusive to mr. specter. as they have not conceded, it can be changed if he does ever pursue the roof deck. right now, no roof deck, no common area, no requirement for a different lot numbers. even if it was a rule, it would not apply anymore because we are not pursuing the roof is the he technical violations and that her council is highlighting for you? there is no harm. they suggest that you set mr. specter back to square one. it is going to be the exact same

permit, the exact same scope of work that has been approved twice. it is not going to have the respect. it will have a single lot number. she is going to get notice in the exact same manner with the exact same amount of detail as the notice that she currently has. despite the detail and not permit application, she has not identified one aspect of this project that is not fair to hurt or in trees in her work -- intrude on her right. this extension is going too far and is not going to go in -- get in the way of my exercising my rights. this proposed assets -- the proposed asset goes too far and violates the code section. there is none of that. she says it technically was not issued right so they should start all over to satisfy me. that is not a proper use of the sports time or the procedures for this appeal. there has not been any justification to exercise -- to