. >> good evening and welcome to the february 28, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is board president frank fung. he'll be joined by our vice president, rick swig, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner darryl honda, and commissioner bobbie wilson. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russi who will provide the board with any legal advice. i'm cynthia goldstein, the board's executive director. we will also be joined soon by

the representatives from the city departments who have cases here tonight. we expect cory taeg here who will also be representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy will be here, and urban forester krichris buck. the board requests you turnoff or silence all phones or electronic devices so that they will be disturb the proceedings and that you carrie on conversations in the hallway. appellants, purchase mutt holders and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebutt tall. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttals. with y we ask that you speak into the microphone. you're asked but not required to submit a business card or speaker card when you come up

to speak, and we have speaker cards on the left-hand side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments andtion ises, and we have customer satisfaction cards on the podium for your use. if you have questions about a rehearing, the board's comments or schedules, feel free to contact us after the meeting or come by the office. this meeting is broadcast live on sf govtv channel 78, and will be rebroadcast friday afternoon at 3:00 p.m. dvd's of the proceedings are available from svgov tv. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings, and have the board give your

evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right hand and swear or affirm now. president fung and members of the commission, we have four housekeeping items this evening. the first is that the closed session, which is item number four on the calendar, has been cancelled by the president. item number five has been withdrawn. this is a jurisdiction request regarding 278 monticello street. item 11 has also been withdrawn. this is appeal number 17-197 regarding an alteration permit at 148 saturn street, and the parties to item number ten are requesting a continuance to march 21st so they may continue to work out a settlement. this is appeal number 17-196 regarding a letter of determination as 121 rivoli street, and we need a motion in

order to move that to march 21st. >> so moved. >> thank you. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus. is there any opposition to moving that matter to march 21st? [ roll call. ] >> okay. thank you. that motion passes. item number one is general public comment. this is a chance for anyone who would like to address the board on a matter within the board's subject matter jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there any general public comment? seeing none, and item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. any items, commissioners? >> no item three is your consideration of the regular and special abort meetings that were held on february 21st, 2018. >> any modifications or corrections? if not, motion to accept. >> so moved. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes?

okay. seeing none, then, we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt the minutes. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> okay. thank you so much. that motion passes. so as we mentioned, item four has been cancelled. item five has been withdrawn, so we will now call item number six. item six is a jurisdiction request. the subject property is at 440 to 442 vallejo street. mortez saidi is requesting that the board take jurisdiction over a permit which was issued on march 18, 2016 by the department of building inspection. the appeal period ended on april 4e, 2016, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the office on february eighth, 2018. the owner is leo nanardo bronc

[ inaudible ] replace window and back ups on rear side of house, and we will start with the requester. [ inaudible ] >> please step forward. >> he's not sure. >> can you speak into the microphone, please. >> my attorney's not here. can we be delayed, give it some time for him to come here? >> we'll move your case to the next one. >> i appreciate it. >> thank you. so we'll hold number six off and call item seven. item seven is appeal number 17-189, joe kenas versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval. property is at 524 to 528 valencia street. protesting the issuance on november 20, 2017 to nilesh patel to comply with notice of violation. several notice of violations for exterior work only and readvise building permit

0299058944, local equivalency ab 019, modifications to rear fire escape drop-down. this actually was heard on february 7, 2018, and was continued on that date. the board voted 4-0 with one, commissioner lazarus absent, to allow time for dba to evaluate when the plans are in compliance with ab-19, and commissioner lazarus? >> yes, i have reviewed the material and watched the prior hearing. >> great. thank you so much. so i think we can start with inspector duffy, who can report back to the board on his research. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, dbi. the architect, mr. mora, did contact us at dbi. we can't get contacted until this week, so you may not have any of these documents yet. i don't think you have, but we

had a meeting this morning with senior building inspector mark walls from our plan check division, and mr. mora and mr. walls spoke about the permit that was issued. and we would like the plans that mr. mora has presented to me this evening here to be adopted instead of the plans that were under appeal. they now meet all of the requirements of ab-19. there's a little change in the latter, and i can have the architect explain that, as well, but basically, the ladder is a lot safer now. it's going to have, like, rails on it. the occupant load is addressed, so there was some stuff in the last drawings that i knew were -- we did need to review, and i'm happy to report that we're in a lot better position than we were on the previous plans, so i can have the architect speak to that, and i'm available for any

questions. >> okay. let's hear from the architect. >> thank you. >> just go to the microphone. >> have these plans been provided to the appellant? >> yes. members of the commission, patrick mora, architect. the meeting this morning with mark walls, from dbi, and he's a very knowledgeable person on this subject was very successful in terms of agreeing to provide a swinging counterbalance incline ladder instead of the drop-down ladder. this is a much safer proposition, and he recommended highly that we use this. the drawings that i have here -- and i apologize they are really late. we had trouble collecting information -- they describe the ladder, and i'm going to

put it on the overhead. the elevates here shows the existing ladder that was removed here, as we discussed last time. the ladder that mr. king was asking us to replace, facing this way, and the new proposed drop-down ladder incline right here. so this is what came out of the meeting this morning, and i think it's a much safer proposition. mr. walls signed this drawing just an hour ago, and he

explains here that -- he says this stamp constitutes preapproval for the advised counterbalance ladder with handrails to be installed in existing firescape landing. the formal approval to be forth coming, coinciding with dba requirements, and he signed, mark walls. the other drawing that i have here to show you is the -- the plan -- the plan of the proposed exit, here's a door coming out from the restaurant. and one of the things that he wanted to make sure is that we have a fire ready door coming out here, and the drop-down ladder affecti ladder afacing this wa ladder is facing this way, and the minimum requirement of ab-19 coming out this way and

going onto 16th street. all of these drawings are based on ab-19 and ab-18 as required by mr. walls. as already mentioned, everything is as required. thank you. >> what's the date of these two drawings? >> pardon? >> the date of these two drawings. >> the date is today, today. yeah. i have 11 copies here, just in case. >> okay. thank you. >> can you please make sure that at least one copy is provided to mr. quintera? okay. mr. kenas. >> thank you. joe kenas. i'm a resident of crown hotel -- >> i'm sorry, sir, could you speak into the microphone there. >> joe kenas. i'm a tenant at the crown hotel, 528 valencia, just south of 16th. this drawing that i was handed

yesterday does not have the new application. it just has what was presented back on the 7th of february , and even the owner handed me an identical copy just know now a came in the room. it has an arrow on it, a dashed arrow showing what i guess is their idea of the illustration of a counterbalanced ladder, so i haven't had any time, really, to look at it. it's basically at fault because my suggestion earlier presented in early february was that the new ladder face the north away from the door of the restaurant and therefore avoid the continuing problem of the restaurant using the area under the firescape -- fire escape as

a back room storage area for items that are not needed in their restaurant all the time. so the housing department as a desk of the dbi has never had any success in controlling that egress being kept clear under the fire escape, and it was all because the owner wanted to give the restaurant a back room under the fire escape where the egress path is, and that will continue with this counterbalanced ladder going down to the south as it's shown here on this drawing that i was handed just now a few minutes ago. if i may, if i have time to go back to february 7th, we had been discussing not the ab-019, but the california fire code, which gives the termination of

a building of this capacity as being either a swing-down ladder or a rigid ladder as begun, and it was put in, again, without a building permit on the 12th of april, and it was not until december 4th that the 30-day, the 60-day, and the 90-day limits on the job were overcome, and the permit was requested. i would ask that you people just put -- decide that the original ladder be reinstated if it can't be reversed. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, then, commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> comments?

>> so i would -- mr. duffy. so judging from the appellant's questions now, is -- his real concern is a violation which may occur not with the construction of the ladder, which you are affirming is -- would be legal construction according to statute, but rather a violation that would happen post construction after a -- a fully legal ladder is put in, which would be a different discussion from what we are evaluating tonight. for his information, and for mine, as well, would you tell

us if theat were to occur, if there was a violation and an egress was blocked, a fire egress was blocked, where should that complaint or notice of violation or complaint go to so there is a notice of violation given to a building owner? >> well, you would have several options there. you could call the building inspection, and a building inspector would go out. housing inspection would even go out. there's tenants in the building, and also, the fire department because of the commercial occupancy on the ground floor. i assume it's an "a" occupancy on the ground floor, so that fouls under the fire department, as well. so you've got three options, and we don't like to see exit paths blocked. they're not supposed to be, and if the commission would like to put some language in there that fore bids that, we're fine with

that, but fire escape paths are not supposed to be blocked. >> was there been a safety notice for issued regarding the blocked egress? >> no, not that i'm aware of. i do have one notice of violation. the only one i have which was relevant to the permit which complaint investigation revealed -- [ inaudible ] without the benefit of a building permit. mr. walls in the meeting this morning did explain that the new configuration, and i think you saw it on the plans there, it's got reels, and a lot of people who are trying to use the escape, they actually fall off of the escape because there's no handrails on here in a state of panic. this ladder works better in a state of emergency, so we thought it was a better configuration, and mr. mora

obviously agreed with that. so i'm confident in the solution based on mr. walls's recommendation. i'm not experienced in dealing with this. he did go into obviously in these older buildings in san francisco, we are in a predicament with the older-type fair escapes. if this were another building, you wouldn't be allowed to do this, but with the older building, we are stuck with existing conditions, and in the case of an emergency, we try to provide the best possible case of escape without injury. >> and was there a penalty associated with that notice of violation? >> i did not check that. i would assume there was. and the notice of violation, there was nine times permit fee on a value of $2,000. >> okay. >> and i assume there was a penalty on the permit. i didn't -- i don't think i checked on that, but normally,

when we have those on, there would be a penalty for that. i can look into that if it was missed. we can always add it later. i assume it was. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> comments? i'll note for the record that the counterbalance fire escape now in that direction takes it away from the exiting path, which i think is probably what they want to do. it's probably much safer than was presented before, and i'm prepared to support. >> concur. >> concur. going to make a motion,

president. >> excuse me. turn it off. move to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the revised drawings showing a change in the fire escape design based on the drawings dated today, february 27th. -- 27th? >> 28th. >> or 28th. >> and the basis for that? >> is that it now conforms to building code. >> okay. so we have a motion from the president to grant the appeal, issue the permit on the condition that it be revised, showing a change in the fire escape design to reflect the plans submitted at the hearing today, february 28th, 2018,

and that is on the basis that it now conforms to the building code. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> thank you. that motion passes. mr. saidi, is your attorney here? mr. saidi here? okay. now we've lost them both. shall we move on, president, to item eight? >> okay. he's not in the room at all? >> i don't see him. >> could be meeting with counsel outside. >> okay. let's move to the next one, then. >> we'll now call item eight, appeal 17-0155, maher memarzadeh versus san francisco public works, department of forestry, protesting the permit issued march 28, 2017, a request to remove two street

trees, location and placement of street tree subject to final approval of public works, and we'll start with the appellant, the appellant's representative. >> good evening. my name is ray leggett. i'm a consulting arborist, and i'm working for doctr. maher memarzadeh, and i wanted to point out he is here in the room if you have questions, and also his attorney is here who assisted with the brief, so if there are questions, you can direct them to them, as well. so there are two existing street trees in front of his building, which is on courtland

avenue and these existing street trees are heavily infested with scale insects, and they also have a disease that's called city mold that's affected the foliage. they only have a small amount left, and it is in small in color, i took a sample and intended on bringing it today, but it was so black in color after storing it in any refrigerator that i decided not to bring it. the urban department of forestry approved the removal of these trees, and really, the discussion is what is planted back and how many trees. so upon removal of the existing trees, dr. maher memarzadeh proposes that two columbia trees be planted and maintained

according to a pruning plan that we submitted with our brief and would be subject to a maintenance agreement with bureau of urban forestry. alternate tree species suggested by bureau of urban forestry are more problematic and less suited to this site because the smaller species are or would be inappropriate where they would obstruct vehicles and pedestrians and would obscure the storefrontages. many of the species on their suggested replacement list were every bit as plarge as the platinous species. those, also, we consider to be inappropriate. planting two columbia type platinous trees instead of one

is consistent with the bureau of urban forestry, who will normally support a one-for-one replacement or require it. the owner wishes to have a one for one replacement, so the trees would be planted back. other trees are in the immediate vicinity and in identical sites and performing well and don't require additional space. crown reduction pruning, which is part of the san francisco pruning standard and the anca pruning standard, which is industry wide, the -- the crown reduction pruning methods have been utilized in some form on most trees in san francisco broadly throughout the city, and would be used for maintenance of these trees, as well. the columbia-type tree is especially well suited in the

whole world of sycamores or platinous trees because it is known to be free of any serious pest or disease. growth is more compact and dense than other types of platinous. it can be crown reduced to fit in any setting. it will remain structurally sound with crown reduction pruning. it's well adapted to limited root space, and it's known to typically cause minimal sidewalk damage. given those considerations, i can't think of a more appropriate tree for the site than a columbia-type platinous provided that it has appropriate crown reduction, which is -- which would be subject to agreement with the department of public works. so as i said, the the pruning plan is consistent with the city of san francisco pruning

standard, and it's consistent with the anca pruning standard of 2017, which is our current industry standard, and i recommend that you approve two columbia-type platinous trees for planting at this location, and that the bureau of urban forestry accept the tree plan and pruning plan that was submitted with our brief. since i got through that on time, i have a set of six photos that i just provided, and they have captions on them, and i'll run through with the overhead. so -- well, because of the captioning on the screen, you

won't be able to read what i have printed on these, but i'll read them into the record. for this tree, this is likely a columbia-type platinous tree, having a shorter space between branchs, the tree is about 18 years old and was recently thinned to create a more open interior, leaving the tree more open than we would do in dr. maher memarzadeh's case. this tree is a london plain tree. it's not compact and is not a columbia-type tree, but it does illustrate how the pruning has been done repeatedly at various levels at least ten times over the last 30 years or so. that's an example of crown reduction pruning. these trees are in front of the

el driscoll hotel. they've been reduced every two years or so, and have been there for well over 40 years, still appropriate for the site, and about the right size for what we're looking for. and this is another photo of the el driscoll trees, as well. these trees are not columbia-type london plains, but they have been reduced. this is long divisadero and kept in balance for about 40 years, as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. buck? >> good evening. chris buck with san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. so a little bit usual case before you this evening. we're not talking about the removal itself, which has already been approved, but we're talking about the

replaceme replacement species and the precise number, whether it's one replacement tree or two replacement trees. the resulting order that the department of works issued was that the trees could be removed with the understanding that they be replaced with one tree. these two trees are apart only 12 feet on center, and what i'll do is run through with some photos. we have a pretty good background on some -- so if we could have the overhead, please. this is the subject site here. it's a 25-foot-wide lot, and there's a streetlight one property over that's, like, 414 courtland, and we need -- for a large stature tree, we need at least 21 feet from the streetlight, so replacing the

platinous, that would really be a problem for us. the plan is to plant two maturity trees with two bay windows above in a space that doesn't accommodate such a large stature tree. here's an example of two platinous trees. these are not columbia, however, the columbia will be a little bit more compact. we planted these are enthusiasm under mayor newsom, and ten years later, those same two trees are dominating these facades. now, i realize i'm sullivan nes vulnerable presenting two trees that the bureau requested the planting of, but these two trees were planted much too closely together, and i want to admit where we're taken our own

mi missteps. we've taken steps to correct our mistakes in the past. this is in front of the bernal heights library. the property is set back so there's more room there. there's another platinous tree on andover. the owners have asked to remove this tree twice, and we've denied it both times. their property is set back off the property line quite a bit. one other species requested by the appellant is white mulberry which is even worse than the planinous. it gets very wide. last photo is again, the site showing 9 foot wide sidewalk. we have two bay windows above, we have two benches out on the sidewalk. the platinous are a large stature tree and will require sidewalk repair overtime, so our concern, really, is, you

know, this is a 9 foot sidewalk, a very narrow space for any street tree, let alone a large stature tree at maturity. in terms of a compromise, we would approve -- my understanding is the applicant has a desire to have a very large stature tree, very vertical in nature. there was some discussion of trying to create this pillar of hercules, and there just is not enough room for two large stature tree at this site. we would concede to allowing one large stat you are tree at this side, a planinous columbia. we could meet halfway and say with your commitment to prune and your desire to have a tree that you'd really love to have out there, there's room for one platinous columbia. there's not room for two trees. there's no way we're going to be able to justify allowing two large stature trees at this

site. the spacing is only 12 feet apart. our recommendation for that species would be 25 to even 35 feet spacing, and i think i showed some compelling photos to show what happens when they plant these trees too closely together. we do have a number of species on our recommended list that are medium sized stature. spacing for medium sized stature trees is actually 20 to 25 feet on center. small stature trees spacing between trees is 15 to 20 feet. and again, the facing here is only 12 feet, which is why when we went to the department of public works hearing, we said it's removal of two are replacement of one because we didn't juan two trees right next to each other. so the answer from department of public work was removal of both trees. they're not the greatest trees in the world. we know we all would love one

for one replacement if there's space in the public right-of-way. but there's no. another concession, in addition to allowing one platinous columbia trees to be planted here, is allowing 2 feet, 12 feet apart, with assurance by the property owner that they'll fill in some of the pruning between our pruning cycles. so i feel we have two points of compromise. again, allowing one columbia, one platinous columbia or two medium stat you are trees, and -- stature trees and we have lists of what are available. little bit of an unusual case, but we're looking -- looking to your commission to -- to see us through. we do -- public works does feel strongly that we have full jurisdiction over this matter. we have a director's order that

regulates the planting and placement and spacing of trees in the public right-of-way. that said, it can be easier to approve a really large tree for removal, versus telling someone no what they want to plant. we feel like we're preventing them from having some freedom of choice in this matter, but i feel like we have two possible compromises. thank you. >> can i ask you a question -- you want to go first? >> go ahead. >> so if you have two compromises, and you're ready to move on this, why are we -- why don't we meet on this again at some future time down the road so you guys can have a meeting and work it out for yourselves rather than us telling you what to do on this? i don't understand that, but is -- would that be okay? >> it would. it would. >> i just want to know that. thank you. >> just to be clear, these two

compromises are not presented to the appellant? >> they're probably only learning about it this evening or early this afternoon. i mean, we -- well, i should counter that. i mean, we -- we have been providing lists of species that are medium size, and we'd say okay, you can have two trees. that was your request. they really wanted two trees, but all the species that we've outlined on our guideline have not been met with favor on their part, and so we -- there has been an ongoing discussion, so i do worry a little bit. you know, i think it's helpful to be here before you to either resolve it tonight or just get that sort of message as commissioner swig just offered, which is to heavily encourage both parties to try to resolve it ourselves. >> mr. buck, so what would you say to -- i mean, what is your rebuttal to the examples that they've shown regarding

existing similar-type trees that are in the close proximity and that with, i guess crowning and thinning. >> so the -- urban environments are very challenging, and one message i'd have for the appellant is there's a dwyesir on private property and traditional settings to be able to match things in the public environment, and our dense urban is really able to did that. with all the streetlights and atilts in place, we just don't have the ability to match existing species. we really want to emphasize the right tree in the right place. let's not plant a tree in an area that we know already is going to require crown reduction. it's not a great practice. it's in the guidelines, but it's certainly not in the guidelines of what's in best practice for a tree. so we're not in support of the

idea of needing to do crown reduction on a regular basis. properties change hands, and it's going to burden either the property owner or public works with having to prune these trees in a manner that we can't keep up with it. >> and when you say crowning on a regular basis, give me an example of how often that would happen, and what would that entail. >> so my sense is that the desire of the applicant would be to allow the tree to grow, get to a certain height, and then, it's going to require annual pruning to essential try to hold it in place. that said, it's going to sprout every spring, and you're going to have branchs and leaves up against the facade of the building. so it's really not a long-term viable plan. now with one species, we could see giving in and saying, that would be okay, but two together, that tight space between each other, that's a deal breaker for us, along with

that really narrow sidewalk. >> okay. go ahead. >> just i was going to say, they indicated they would be pruning every year. >> correct. they would need to prune every year, and that's even with a single tree, but the two trees that tightly spaced, there's just not enough room for the trees. i mean, the trees that we planted, i showed the before and after on with ten years, those are still babies. you know, those trees can go for 40 to 50 years, and they're really not slowing down. >> follow up, what is your pruning cycle? >> our pruning cycle -- >> normally would be covered by public works? >> correct. so our pruning cycle at public works would be three to five years, which will begin in a couple years from now. >> sorry. >> just to be clear, the second option that you offered of two trees, smaller variety, i think you were still compromising on the amount of space that you would ideally have, right?

>> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, then, we'll take rebuttal from the appellant. >> excuse me for a second. dow folks feel the need to negotiate in the hallway so we can resolve this tonight? >> well. >> perhaps your client would want to answer that. >> i'd leave that up to dr. maher memarzadeh to respond. >> do you feel any options to negotiate right now and see if there's a reasonable compromise acceptable to both parties? [ inaudible ] >> okay. i'm just asking the question. otherwise, we will continue.

all right. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. fung. first of all, the example trees that mr. buck put up that showed ten years of growth on two trees in front of a property where they planted, those appeared to be to are yarwood type plapinous trees. they have a big leaf and fast growth. the interleave growth is more than columbia, so they grow tall and lanky very quickly. mr. buck indicated there's a 14 foot requirement from a streetlight, and we have 13 feet, well, i think that -- >> 21 feet. >> okay. well, i think that with the pruning plan, if the pruning plan is considered, then,

clearance of streetlights, as well as buildings will be fully accommodated proce accommodated proactively well beyond the point of obstructing some streetlight. it's going to be a very simple process of keeping these trees trimmed on a regular basis, and with annual pruning, there won't be an opportunity for the tree to obstruct the streetlight at 13 feet or 14 feet, whatever it is. mulberry was suggested during our prior negotiations because this has been rescheduled on your agenda several times, and this has been going on for several months. mulberry is not any longer what we are asking for, so those photographs from mr. buck, i don't think were addressing what is at hand today. columbia is not what i would call a quote, unquote, large stature tree as with other platinous trees because it has

a more compact growth root pattern and simply does not become as large as fast as some of these trees. there's no -- there's no example from my photos to show 25 feet or more spacing between trees, which is what mr. buck said would be necessary, so all of these photos that i just provided you today show trees that have closer spacings than that, and some of them as close as the two that we're talking about, of 12 feet. this particular type of tree is not what i would call a large stature tree. we have photographs here of trees that have been growing in front of these residential properties in pacific heights for 40 and more years, and they're still not more than a moderate size tree. so medium stature trees, as

suggested by bureau of urban forestry tend to be broad crowned and spreading trees, and i think that those are less appropriate than the trees that we're suggesting. thank you. >> i have a question, sir. how tall -- what's the -- without pruning, how tall will these trees get if you did not prune them? >> the columbia sycamore in our environment will reach probably 40 feet or so if it's not pruned at all. >> and the second question is, in perpetuity, your client sells the property, who is then going to manage these trees? >> there is a provision under the department of public works code that perhaps would best be addressed by dr. maher memarzadeh's attorney, mr. gutierrez, so i would be most comfortable with him answering -- >> if mr. gutierrez would like

to answer that question. >> okay. >> come forward, sir. >> good evening, commissioners. francisco gutierrez, attorney for the appellant. there are two ways to handle that. so first in the public works code, there's a statute that allows private parties to take on street tree maintenance by entering agreements with the department of public works. >> no, the question is in perpetuity, if your client sells the property, does something else with the property, who would be responsible for the pruning of that said tree? >> one of the proposals we have made to bureau of urban forestry in support of the trees that the appellant desires is to record a pruning requirement with the property itself with title to the property so that if title should ever be conveyed, although dr. maher memarzadeh does envision holding onto this property for quite sometime. >> so a deed restriction nsr to the property. >> exactly, so the restriction would run with the property, and that way, assure that the

tree is properly maintained and does not grow to the stature that -- >> okay. that answers my question. thank you very much. >> sorry. >> we're going to take rebuttal from mr. buck. >> good evening. chris buck with department of public work department of urban forestry. if i could just have the overhead. every year, the urban forestry reviews the species, our street tree planting list just trying to make sure we inject some new varieties into the urban forest, as well as removing from trees that might noting doing well and need to be removed from the list. but we classify platinous in this as large stature, and

deciduous. we do list this as a large stature species at maturity. mr. legget said it may have a slower growth rate. that may be true, but it's still not enough to sway us into an approval situation. it probably is good that we're here before you because it has been difficult to, you know, stress these points that public works doesn't want to plant trees that closely together. this is a 9 foot wide sidewalk. on private property. it's still larger, the wild west. people can do what they want, and they can maintain and commit to a world of maintenance. we really don't want that in the public right-of-way. we're often here before you dealing with trees that have created understandable maintenance issues, so we're really here to avoid -- avoid that and i appreciate the

applicant and giving us a chance to speak, but i feel there's room for one platinous out here. it may noti be the pillar of te er eric -- hercules. i looked at google street view, and i looked if there would be room for another platinous just a few doors down, but there's a lot of utility poles out there. i appreciate what they're trying to do it out there, but i just don't see the space to make it possible. thank you. >> question, mr. buck. the question i made to the applicant was in perpetuity, what did you plan to do? i've been in a situation where people had really good ideas to start with, sold the property, and the tree became 60 feet.

[ inaudible ] -- to the property. i mean, to me, that sounds like they're putting their money where their mouth is and are willing to back this up with -- with a deed restriction if it doesn't -- if they're not taking care of it, so what would be your rebuttal to that? >> i would say let's do that for the single species, the single specimen that we allow. two is out of the question. just -- it's too tight a space, 12 feet. it's a virtual -- it is a theoretical urban forest, where we don't let things -- you over plant and just cull as necessary. >> but what do you think of the example of divisadero street where he showed that tree in close proximity.

i don't have a measuring tape, but those trees looked 12 to 15 feet apart. >> they were very young, so very young trees just starting out, so still far from ever reaching maturity s. >> do you have an example of of these trees in close proximity? >> not with these platinous trees, columbia. >> okay. i have a question. anybody else? you know, we have two tree experts who disagree on almost everything. >> dualing arreborists. >> and i'll throw in something, too. you are probably too young to remember the redoing of market street. didn't they plant sycamores there? >> yes. >> which was a disaster because of the droppings. >> the wind has been difficult on that cultivar of sycamores.

those were planted sort of shoulder to shoulder, so sort of in an esplanade, so to speak. side by side, they are close together, but in the longview, there's plenty of spacing between them as you move down the street. they have as much space as they possible need, but the wind keeps them from doing much out there. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> you know, i'm still of the camp that if the -- we're not tree experts -- anybody on this panel a tree expert? i don't think that would -- i'm not, but i think the -- mr. buck presents a good case.

i also lean towards the property owner in his desire to have two trees in front of his building. i would, in the interests of the opportunity of compromise to find two trees of a different species and the willingness of urban forestry to move towards that compromise. i would still suggest to the appellant that he do so, but barring that, i would suggest that we go with mr. buck's recommendation because i didn't see a pressing need or a guarantee that the appellant's recommendation was the best. >> usually, i do support the -- the department. they are definitely tree huggers and tree lovers. mr. buck, in this particular case, a lot of people do have desire, as i mentioned, and they have really great

intentions but don't follow it up. this particular permit holder is willing to put a special note, nsr, notice of special restrictions on the property, and what that basically means is that even if the property transfers ownership, becaupart the ownership is they're taking on also that responsibility of that. not many people are willing to take that financial responsibility, and to put that up, so in this particular case, i feel that i would allow the two trees to be removed and replaced with the desired species of their choice. >> i am not supportive of the -- of the two trees. nsr's are fine, but somebody has to fulfill the obligation, and if they don't, then, it's going to fall to the city to pursue it, so i would either go for the two smaller trees or a continuance so that they can work out which of the other options is preferable. >> right now, i think it's only one tree, right? >> no, two smaller trees or one

of -- >> no. he's saying that if it's the smaller stature trees that he may be amenable to that if they can find a species that they're mutually agreeable on. yes, there is the more pragmatic issue of how do you enforce this, and it's probably a real issue, but the other side of me is saying geez, why can't somebody plant a tree that they like? that sort of bothers me that you can't do certain things. if you're promising to maintain it, and i would hope there's some way that that could transfer into a better enforcement mechanism. but i'm kind of supportive of allowing some latitude on what

property owners can do. >> so i would -- i couwould ec your position, president fung. the problem that we always face here is that we make -- you know, we make decisions that have permanance in a temporary world. the owner of the property will not own the property, most likely -- i hate to put a -- >> time stamp on it. >> an end to an life or whatever, but, you know, those trees are going to be there -- those trees, if planted, will be there most likely longer than the owner of the property. we're making a very permanent decision, and with a temporary resolution, which i'm absolutely sure the current property owner will live up to his end of the bargain. there's no doubt about that in my mind. he's probably a kind and ethical man.

but what happens in -- in the rest of time and in the permanent, and that's what bugs me is that we allow -- and this could be a physical building we're talking about, too. this last permanently and probably exceeds the life cycle or term of the residence and has a permanent impact on the neighborhood and the surroundings, and that's really what's getting in the way of me agreeing with you. >> well, perhaps i could propose this, then. to the appellant, it doesn't appear that you're going to win your vote here and allow you to do what you want to do. do you want an opportunity to try to negotiate with the department on smaller stature trees to be able to get your two trees and of a species that both of you can agree upon? otherwise, we'll take a vote now, and i don't think you're

going to win, okay? >> and if you could -- >> and if you're going to answer, please come up to the podium, either your representative or the applicant. >> i'm willing to continue if there's some possibility of you folks arriving at an agreement. >> so we have been negotiations. that's why we're here now, as opposed to earlier. so my client would agree to a continuance to -- >> okay. >> correct, to -- >> this that okay, mr. buck. [ inaudible ] >> okay. >> agreed. >> how much time do you folks

need? madam director, do you have a suggestion? >> it doesn't look -- >> march 21st. >> just got worse than it already was. >> april? >> april 11th? >> yes, that might be better. >> april 11th. >> yes. okay. >> move to continue this hearing to allow the parties to research a resolution on their own with a continuance to april 11th. >> and if you folks arrive at an agreement, then, you could withdraw this, you know, okay? all right. okay. >> we sure have been punting a lot. >> i know, huh? >> okay. so the motion from the vice president is to continue this appeal to april 11th, 2018 to allow the parties to further discuss settlement. on that