hard. i've tried to keep it clean but, you know, at this point you know, i've done the best i can, and if this parklet was somewhere else, on chest nut street or somewhere else, i guarantee you none of this would happen because i plant a tree and people come literally yank the tree out and throw it, people with mental issues. i've been seeing people pour beer and alcohol into the ivy that i planted, so i've done it for the public. yeah, so i would like to keep it i will try to do more than this, but this is all i can do, so yeah. thank you. >> sir, two questions, one is how late does your cafe open?

>> 2:00. >> the department has indicated that on multiple opportunities, you had failed to submit your renewal. >> so, i've given them -- there was -- the person that expedited the permits for both locations for me and 533 was the same person, so he was given the e-mail address of the other side as the contact information so the two were mixed so that was sorted out last time, the last hearing we had, and i was away -- when i came back, i received a notice so as soon as i saw the notice, i went to dpw to renew my license and they say it's too late. this was november 5th.

so that was -- yeah, it was november 5th. >> i have a question. >> yes? >> given your level of frustration with the neighborhood, the population that you described, why is it that you want to continue to sponsor this parklet? >> there was a gentleman that lived on that apartment that has cancer. he really loved the parklet. he made sure he came and watered the plants that was there and he really enjoyed sitting outside when we have the chairs out, and there are people like him throughout the neighborhood that really appreciate and like the parklet being there so i wanted to keep it. and on top of that, i invested money and i put the parklet

there, but again it is really frustrating to have that parklet because you can only do so much. >> okay, thank you. >> yeah, thank you. >> thank you. mr. shaw? >> i have a question i'm sorry i was waiting for the vice-president to speak. >> the huka situation. >> yes. >> according to the gentleman from dpw, you were advised that smoking of any kind, it's smoke of any kind is clearly against the law according to the person from dpw, you were advised in previous renewals and problematic situations that the hukas were not acceptable under any circumstances. so why wasn't the use of a

hukas which you controlled in your business controlled and why consciously was the use of the hukas continued even after you were notified that it was problematic on most cases? >> the hukas as far as i know, since it was no smoke it's not like smoking cigarettes. >> i just want to ask the question of the gentleman. >> that was brought up last time and that was not clear to me that you cannot basically smoke like vaping people smoke on the sidewalk and then walk into the parklet cigarette, i cannot tell them -- i go there and i say please don't smoke here, and if they say, why don't you get out of here, i'm not going to go and fight with them. there are people who go and

smoke and there are people who smoke marijuana, cigarettes and all the stuff on the sidewalk, everywhere and i can only -- i have a sign saying no smoking, and i can only have -- i can only tell them, i cannot really -- >> but in fact in previous notifications by dpw, you were informed na the hukas were problematic yet -- >> no, that was last time and i thought it was smoking huka. >> i'll ask the gentleman from pbw how clear that was whether it was in writing or whatever? >> okay, thank you. >> okay, mr. shaw we're ready. >> commissioners, raoul shaw, public works just to reiterate a couple of these things, so

the issue is more than just the location of this parklet which seems to be brought up a lot, it's the overall non-compliance and the continued non-responsiveness, it's basically the continued actions of the host, in terms of the smoke it was made very clear at the march 26th hearing which is documented and the audio is clearly documented as well where the hearing officer clearly mentioned to the parklet host not to smoke any type of huka, so regardless if this sign shows a cigarette or any other type of smoke it was made clear not to perform any type of smoking and huka smoking was specifically brought up because that's what the complaints revolved around. i'm available for any other questions. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> okay. it would seem to me -- it's very, very clear that the parklet permit process is that on an annual basis you renew your license and if it's important to you to have that parklet, especially if you've been noticed once before and failed to respond, that maybe the next time you would be a little bit more sensitive and not put the city through the same process of serving notice again and again and if that parklet was important to you. second of all, the issue of the hukas there was notice given clearly whether it was ambiguous or otherwise unclear

to the permit holder in the early stages, the first time around or the second time around, but by the next time around especially as there was testimony in public hearing that hukas are smoking, then to me that becomes an abuse of the permit. >> i agree. i think that we've heard this case before. as mentioned, there's quite a few parklet in varying districts around san francisco and they seem to manage not to have the same issues in prior as the department mentioned, there's only been one revocation. i think this is a pretty good situation and i'm sorry for the public that's had to tolerate this situation for this long of a time. >> i'm in agreement. >> o do you want to make a

motion? >> so my motion is that the appeal is denied for the park and on the grounds that there has been chronic abuse of the rules and regulations associated with holding that permit. >> thank you. >> [inaudible]. >> i believe it is. >> congratulations. >> mr. pacheco, with you're ready. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner swig to uphold the revocation on the basis that there has been chronic abuse related to the holding of this permit? >> the holding of a parklet permit. >> of a parklet permit. on that motion to uphold this revocation, commissioner fung? >> aye.

>> president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner -- vice-president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0. this permit is revoked. the revocation upheld on that basis. thank you. >> thank you. >> the next item is appeal number item 35, appeal number 15-028, robert keith mcburnett and linda pfiffner versus the department of public works bureau of urban forestry the property is 3420 fulton street appealing the denial on february 11, 2015 of a tree removal permit denial or request to remove one privately maintained street tree. and we will begin with the appellants who will have 7 minutes to present their case. >> i'm lind ka pfiffner thank you for hearing our rebuttal we received pbw's response and we'd like to point out some of the limitations and their

argument and i'll be reading from this brief. briefly, we are asking to replace a very large tree in the front of our mouse with a small or more suitable tree. on pages 1 to 2, dpw states the expansion of the basin will prevent the unnecessary repair of the sidewalk closest to the trunk in the faou khu this statement is mislead, the maximum tree basin side is marked on the sidewalk now x the damage to the sidewalk extends well beyond the barking, thus an enlarged basin will mitigate but not eliminate future sidewalk damage from this tree. on page 2, dpw states that regarding the sewer lines the portion that the property owner is responsible for maintaining and the city's portion have been repaired. this is a true statement but it shows a somewhat cavalier avenue to the plight of the homeowner, if the tree has grown so large that it causes

damages to the side sewer the party held responsible for both should be able to take a reasonable action, nas to replace the tree, to prevent future damage, on page 3, dpw quotes t repairs will usually prevent the roots from entering that section of pipe. this is speculation and it is contradicted by the statements of dpw's own repair crew who replaced the side sewer, we discussed what we as property owners could do to prevent reblockage and the workers stated there was nothing we could do to prevent this, it was only a matter of time before tree roots again invaded the site sewer their recommendation is we driver a copper nail into the tree that would disease the tree that would necessitate replacing the tree. dpw has shown no willingness to back up their statement by indemnifying us at the risk of

sewer blockage as a result of sewage backup, they're willing for the property owners to assume this risk. pages 3 to 4, this is boilerplate language glorifying the two tree, we stipulate mature trees have an inherent value and a value to the community, this must be weighed against the risks of an overgrown tree with replacing the tree that does not cause these negative aspects but provides much of the same benefit. well proportioned trees might increase property values but trees that mied sidewalk sewers and overhead do not, the association of tree side *f size with property values is not a line stretching to infinity there is a limit and this tree has reached this limit. the supplemental water issue is not credible. dpw plants hundreds of trees in spite of this and there are other ways that could achieve

our greater savings in terms of addressing overmastering of ground and pavement that is routinely done by other property owners and by parks ground crew, if supplemental water is necessary, it is born by the property owner it will not materially affect the drought. the last paragraph casts dpw as the protector of mature trees against potentially many property owners who might saok to replace trees fw this case were allowed to proceed, this is an appeal to the slippery slope that this line must not be crossed however there are special individual circumstances they that would not apply to most other case, responsible husbandry requires thinning and removing individual trees. there's a separate document called the tree evaluation sheet and here the inspector noted that species may not be suitable under overhead power. we have paid a certified

arborist to trim these trees we have trimmed as much as we could without risking the tree, a smaller tree would surely pose less risker the area subject to high winds that would bend tree limbs the inspector did not recommend denying the recommendation and remove the tree, it wrote it has opinion to review, there were facts not addressed by dpw, one housing, this is a matter that affects available rental house we rent a 100 legal rental apartment, we have four tenants, two have moved because of repeated sewage backup, health, this tree has resulted in sewage back ups raw sewage up to two toilets, they have often taken several days to respond. water cannot be used during these type *f times. three esthetics, we want to

replace the entire sidewalk and driveway apron and renovate the landscaping a maimer tree would allow the architectural tree to be seen, we want to know people live here, we want to monitor activities in front of our house and as well as across the street by being able to look out a window, four, home owner preference, there is no objection to replacing this tree, we have talked to our adjacent member and is a smaller tree would be preferable, this area of the sidewalk stays moist under this large tree and allowing a few hours of sunlight which would occur with a smaller tree would make the area more pleasing and cut down on the heavy growth of moss on the property and brick work, we want to reiterate we want to improve the frontage of 3420 fulton and put the same species in or use the species

that urban forestry has planted on the adjacent block and directly across the street lining kennedy on the park. thank you. >> you have to use the other microphone. >> we'll maer from the department. >> good evening, chris [inaudible] urban forester with the department of public works regarding the subject tree adjacent to 3420 fulton street, the staff level decision by inspector woo jew chung was to deny the request to remove the tree and that decision was appealed by the applicant, the property owner to a departmental hearing. after the departmental hearing the recommendation from the director was to deny the

request to remove the subject tree. i will go through a few photos just to review the tree itself, if we could have overhead. so the subject tree is young to mature, [inaudible] i guess not young it's mature, somewhere between 20 to 30 years in age, and is a broadly fiber green specie, it's planted across the city and the tree itself the condition of the tree is not really in question it has good vigor there's no real structural defects, it has a slight lean to the east but that lean is parallel with the road so it's not impinging passage of travel from pedestrians or on the road. regarding the overall side of the tree, obviously it's very

difficult to -- tree size is very subjective in terms of what someone thinks is a large tree versus a smaller tree. the tree to the left is not being proposed for removal, that's an adjacent property owner who's made recent sidewalk repairs so we have similar species on the block where sidewalk repairs have been made and the trees will remain on site. there's another view of the tree, a lot of our sidewalks in san francisco can be very narrow, as narrow as 6-9 feet in width. here we have roughly 14 feet to the base of the stairs and then the stairs provide another 6 or 8 feet to the actual side of the building so regarding the site itself, and i should say at the onset i do sympathize and efrp ?iez with the property own's plate the detailed description of the amount of sewage backups they have, i understand it's really hard to

continent in the face of a single tree adjacent to their property. that said, we do have to speak for the trees and the fact that larger trees do provide benefits smaller trees provide smaller benefits we do have to play gate keeper r, this this tree would be maintained by public works, we would not seek removal so i wanted to point out the context and we do acknowledge that there is a good amount of -- a lot of sidewalk damage, most of the frontage of the sidewalk has to be repaired completely. what we recommend is a basin expansion and it would be a pretty good side basin expansion. we marked white marks on the sidewalk the smallest we probably would recommend would be a 6 by 9 tree basin currently it's a 3 by 3, so we do recommend a pretty large base inexpansion to accommodate the roots of the tree near the base of the trunk.

in summary, we do have to protect large mature trees if the sewer repairs have been made, that issue has been addressed. if the sidewalk repairs are made, that issue has been addressed. we do hope some bit to maintain the trees in san francisco because we want to protect and enhance the canopy size in the city. unfortunately for property owners, when faced with a lot of financial costs obviously it's understandable that they're going to seek removal but what i'm concerned about in this photo you can see the tree behind the subject tree that has recently repaired sidewalk no one sought the removal of that tree, so again to be consistent, fw the tree's relatively healthy, sidewalk repairs could be made without destabilizing the tree, our recommendation is to keep that tree. so that summarizes our process

in review of this application. we are concerned that if people want to just remove their tree because of financial costs that that does open that up so it is understandably an issue but if the sewer repair has been made, that issue's been addressed, so that's what we have to present, in summary, i would ask that you uphold the denial of the request to remove the tree. thank you. >> i have a couple of questions. the tree that you are comparing, you said no one asked to be removed, have those folks had sewer problems? >> i don't know. it's very possible they have had 0 sewer issues. >> it's not really a comparison, right? >> two thirds of property owners are responsible for maintaining their trees so two thirds of property owners are in the same boat, they all have that same liability overhanging

them. >> but it's not just the cost of the repair, right raw sewage has its own difficulties, it's dangerous to people, right? >> absolutely. >> i think they said in their papers that their expert said that even if the sewage was fixed that it would eventually happen again. do you have any comment about that? >> not someone from our department that said that. i mean, there's no guarantee, i mean, i think that's what we have to look at is all trees have potential to get into sewer lines. if a sewer line is 50 80 years old, it's going to have a crack or a leak and it's time for that sewer to be upgraded. the challenge understandably is how if the property owner repairs their section of sewer line, when is the city going the repair the section that's in the road?

>> but in this situation, it isn't just a one-time sewage problem. see, i understand your argument about the precedent, but in this situation, since they've had the difficulty more than once and it's recurring isn't that sort of a non-precedential or special circumstance to say that the tree should go especially when they're willing to put in a smaller tree? >> sure. the multiple backups na the property owner experienced on the sewer line that they're responsible for, when they address that issue by replacing a line, my understanding of their brief is that that addressed that issue then there continue to be backup ins the line, the section that is the sties and that's been repaired there are continual backups, the sewer had a crack

or a break in it absolutely when there is a leak, the tree roots will take advantage of that but it begins with a faulty sewer line, so i understand it's a single tree, you know, we're not here every month with 30 trees before us but i finally have a tree where we believe to us -- and i don't want to say to spite, but even in the face of all those issues to the sewer line, if that's been addressed we have a viable tree, and i understand the commission's perspective and public works is also cognizant of the fact that if you make removal so onerous and available, you lose advocates out there for the urban forests, so we do understand your position as kind of a weights and measures you know, so we respect the commission's feedback. >> could you talk a little bit more about the idea of expanding the basin what that

would entail and again what the potential results would be please? >> sure, basin expansion, as the applicant stated, we didn't mean to mislead with the statement that it would address areas of sidewalk damage in that immediate area, what we're saying is very often and this is good to psa, there's a 3 by 3 foot basin and people keep pouring back the sidewalk to the same limited space and the same exact area gets damaged again so by expanding the basin there's two things we're doing, one is we're preventing the unnecessary cutting of roots close to the base of the trunk of the tree, the other thing we're doing is not have the property owner pay money and concrete in the same area where we know it's going to get damaged again. it's true what the applicant stated, an extent of the sidewalk has been damaged by the tree, that is acknowledged

but those other areas we believe can be repaired without destabilizing the tree, those are the two aspects of basin expansion, one is preventing someone from throwing money into the same exact area which is going to keep getting damaged. there are some sidewalk that is are narrow in the city where we don't really have a lot of basin expansion options, in this case, we do. >> wouldn't the same be true for the sewer issue? why do you want to -- if you know you've been advised that this problem can occur again why are you going the continue the problem and cause sewage backup, not to mention the cost what's making me scratch my head and also the appellant is stating very clearly that

they are affirmed with the spirit of keeping the forest and keeping the canopy in the city of san francisco appropriate by replanting a healthy tree, putting the money into doing that, putting the money into making it a proper basin putting the money into fixing the sidewalk, and then i hear even going across the street and planting another tree, so clearly they're in the spirit of sustaining the intent of the urban forest and the intent of the city, but what they're not into is doing what you just said is probably problematic is if we know we're perpetuating a problem, this would be pretty dumb to continue the action, so that's what's making me scratch my head. >> sure, not much to add on that point. i would just say that unfortunately when you look at the urban forest and the urban infrastructure every tree and every sewer line has the same

issue lurking. that's a challenge for everyone so if you address that issue you've got a working sewer line again. the idea is that there's not going to be an issue again with a sewer line again. no one -- our staff or at urban forestry we're not sewer system experts we can't vouch and say for a fact how long the property owner is going to have a free and clear sewer line, free of tree roots but it is our job to uphold the ordinance and try to advocate as much as we can for retaining larger trees. this is not a one for one replacement. i think it may seem boilerplate but we have to talk about the benefits of trees in an urban environment because there are economics, soesh yol logical and environmental benefits but i understand that in this particular case, the property

owners understandably is frustrated with the amount of money and time and also like you said, public health issues. >> mr. buck, looking at the [inaudible] of the property wouldn't the old sewer lines be made out of a terracotta or clay material more than likely? >> exactly. >> it's clay. >> whereas the new one should be cast iron? >> cast iron or terracotta where you put in a sleeve. >> i have a question just to clarify something i thought you said which was -- and maybe we're talking a chicken and egg situation here, that once those sewer pipes were repaired that there shouldn't be another issue because it was some problem with the sewer pipe na allowed the tree root tos get in? >> we oftener use