indicates -- are you licensed to have one lot or two lots in. >> one lot. >> okay. and then, also in the brief, i believe it's indicated that this was at an unauthorized lot. >> right. >> okay. so how many vehicles do you have in total between -- how many vehicle do you have in your legal lot and how many do you have in your illegal lot? >> i have most of them in my legal lot, just when we are full there, we take vehicles to our overflow. >> so how many are there? >> in my legal lot? >> correct. >> we have 20. >> and then, are you authorized to take those other properties into the overflow lot? are they authorized to be there? >> i had told officer fornaris, and he said yes. >> okay. thank you. >> i have one question. what you presented in terms of the notification for a tow was not in your brief. >> that was in the previous brief that mr. la lanne was

submitting as far as evidence since the beginning with enterprise because that was one of their frequent customers, alamo, enterprise, all of the rental companies. so mr. la lanne submitted, that wasn't something that i was going on when they filed their brief because she filed for the june -- for this hearing today. most of it was the same and then some of it was newly arrived incidents. >> okay. that leads me to -- are you skun done, mr. president? -- are you done, mr. president? the other question i had was on the overhead, it indicates this was computer generated, and it indicates there was a ride along. can you produce the invoices? because when i've gotten towed, they've always asked me to sign something. do you have that in your brief? >> i do not have those. >> okay. thank you.

>> thank you. we will now move onto public comment. >> you'll have time under rebuttal, sir. >> we don't have rebuttal. >> oh, but we can ask you later. >> we did -- >> let's hear public comment. >> good evening, board. my name is frank moore. i, afford, was not contacted by -- for the record was not contacted by officer fornaris. i sought him out because of my experience. i did submit -- i think officer fornaris gave you the written documentation. i have another copy here, but i'm going to go here. there's three basically sets or four sets of things that i'll be referring to on the elmo here. i was on my way to the east bay on march 15, 2018, and i was on

the north 280, where it cuts over to the 101 on the way to the 80. and i was rear-ended. and -- while i was on the overpass. so i got out of the car. the guy that rear-ended me didn't have insurance. he said he just bought the car. i exchanged information, i took a photo of his license and his physical vehicle license, and right then, miraculously, a tow truck was there, and he was close to my car, which was onto the side of the overpass, and i noticed, emblazoned on the side, was an aaa signature. so i asked the driver, do you accept aaa?

he said yes. i said yes? perfect timing, and i need you to take me off this freeway. the driver is present here. he's the furthest right in the second row in the uniform with the ponytail. he -- he gave me a card, which is attached to this letter as an exhibit. right here. on the way, he told me that he's not taking me to this yard that's on the -- on the card, but to some overflow yard, and he gave me the address. it wasn't in fact the address

there, it was a digit or two off. what i ended up doing is having the car delivered in that lot. i gave him my aaa card, a copy of which is here. he took a photograph of it, and he had me sign a -- a blank receipt, and i didn't get a copy of it. and so -- >> please finish up, sir. >> okay. i left, went to the east bay, came back, was worried that my car that i -- that i had left this car with some people that were going to do something to it. so i went back to the yard the next morning, and i tried to retrieve my car because i had another tow truck company take it to the audio owe body shop. i had to -- auto body shop. i had to wait 1.5 hours for somebody to arrive. the person is in the very back

row, the far left. he unlocked the yard. he then said that he wasn't going to wait for my tow truck, that he was going to lock the car back up, and i said well, i need to get the car out. and he said not unless you pay, and i said well, i gave you the -- i gave your driver yesterday the aaa card. he said tough, we don't take aaa. i said, why do you have a patch on your arm? >> sir, you did exceed this time quite a bit. >> okay. bottom line was that i couldn't get my car out without paying $905. >> okay. thank you. next speaker. >> question. how long was your vehicle in the lot for $905? >> less than 24 hours. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> alexandra holguin. i was wrongfully towed.

>> you can move the mic down. >>ist wrongfully towed, and i have the evidence to support it. i would like to say that i reached out to the officer, as well. this was my evidence just to reach out to him, so he did not reach out to me. i sent him an e-mail with all of my evidence. so i'll start with just how my vehicle got towed. i was towed from a burger king parking lot. i was there working on my laptop. i saw them when they were near my vehicle. unfortunately motorola had a ddos attack during the time that i was in there, so by the time that i got out, it was already hooked up. so where i ran into trouble is the fact that i called them multiple times for several hours and there was no communication back whatsoever. i ended up having to call the

sfpd line so that i could get the address because at that time, there was no address on google maps or their website. actually, they didn't even have a website. so i go there the next day, early in the morning, and what ended up happening is i tried to get the property agreement because upon arrival, you are allowed to get the property agreement as well as a written authorization of the tow. they were unable to provide me with either of those things. i had to actually call the non-emergency line, which is right here. this is just the c.a.d. number, so that they could actually give me the proper paperwork. i eventually did get a property agreement, however, the property agreement that they gave me was the incorrect property agreement. see, i was towed from the burger king on valencia street, which is a private property.

all burger kings are private property, and they're owned by different owners. this right here is a private property agreement for the burger king on bayshore. that is the incorrect property agreement. but even given this, they still did not provide me with a written authorization at the time of the tow. so then, i go to -- i did not want to pay additional fees. they said that after 24 hours, i would be charged an additional $85, so even though it is cutting it short, if you want to look up here, it's the time that they actually towed my vehicle, i arrived at jose's towing probably around 11:00 in the morning. they couldn't provide me anything. i was refusing to pay for it, but what ended up happening is right before i hit that 24-hour deadline, i paid for it.

it did not surpass 24 hours. this paper proves that it did not pass -- surpass 24 hours, yet they still charged me an additional $85. so if you look right here, i was charged for two days. >> okay. we need to wrap up, ma'am. thank you. >> okay. the last thing is i did send them an e-mail stating everything, and gave them the opportunity to refund me. they did not respond. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your time. i, too, did not offer -- officer fornaris did not call me, i sought him out. my incident happened on june 8, in the mission district, around the 4700 block of mission. i was parked at a burger king in the back, at a taqueria.

my wife and i went to grab some food, come out. my probably got there about 1:45-ish, maybe. we went in, grabbed our food, and per-jose's towing time check, they were called at 1:55 by a mysterious undercover security agent. and by 2:05, i was towed. and here on my receipt from the taqueria, it actually shows we grabbed our food at 2:11. we're talking maybe ten minutes, and $335 later. we caught an uber and were there in less than an hour. i explained to them that there's a one-hour rule, that you can't tow within -- you can tow after an hour but not

within an hour, and this clearly shows, the evidence i have here, that i was not even ten, 12 minutes, and still never found the security guard that they said signed for the tow. so, again, this whole thing about officer fornaris, again, i sought him out. he didn't seek me out, and i thank him for his time, and i really wish and hope that you consider everybody's testimony here because what they're doing is wrong. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. could you give us the date again when this incident happened, sir? >> yeah. it was friday, june 8, in the mission district, on the 4700 block of mission. it was again at 1:45-ish when my wife and i got there. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> thank you. >> good evening, everyone. >> you can move the mic. yeah, there you go. >> thank you for your time. just as everyone else has mentioned, i actually sought the district attorney's office out who actually referred me to officer -- i'm sorry, fornaris. and same situation as thea who spoke before me. me and my husband and my daughter arrived at the burger king on valencia approximately at 10:20, and we ordered food at 10:32. here's my receipt, and we ate there for about 45 minutes. 45 minutes later, we came out, and my car was gone. there are signs everywhere that says if you're not a burger king customer, your car will be towed. so i ran inside burger king

frantic, saying i ate here. you guys saw me. the woman reprinted my receipt, and said take it to jose's towing and tell them that you were here. here's the paperwork that jose's provided me which is literally within minutes of the time that my car was towed, so literally upon arrival, my car was towed. it seems to me that they're actually waiting outside, watching the burger king property. >> i'm sorry to interrupt. is there a time on that? can you raise that up a little bit? >> there's actually two times, and i spoke to their receptionist at jose's towing to verify what each time means. according to here, 10:23 is when they received a phone call, that i got confirmation from the employees at burger king. no one called, and at 10:33 was

the time that my car was actually hooked and towed. and literally, my receipt at burger king says 10:32. so ultimately, you know, i would just like to be reimbursed for this. i know there's a lot of gentlemen here who work for jose's towing. i have family, and i wouldn't want anyone to lose their job. i just hope they have better business practices in the future, and yeah, that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. commissioners. my name is tony wong, and i would also like to go on the record by stating that i seeked out officer fornaris. so last friday, june 14, my car was towed from the burger king parking lot.

i run back up the alley, run back up the street -- let me show you guys a picture of how the parking lot looks like. so he was going out the entranceway, and i stopped him at the front, and i said hey, i've only been out ten minutes. he said hey, i'll do it across the street. so i went across the street, and he gets on his phone, and he tells me, he can't hook it off, and he said i have to go to the lot. he gives me a card to go to. the guy on the phone tells me, like, wait, a driver's going to come. i waited for, like, 30 minutes, and this is the same driver that towed my car. he came up to me and asked, did he tell you how much it was going to be? i said no. he says it's going to be 505 on

a credit card, or $460 cash. i'm thinking, since he already lied to me once, i want the document because i'm afraid he's lying to me. i started searching up my towing rights, and i found out that on -- i found the vehicle code. it states that a car cannot be towed from a parking lot unless one hour has passed, and even with that, they would need a written authorization from the property owner from burger king, but i feel like they did not get that because when they was releasing the car to me, they was supposed to give me a written authorization, but they did not. this is the other vehicle code, 2 -- 22658, and on here, on page five, it states that the towing company should provide either written authorization from the property when i come to pick up my car or a general

authorization agreement between burger king and the company, stating that they could tow my car, but only if my car was unlauchlly parked in the parking lot, such as blocking in front of a fire hydrant, blocking a parking space. i feel like they did not have the right to tow my car, and now i'm out $465. >> do you have a copy of your receipt, can you put that on the overhead, please. >> yeah, it has some identifying information on there. >> you can bend it over. that's fine >> just move it. it says 250. >> 85 for storage and 125 for gate fee. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is tatia galvez,

and -- sorry. okay. so basically, i just want to say our car was towed after they -- like, 15, 20 minutes, we were -- we went to get food, came back, our car was being towed. they said they would put it down if we give them 125. so i called my mom, i said, can i give me 125 so they can take my car down. she said okay. my mom came and give me the money. but he wouldn't do it, so he said now, you have to wait until my boss got here. but the other guy, he said put it down once the money's here. so when the money came, he didn't want to put our car down. he said no, you've got to wait until our boss arrives, which i guess was jose. he didn't want to put the car

down. my mom says, we don't want to discuss this with you. can i get a business card. he literally just walked away. my mom followed him, and asked can i get a business card, and he turned around and pushed her. our car was being towed, he put his hands on my mom. it was the day after my birthday. we were trying to talk to them, and they were just trying to get their money and go, and there was multiple cars at the same time; and they were trying to tow a car out while our car was on the scene. they were just trying to tow cars and go, just real quick, like, get their money. and i also got this -- oh, and we picked up our car. they said 125. we went to the scene in three hours, and they charged us $500 to pick up the car. within -- it was the day -- we

got it at 3:45 that same day we picked it up, and we had to pay $500 to get the car out. and also, they unprofessional for me because i get there with the money, and the guy was working. they say they professional, the best towing in the city, right? but for me, it's not true because the guy was driving with a lady inside the car -- the towing truck, and his wife, so i don't think that she works for the company, too. so i don't -- this is unprofessional, and they have to respect the deal they did, so -- but they didn't. so -- >> yeah. >> may i see the receipt again, please. >> the receipt? >> receipt again. >> can you put it up for a second while i copy something down. thank you. and while you were there, how many vehicles did you observe being towed? >> yeah, there was three -- there was one being towed, and

there was ours already on the thing, and there was a fiat, a white fiat being towed, and a guy came angry saying why his car getting towed, he's been living there for 33 years. it's crazy. >> and also, i have different cars, and i have towing by the city, and i was one time at the place, and they release my car. they give me a ticket. i'm okay with that, but they released my car because i was present. that's what i was telling them. we are over here. you can put it down, and please, we want to pay the $125 you wanted, but they don't want it. so -- they want more money, so -- >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i think you already spoke, sir. >> yeah, i just -- well, i wanted to comment on -- >> no, you've already spoken. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> okay. we will now -- we have another public speaker, my apologies. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm officer thomas with the san francisco police department, and my main function is i'm in the commercial vehicle unit, and officer fornaris, he handles the permitting. >> i think this is the time for public comment. are you starting the rebuttal? >> okay. their time is up. >> my apologies. yeah, the time is up, right? now we're at public comment, and since you're with the police department, you're a party. >> i'm part of the public, too. >> no, but you're a the -- >> okay. >> thank you. >> fine. >> thank you. okay. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i have a question. >> questions? go ahead. >> i think i'll ask officer fornaris because maybe he knows collectively the answer. >> well, the time's up for all

that. >> can i ask you a question? >> sure. >> are you familiar with these various tows from burger king? >> yes. i have other victims who are on paper. >> okay. you're familiar with all of them? >> yes. >> to your knowledge were all of these cars in the burger king lot? >> no. let me get my -- there's a one hour rule, california vehicle code, and everybody in the city pretty much knows it, because everybody knows that parking is, pardon my language, bad. >> they were all illegally towed in my eyes. >> illegally towed? okay. >> i have a question. >> yes, sir. >> all of these instances occurred post your revocation. >> they are the most recent. >> i know, but -- excuse me, but please summarize for us --

>> not enterprise. >> right. is it only enterprise, those two cases that occurred before you issued the revocation? >> i'd have to look at some of the dates, but i have other victims. i just -- the ones that i -- you've got to realize that a lot of victims that i have on paper are not going to show up here, and i could read them off verbatim to you, but that's just going to be my words coming from them. so these are actually -- yes, these are all post after our last -- and i wanted to bring these people here because these are all post after our last hearing here. this is how many complaints i get weekly these people come through. i can bring you the old ones, and i can show them to you all day long, but i don't think it does the justice to the victims to let them speak for ems thises. >> you have something -- themselves. >> you have something to say regarding that question, officer. >> i have officer roqua from c.h.p. to provide testimony with respect to the papers

submitted that occurred before the initial evidentiary hearing. >> this was the one adjacent to the freeway at the shell station? >> there were two citations officer roqua can speak to. >> pre -- >> prethe evidentiary hearing. >> all right. i'll ask him that question. >> thank you. >> good evening. >> can you discuss or summarize the incident that you -- >> sure. i didn't know who jose was until people brought up his name to me. i've been on the job for 22 years almost in september. i've never had so many complaints regarding one tow company. i just walk into the office, and people are bombarding me. basically, 22-513, the vehicle tow is soliciting -- >> i am sorry, sir, can you move the mic. >> yes. you cannot respond to assist somebody unless you're called

to that scene, unless they specifically call you or a police agency calls you, so i've been getting a lot of complaints jose's towing responding, picking up cars, trying to pick up cars. there's one incidents where he told one of my officers to mind his own business when he's trying to inquire why he's at the scene. so basically i've told my officers if you find any tow company that have had a c.h.p. scene, and you find they're not supposed to be there, cite them for 22-513. i've had two drivers from jose's towing, and i've had numerous communications with him over the years regarding hey, i'm getting complaints, and he keeps saying, i won't do it. i'm in charge of 15 tow companies. i have a great rapport with every single tow operator on my

rotation. i've never had a tow owner call me, be rude, inconsiderate with things. jose does it. i also have one where there was a car fire on 280 near westborough. this happened last year -- i don't have the exact -- i was sent the e-mail on september 19. the lady had aaa, so my officer was on scene, and then, when jose's driver shows up and said you're going to have to pay $270. my officer contacted aaa through a telephone number which i gave her, and she had 100 miles, and he told the driver from jose's towing, she ease got 100 miles from aaa. after a while, they just drove off because the lady didn't want to pay the 270.

i called the lady the next day, and said hey, you need to call aaa, and she didn't want it to go any further. i tried calling aaa regarding this, and they're unresponsive. i've never dealt with a company like this. i didn't seek out jose. i have operators -- tow operators, owners, calling me, service providers, jose's drivers doing this, i can't do anything, it's a misdemeanor not committed in my presence. only an officer on scene can cite someone for the 22-513. i've never dealt with somebody like this before. it's unprofessional. i did assist officer 23 ornaris going to -- fornaris going to his yard. and i did find the paperwork in the red cherokee.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> actually, i have a question for the counselor for the permit holder, and if the owner would like to come forward, it's his option, too. >> we actually have been hearing things that have never been presented in a brief. >> so counselor, can i ask the question first? >> sure zm. >> so the question is there's been receipts where it's brought before the operator, so the customer was in the business while the vehicle was being towed. and the other question as one of the public mentioned, the authorization for that lot on valencia street, it was never sent to her, it was sent to her regarding the bayshore lot. >> so i think one of those people presented a taqueria

receipt -- >> counselor -- please listen to me. >> sure, i heard your question. >> i'm asking regarding the people that produced the burger king receipt. they indicate -- they said that the receipt said 10:23, or the receipt said 10:32, and your own information from your tow yard said it was 10:23. how is that possible? >> so ultimately what my client was a contract with a burger king manager who has east bay and san francisco locations as well as along the peninsula, so there's several. the manager of all those restaurantsedn't work inside -- restaurant doesn't work inside burger king, so it's the manager that calls of all of these restaurants. my client indicates he gets a call from this manager for all of these burger kings that they work at. however when the car is food, they can walk in and order food and act as if they were there.

in some cases, there are going to be inconsistencies, but the fact of the matter is there's really no proof unless we get video from burger king showing they're actually there in the restaurant eating or they went to other businesses in the vicinity. >> okay. and the second question is is there an hour rule that someone -- you can't tow a car before an hour? >> so the hour rule exists, and it's on the poster, but it does say unless you're not using this restaurant, then, we can immediately tow, so it's a two-fer, one hour or use the burger king, and if they go to the taqueria, the manager will say they didn't even use the burger king. >> okay. >> further questions,

commissioners? if not, comments. no? anyone want to start? >> i'll start. so as i mentioned in the last hearing # being towed -- hearing, being towed, whether your vehicle is broken-down or whether you're parking illegally in someone's private lot, it's a very stressful time. being a long time resident of the city, i have several close friends that are tow operators, and they don't have any issues. looking at the briefs -- and they were quite colorful in the fact that people took their time off to explain these, and they weren't really answered off by the tow company. you know, you're -- this business is really taking advantage of people that are in a tough and tight spot. and to me, that -- that's

unacceptable. i mean, that really is unacceptable that you're going to prey on the citizens of this city, and we've heard multiple testimony that give me 125 cash, i'll drop your truck, and then, all of a sudden, it's 500 bucks or i'll move across the street and i'll release it. i mean, this is -- the people that came before us, although they predate the hearing, this all happens in the last -- since we had the hearing. i mean, to me, that's crazy. i mean, i have a family, i have a wife and children. they drive. i can't imagine if i would have someone from this company, you know, jerk my family around. i -- i think that, you know, i see all you guys in the back, and i'm sorry. this is unacceptable practice as far as i see. i mean, look at the people that are here that spent -- they had to deal with this night in and

night out. so in my mind, everything in here, he has violated it. i don't believe that he should have a -- a valid tow license here in san francisco. >> i'm in agreement in general, but i would state it slightly differently. the information that was presented in the -- in the police department's brief was countered anecdotally came from the office manager as a declaration and did not have the level of information to refute the information that was in the police brief. so i'm not supportive of the appeal. >> nor am i. >> is there a motion? >> i'll let you make it.

>> did you make the last one? >> deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not err. >> on the basis that the revocation was proper. >> correct. >> it may help -- it may be advisable in this situation for the board to determine the police department's decision based on the evidence that was presented at the time of that hearing was sufficient to justify the revocation. >> i agree. >> so the information that was presented prior in regards to what was -- what was stated and what the brief was based on was sufficient. >> so the motion i think that commissioner honda would like to make is a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation of the permit. there's two mer mits that issue here -- permits that issue here, based on the evidence that was presented at the police department's hearing at the revocation hearing. >> i like the way you make

my -- i did such a good job with that, didn't i? >> okay. so we have commissioner honda's motion to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation of the permit on the basis that the revocation was proper based on the evidence presented at the revocation hearing before the san francisco police department. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that appeal is denied, and the revocation is upheld. thank you. okay. we are now moving onto item number 8, this is appeal number 18-058, connie mar versus san

francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. the -- [inaudible] >> -- which was denying the request to remove two significant trees with replacement on private property, order number 187562, and we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. thank you. i was told that i could do a powerpoint presentation. i'm sorry. i'm new to this. i'm not sure how i can do that, but i do have -- >> you can use the powerpoint. we have -- >> okay. >> i don't have a stick with me. i have it on mine, so i apologize. >> unless you want to show it under the overhead. >> i can do that, as well, and i can also give you hard copies, as well, since i produced those. >> go ahead.

pass it down. >> so -- >> we'll share. >> is there enough copies? >> oh, okay. an introduction. my name is connie mar. i own and have lived at 2 garfield street at merced heights for the past 20-plus years, and my purpose today here is to request the board of appeals -- [inaudible] >> -- monterey pine trees on my property. i think the biggest question is why remove the trees? i feel that they constitute an unacceptable risk to my property, occupants of my home and to the general public.

the limbs have a high chance of failure, and the consequences of such failure can be catastrophic. just a little background. i want you to really know that i have an abiding respect for nature. i appreciate the contributions of the trees to the health and the aesthetic nature of the environment, and one of the reasons i purchased this property actually was the trees. there were five trees on this property originally. they were planted by the previous owner around the edge of the property. i don't know if you can see the picture of the -- i think i have a picture in here someplace -- yes, sorry -- of the property. the two remaining trees are on the west side. it is a single-story ranch home. there were two other trees at the end of the lot here where

this pole is on the corner of the lot, and then, there was a fifth tree on the corner at the back of the lot that was adjacent to my neighbor's property. and i purchased the home because of a number of reasons. one of the nice things about it i thought, it would be nice to live in a free-standing home that had trees around it. i thought it was going to be like being in the woods. well, unfortunately, living with pine trees, five monterey pine trees around your home is not the same. just on the nuisance factor, i have a sewer pipe that regularly clogs up because one of the pine trees on the east side. it requires regular rooter service. i'm going to have to replace that. obviously, there's pine needle,

pine cone, pine tar droppings around. my neighbor that had -- that is next to me complained regularly about the years, about the cracked driveway that she had because of one of the pine trees, of the pine tar dribbling into her yard and into the gutters, so shortly after i moved in, in order to maintain good relations, i removed the tree. in 2013, a storm caused damage on one of the pines. it's one of the pines that you don't see there anymore. the limb fell on the power line. the service was lost to several blocks adjacent to the home south of where i am on 2 garfield street. that was a major event. remember required assistance from fire -- repair required assistance from fire, police. they had to reroute muni.

it took about 18 hours of pg&e service and an electrical repair crew to restore power. i applied for and received a permit to remove those pine trees in 2014. in 2014, also, roots from one of those pine trees that remains, i called it pine number four, caused a water main leak. the water infiltrated the foundation into the tenant's part of my home. i have tenants who live in the bottom part of the house, and during repair large parts from sawed off and removed. so i'm just going to show you the -- this is the area of the sewer main that was leaking. they put a sandbag on top of it to stop the leak. these are major roots that were around the lateral -- i mean, not the lateral, but the water main. there's some ancillary roots,

as well. you can see after the removal that they took out all those roots. those are for the pine trees that still remain. and in 2016, during a storm, a healthy limb, fell from the tree. it grazed the roof of my home,s ayou can -- as you can see here, and removed several feet the gutter. here's the sidewalk, here's the limb, and this is the street. at the previous night -- this is the day after, obviously. the previous night, i discovered there were people sitting in a parked car right here, and it disturbed me quite a bit to know they were this close from this possibly hitting their car. just a few more pictures of that limb.

this should give you an idea of this kind of limb failure. so what -- when did i make the application for removal? i became increasingly anxious about the safety of the tree. i called in a professional to inspect the tree later that year. i asked him if they could safety trim the trees so they wouldn't be a risk. they recommended having a full assessment done by an independent arborist to do a comprehensive before and after trimming, health, and safety assessment. remaining trees, four and five. based on the report submitted as part of the brief. i'm sure you have gotten the brief, i applied for the permit to remove the trees on september of last year. basically, the trees pose a

high risk to limb failure and above normal or average risk for several limb failure and for up rooting. the consequences in a failure scenario is catastrophic, and could result in severe personal injury or death. d.p.w.'s reasons for denial basically boil down to the trees are healthy. there's no reason to remove them. my opinion is the trees, even though they're still healthy, there's significant chance that they will fail, and i've put that in the brief. >> thank you. >> you'll have three minutes of rebuttal to state your thoughts. >> now we'll go to the department. >> did you see the department's briefs in terms of the legality of ownership of the trees?

>> yes. >> so mr. buck, we're expecting something really special since you're sitting in scott's seat this evening. >> thank you. good evening. chris buck, bureau of urban forestry. i'm going to have a bunch of images on the overhead in a moment. >> have a seat, miss mar. >> so we'll go to overhead now, and you can just keep these zoomed out because there will be some that are horizontal and some that are vertical. the subject trees are two large monterey pine trees, and i do acknowledge that the property owner has done a good job of being a steward of these trees. i also agree that she's committed to keeping them and her intentions originally were to really live with these trees. we did approve a permit to remove two monterey pine trees about the same size in 2014.

so we are out there approving trees. we approve a lot of trees for removal. one item of housekeeping, we do still need two trees to be planted. it's not the subject of tonight's hearing, but the spaces are close together. i do want to be realistic, and i think there is space for one tree at the site of the two former trees. here's a photo of the subject trees. there's actually two trees, the tree, the east tree, or the tree on the right is tree number one. that is a single trunk. the tree on the left is the west tree that is comprised of two trunks. the trees have good vigor, but we absolutely agree that tree structure is critically important. the wind that comes up the hill here that goes up several

blocks from ocean ave. so the wind is really at a fever pitch in one afternoon. i went there one afternoon and got to experience the full brunt of this wind, see the canopies blowing hard. the next day, i went in the morning, when it was very still. we did want to, once the brief was filed, make sure that we saw these trees in both environments. the appellants arborist report had talked about the trees being topped before. i agree, i think the trees were topped by the wind. i don't think they were topped by a tree contractor years ago. the trees continue to take a lot of wind, and over the years, they've evolved with that wind. it did, as you saw, the tree closest to the house lost a really large limb. it's pretty hard to come up before you when someone has

pretty kind of startling image like that, it makes my job that much more difficult. that said, you know, that was 2016, we've had a couple of winters. we haven't seen limb failures on the trees. trees drop limbs as a survival mode. it's difficult to predict when that's going to happen. i do believe that what remains in in the canopies is sustainable. i will admit there are challenges with these trees, especially where they are located in the site. i think the tenant would be interested in removing the trees. what was a little unusual was that the applicant applied to removed the trees if significant trees on private property. our inspectors didn't bring a

measuring tape because the trees were behind the fence. the previous trees applied for removal were outside the fence. so what happened four years ago didn't necessarily inform whether these were in the right-of-way or not, so i don't feel that's necessarily showing incompetence on our part. i just think it's unusual to have a setting like that. where the fence is is technically in the right-of-way without a permit, but it also lines up with where the vels sidewalk is, and the neighbor has a fence -- developed sidewalk is, and the neighbor has a fence in the same area, too. it's just a note on why when i'm preparing my brief, we're suddenly realizing these are in the public right-of-way. the reason why that may be significant if the concern was not just public safety, but the concern was financial only, that would be one thing that we could at least address and remove from the property's concerns. i understand this is about

public safety and it's not about nickel and diming the issue. but i did go to the site, take some measurements, photo, 9 feet from the face of the curb shows that tree one is predominately in the public right-of-way. it's also on public property. the property owner allowed me access to the site, which i appreciate. she was very cooperative. want to try to work together. so tree one is mostly in the public right-of-way. tree two is almost wholly in the public right-of-way. regarding the rooting structure of the tree, they did experience root pruning during that water main break. no one contacted our department about concerns related to the roots that they cut. on the backside of the property, this shows that the site is relatively free of disturbance. there's no real signs of bark beetles or pitch cankers, so we

can rule that out of the discussion. these trees are very susceptible to that, but we can rule that out. tree one, just wanted to show a few signs of pitch canker here, here, and here, very minimal. the appellant's report did note this is where the large limb failed in 2016, so that section does remain problematic, but it doesn't kpriez the entire -- comprise the entire canopy, so that section could be pruned out. here's another picture of tree two. other factors is that tree number two is also partially on the neighbor's property. as you can see, both trees are very close to the sidewalk. the upper canopy of the tree. tree number two also has a guy

wire on it placed by pg&e, which is unacceptable, and here's a view of the current sidewalk. the current sidewalk conditions are fair. to very quickly summarize, i'm out of time, but trees of this size, we really do try to hold onto as long as possible, as long as we feel that they're sustainable. i recognize these two large trees are just 15 feet apart from each other. they're much larger than the building, and that can be very intimidating, especially have experienced large limb failure. i just wanted to provide a defense on why our department would try to hold onto these tr trees. they're so susceptible to pitch canker, when you see trees like that that are really healthy and vigorous. we're not going to have trees on this block in our lifetime, so i'm just trying to hold onto this, in this habitat. >> okay. thank you. >> so i'll follow up with my

questions on re -- any questions on rebuttal. >> granted that you're the tree guy already, we know that, usually, when there is a codominant situation like that, the recommendation is usually removal. i can just remember recently, we had 75 howard, which the bigger of these trees looked fantastic, and i've seen for the last 30 years myself personally, but the department went for full on removal of eight or ten trees, and most of that was in response to the codominant, and i believe the strongest argument that the department has was the codominant limbs. so why in this case, since we're further down, is the department recommending saving of this? >> i understand. those trees at 75 howard are

different species that are more susceptible to those. in this case, we have a tree that's been exposed to the wind from the day it's originated on-site, and that really helped. as the tree grows, it's going to form a root system and a trunk system that's going to essentially hold itself up. monterey pines have a pretty good track record with codominant stems. the two stems aren't really growing against each other here. they still do blow in the wind, and that's a factor, but we just don't see a lot of stem failures that have codominant in this species, so it's really a matter of it just being a completely different species. >> and the second question, mr. buck, in regard to the limb fall your, i went over -- failure, i went over the briefs, i don't remember the specific times, had she with

within -- been talking about failure before that? >> the limb failure that occurred, the very compelling limb failure that damaged the front roof, that occurred in 2016. again, i want to commend the property owner. she didn't run out the next day and try to remove the tree, she hired a professional to address those concerns, and she clearly gave that some thought in her timeline presented earlier today. she spelled out that she waited a while, she hired a professional. so we received that report, and since that time, you know, we made our decision, but we did review that limb failure as part of the permit process at our public works hearing. >> okay. >> so i don't know if that answers your question. >> no, it does. >> it establishes a timeline

that she has clearly sought to retain the trees as long as possible. >> and the last question, that cement looks like it's been repaired. it's a different color. it's a newer cement. do you have how many times that sidewalk has been altered? i believe that's on holloway. >> it's on garfield, it's parallel to holloway, but it's very similar. >> okay. >> and i bring that umm p in te images boit has been -- because it has been repaired. sometimes property owners come out, and they're just going to hack at it and hope that the tree declines. i don't have any sense that there's been any effort to try to impact these trees negatively at all. >> oh, no, you can tell that she's been vested. >> yeah. >> mr. buck, how old is this tree? >> my least favorite question.

they're approximately 50 years old, and -- they could be a little older. >> and the life expectancy? >> you know, in it an urban environment, it's much different. even in golden gate park, these trees would go to 100, 120 years. these are so close to the sidewalk, these aren't going to approach that. we're not going to see that. >> just to clarify, when you indicated that most of one tree was in the public right-of-way and part of another was, what do you mean by that? >> so the significance of that is that as of july 1 of last year, 2017, public works now maintains all trees in the public right-of-way. what this would theoretically mean is that with these trees being located in the right-of-way. public works could assume responsibility for the trees. i've reviewed this with our

superintendent this afternoon because i had discovered this in the brief as i was writing the brief last thursday. and so i wanted to put that out there, that if -- you know, if the concern was financial and not just public safety, public works would continue -- would maintain these trees. the trees are located behind the fence, so we typically wouldn't want to maintain the trees or prune them with them located behind the fence, and i just -- at this point, i had to bring it up, but i don't feel like it's all that germane unless the property owner felt like that would provide them relief, and they'd be comfortable living with the trees for another five, ten, 15, 20 years or so. >> but in your brief, you've mentioned three points to that. one is maintaining maintenance of the trees. second is repair of the sidewalk should there be any damage, and third was assume liability for the tree, right? >> correct. so the