replace 5 i believe there's room to make room for a total of 5 trees i believe that would have been reviewed 8 years additional no utility jumbled out at me today thank you. >> thank you. >> so we'll take public comment can i side a show of hands no public comment on this item okay. we'll move on to rebuttal ms. rogers your team as 9 minutes. >> hello, again so i just wanted to make a couple of comments one of the things that occurred to me lvns to some of the testimony is appears that the

cost of replacing those trees is go to go costing there were recommendations made 8 years ago that i'm not an arrest warrant bolster they're not too late and should perhaps be considered which involve largely this matt's has not been mentioned increasing the baseline when those trees were planted they were small and the sidewalk came up to them typically if you look at other trees when their cared for one of the ways to protect the sidewalk the size find the hole evolved so the sidewalk concrete is cut out to make a larger had he larger baseline to be for the tree to grow into

mapped from my reach that could be done to increase the health of the tree there also were recommended by the gentleman putting in balance arrested to keep the cars from coming up to the trees so i think it just seem like to be a legitimate question why not do some of the smaller things to preserve what is an asset we all agree will take many, many years to replace if we go to the replanting ritual i find is a positive sign those trees from any lay eyes-only those trees i've seen them a number of times they look healthy and thriving the fact they've shown on a limited reduce vigor i smiled in

those 8 years i'm showing reduced vigor so if the trees are showing that it 90 shouldn't be a problem i think that russian hill neighbors feel those are healthy trees to our neighborhood thank you, again yourself consideration we would like to see them remain and every effort contributing to our neighborhood thank you. >> okay. mr. silverman. >> thank you, commissioners i had an opportunity to just now to ask a few questions in terms of the passing of time the matter when it was last at the board of appeals was continued

for the purpose of the appellants conducting the test they never conducted after that hearing my client informs we she e-mailed the board of appeals several times over a two year period for reasons that she explicit know the board never rescheduled the hearing so i think it's not entirely correct to go say they have rights they were sitting on they had no permit the permit was suspended for the rehearing that was not rescheduled i want to go over a few of the photos we took the other day focus of mr. bucks testimony was primarily on the canopies by the canopies are not the focus of

the los notice damage the damage is on the trunks you can see here and here and here and here this is the bottom with the cars continually ram into the trees that's the property at one 41 this is those are the trees at 1051 and 1051 a as you can see the trunks of the trees have no bark here here and here so it was hard to see on those prior photos by actually there's no bark on the trees this is 1039 to 1051 as you can see at the bottom again, there's significant damage here where the trees the cars ram ram into

the trees damage to the bark here and all along here this is the tree that's leaning into the street right here i don't know what that angle is but it's fairly significant this is the tree at 1037 and you can see this gash in the tree here this is a view of this tree and also showing the damage that is roots are doing to the sidewalk here

this is 1041 as you can see see here structural damage with the trunk also here in the darkened area and again at the bottom this is yeah. okay - this is 1039 as you can see this is substantial damage noting to the trunk here and here and down at the base

finally at 1053 you can see substantial damage i presume this is also caused by the cars ramming into the trees right here so we - the permits should be up held again on the because of the report that was done by the city's department of urban foresty. >> madam chair, i need a one minute break.

>> i wanted to show a visual of a base expansion those are the two eastern most or counsel hill 1041 those are part of any rebuttal i'd like to show one other stem to consider four trees total one on the highest of the street are the most upright the ones on little lower part have a lien have a lot more trunk damage i think that root

pruning will hasten their demise one idea for the commission to approval two of the four trees for removal the downhill and monitor the two uphill trees the ones that are standing upright in general it's challenging the trees are in poor condition the easy way to have a clear decision that everyone can follow through an i wanted to put out one possibility partial upholding the permit those are the two trees that have's a most damage that concludes my feedback. >> commissioners the matter is

submitted. >> well having seen urban foresty many times before our board they rarely 0 consider to remove the trees trees are a life expectancycy of 50 and the impact that the trees are getting hit on a daily basis i'll lean to accept the recommendation of the removal felt trees and have them replaced with 48 box. >> your supporting all of the trees not necessarily his compromise. >> looking at the pictures and hearing the report from the department it is just a matter of short period of time during a time the gives the trees to grow

at the same time and it is more attractive having two replaces and two more replaced in a year or two. >> your agonizing over under. >> no, i you know, i do think when you for whatever reason don't do something for 6 years you sit on your rights i'm sympathetic to the folks that live there and the trees have which mother nature best drought severe wind rain and are moving along quite nicely i appreciate that mr. barker thinks once the sidewalk is repaired that species wouldn't fair as well but it seems like if we remove all for the trees

the folks that live there and have who it impacts the most are going to have nothing for 15 years not very much. >> the one that won't be as large they'll have trees. >> and so i'm wondering whether or not we need to be so for lack of a better word hash in our approach maybe a middle position is a better way to go. >> what would that look like. >> well, i actually like his first idea to have the sidewalk repair and monitor it and if they don't farewell we'll do we'll remove the trees i'd like

to will with taking two out i'm not ready to vote to remove all four of them but you you know me i can be per swayed. >> that's the genealogical e deal we take objective 4 and get 5. >> for the record i think what mr. buck said was that he is guessing those trees are approximately 40-year-old and the in turn species life is to 50 i'll support removal we want to renew the canopies in the city i'm supporting the issuance of the permit. >> on you. >> very torn. >> it seems like if you don't

grant the permit your postponing the insufficiently if you give people 10 years and those trees have to come down it's to me a bit of a choice i think i agree the two and two maybe didn't make sense when we get them all started at the same time i appreciate the compromise aesthetically it will be a little bit odd so but i think i'm learning e leaning targeted upholding the permit. >> their tree huggers they never recommend tree removal every. >> their dangers and those trees have been sitting there

minding their own busy for six or eight years and going along fine. >> in the lifetime they decide to do something a limb failure can be bad. >> the trees have gunning done just find. >> but they've moved on to their other age. >> (laughter). >> well is there a motion. >> sorry i'll make the motion. >> it's all right. >> i make a motion to was it to. >> grant the appeals. >> grant the appeals and that for the tree removal on the condition that mr. buck said deny the appeals i - i'm sorry. deny the appeal and uphold the permit condition the permit if. >> let's hear with the condition is. >> okay. go ahead. >> i'm upholding the permit.

>> what's the conditions you're asking for or. >> that the timespan be 34 months and the representation of '048 inch box. >> in this case to grant the appeals. >> okay. >> then is there a basis for the motion you want to speak commissioner. >> that's i don't know that the permit is still valid. >> typically in this twitch case related to the health and welfare of the trees. >> that the trees should be renewed. >> and that is the trees should you renewed.

>> correct. >> we have a motion then from commissioner honda 0 it 0 uphold the all 3 permits on conditions that the 5 replacement trees be planted within 4 months. >> correct. >> okay. and this is on the basis that the subject trees should be renewed motion to uphold all 3 permits with ann that condition commissioner fung arrest commissioner president lazarus and commissioner wilson. >> nay thank you the vote is 3 to one the permits are upheld including the condition of expedited planting only 3 votes are needed to

uphold the conditions thank you. >> we're going to take a very short break. >> welcome back to the january 14, 2015, of the san francisco board of appeals with the president extent i'm going to call item 9 out of order called the scott vs. the sdcers on montgomery street an greenwich street of a letter of determination whether the non conforming restaurant use locate at the subtlety property has been daunted abandon i understand did appellant is requested this matter will be reschedule can we hear if the appellant or the representative

we'll see about that. >> good evening scott sanchez planning staff i've discuss the matter with the appellant i'm sure you're aware of the contention of the filing of the conditional use to roar the subject precipitate mr. scott as agreed to go through the conditional use process to roar the use to retain the option at a ladder we've argued to schedule this to the call of the chair he'll be going to the conditional use process so we're willing to reschedule that. >> thank you commissioners that's accurate i'm paul scott the owner of the building my hope is that through the conditional use permit process we'll i'll line up on the same package and withdraw the appeal

all i'm trying to do is preserve my ability to come back to the board thank you for your patience in this process. >> so you need a motion to the call of the chair let's see if there's public comment any public comment on this item? okay. >> move to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> mr. pacheco. >> we have a hospitalization from the president to reschedule this item fingertip dash one 3 to the call of the chair the boards indefinitely chaurpd for the appellate to file a conditional use permit with the planning commission on that motion to continue commissioner fong and commissioner honda arrest commissioner wilson thank you vote is 4 to zero this matter is rescheduled to the call of the

chair. >> thank you next 3 items 7 abc will be heard together versus the public works bureaucracy street uses and mapping on broderick street for the pamela to reconstruct a garage entrance that encroaches 9 inches for the subject property that matter was heard on february 5th and on for further consideration ante at the february 6th they voted to the call of the chair for the nicaragua permit 7 abc filed by tim vs. the zoning administrator and the urn vs. the zoning

administrator is protesting the issuance on october 16, 2014, request for release of suspension requesting the department of building inspection released the inspection for vertical and horizon expansion at 28 to 57 broderick street start with the appellant. >> i'm sorry just wanted to state that i was not present at the hearing in february and have reviewed the tapes and prepared to hear the case today. >> i last was not present but reviewed the tapes arrest sir, i have 10 minutes to present our argument 3 minutes for the continued case and 7 for the new case. >> board members before you stature i'd like to have and get

on the clocks clock and have a question of the board if i may precede. >> ask the question. >> under our jurisdiction of this case has my of you ever had any person came back or phenomenon considerations or e-mail see with pam or her representatives on behalf of the resident outside of the hearing. >> the members of the board may or may not wish to respond to them but it's clear the rules of the board require any such consumption they'll put on the record that's part of our rules of procedure thank you. the reason i ask mavpt under the sunshine rules a document has surfaced that a letter if pam white from scott

sanchez she's had telephone conversations and dialog with the board that was never disclosed to us during september 12, 2012, we're following up o up on that record whether or not this dialog has continued. >> i have brought the document here and gave 11 copies to mr. pacheco for you to examine. >> i have asked for a overflow room see if you call down this that's helpful commissioners. >> would refer to the statement made by our executive director we have rule we're implemented

to folly building those so to speak i said but i'd like to respond i left the will you accept the document i've put forward with 11 copies that such was the cats? >> i might take a look at the copies does the other side know warehouse in their referring to. >> i've given a copy to mr. sanchez and mr. duffy mr. sanchez is shaking his head. >> may i address the board. >> on that topic. >> he wants to point out which is the many pages he's given me of e-mails then i'll look at it is but. >> i'll give you a copy let's precede are the case we're going to proceed with the case please begin. >> i'm sorry, i want to ask did you see it. >> i asked you to please begin

with the case. >> will i accept the documents. >> not now no. >> the case that i'll start on the clock right now the case before i today, we oppose the release of the suspensions of the documents but we feel at this time an agreement has been reached on september 1st between supervisor farrell and the planning and ourselves and that the department of building inspection will undertake a review to get a comprehensive plan of what the project sponsor wants to do they'll look at the issues and designated chief inspector tom ron tom to do it along with their engineer diane and the initial response there was no alignment between the permits, the drawings and work

that was done and carefully reviewing it whether there was code compliance and whether that's need for a notification to the neighbors now i submitted also today for the first time that i received e-mails from ron tom indicating this is so the last e-mail at 220 this afternoon i submitted it for your review and made 11 copies you've asked me why i didn't submit a brief that he was precisely because this investigation has just been ongoing for months we've heard nothing from dbi until today we only their preceding in good faith and have faith if mr. ron tom they'll be looking at the material and easter after they look at the material they'll send to the planning to see if there's comments thereafter

they'll i understand he e send to us to review the materials and then be able to decide the status of this project because of the fact we believe the process should be allowed to be continued and if you rails release the suspenses it will be right back where construction will have occurred prior to the permit being vetted and brought to completion therefore we're oppose opposed to the release of the suspension at this time this hearing is being drawn very, very inaugural it's not our choice we wanted the issues of the height the encroachment into the south yard and the encroachment into the backyard and the roof and surcharge of the drainage of the underground

streams the construction that has been undergo taken and the wanted those problems to be addressed all the hearings we'll competitive kick the can down the road and there's a current chief inspector ron tom that's as opposed to agree gate all the permits we we'll have to come and appeal it all over again, the issue is the previous permits they don't want you to review are basically, their argument those are existing conditions we're claiming those permits have been superintendant have been done so where construction has outdoor without the permit being fully vested