>> replacing framing and changing size or location. there is no change of size or location. the windows will remain unoperable and it is fully compliant with ab009. notwithstanding the presence of these windows, when the complainants acquired the a joining property, they are appealing the permits on a few merit less grounds. i will not repeat anything we have submitted in our brief but would like to respond to their brief. the august 9 the brief, cannot support the appeal on the points raised by them. number one, the brief asserts, without any evidence, that none of the windows is original to the building and some were added

as late as 2011. however, google imaging shows the windows existed in 2002. in fact, the windows are similar to many immediate neighborhood windows that currently exist and have existed for many, many years. with regards to that, i have some images. if i may quickly present them. >> president fung: overhead, please. >> if you can see the windows here -- the windows here all a joining. the windows we have also here. here, here, here. there are windows here and here.

windows here. this is only a sampling. >> sir, your time is up. >> it's the first time. >> thank you. >> you had three minutes total. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the appellant. >> you have three minutes. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is leo brown. this has been a very stressful time. not only time-consuming because of the time for me and my family. he had many chances to provide a full detailed plan in compliance with the fire code, structural code, mechanical code, which includes title 24. but so far, he continues to look for a short cut. on the contrary, i have provided

in my briefs three in total so far. fact, the permit holder's plan is not in compliance. which includes, number one, i made improvements on my property, fully vetted, and inspected by the city, which includes the construction of the roof deck and a hatch that is less than six feet away from the permit holder's illegal window. therefore, permit holder's current plan goes against condition number 6. also permit holder signed the declaration of used limitation, which puts his plan under conditions in case i make such improvements on my property. number two, there is no practical reason to have those windows in the property line. that's the condition number one of ab09, that the permit holder is not meeting. number three, i attached in my brief an e-mail from the city's

senior engineer stating that those illegal windows would require significant structure work and detailed plans would be needed to be submitted. so far, we have not received anything. respecting ab09 code, i please ask this board to deny the permit holder's plan. thank you. >> thank you. now, we will hear from the department. >> d.b.i. just probably give some background on this case again. taking up a lot of our time by the way, but that's ok. with meetings and one thing or another. i have senior building inspector mark walls, along with us tonight here. if there are any technical questions regarding california building code or administrative bull tins, any questions that

the commissioners may have, senior building inspector walls is in our plan review division would deal with this a lot more of the pre applications meetings over the current approvals. he would see this a lot more than i would. so i brought him along tonight, for his expertise. just getting back to the case itself, the d.b.i. issued a notes of violation. a complaint has been filed with this department regarding the installation of windows outside the required building permit. on the third floor of the front building installation of two windows. on the third floor of the rear building installation of four windows. no permit exists. it was to obtain a building permit within a time period indicated to legalize, modify or remove on permitted lot line windows, obtain required inspections to close this

"commoditiesthiscomplaint. when the case was heard, i didn't like the description of work on the permit. it talked about legalizing windows but not the actual openings. i asked for more time. the permit ap applicant did meet with me in d.b.i. they met with senior inspector walls. some were hard regarding the drawings and getting an accurate description of work. at the last hearing, i wasn't here. inspector hernandez was here. i believe some questions were raised on the structural elements. the subsequent decision, i did see the e-mail that the a tell ant had gone to d.b.i. with a photograph. met with a senior inspector who

escorted him to met mr. u with a photograph. he wasn't a furred i case. given a machine on a general question. which wasn't really -- i would prefer if appellant and this is a board of appeals issue that they let staff know that. it might help us, the people dealing with the hearings would know that. at some points they were brought up that were valid. mr. yu, i was made aware of the e-mail when i returned from my work and realized mr. yu wasn't made aware it was an appeals case. we did set up a meeting with mre engineer. mr. yu and him did meet. i was part of that meeting with the permit holder. there was some -- the header issues on the window were

addressed. they had been addressed on the plans and there was some scheer wall wirements that in addition to the drawings, they were on the drawings submitted with the brief. i have a letter from mr. wallace. he met with mr. yu. all of the structural issues have been addressed. at this point, as far as i'm aware, the plans do meet the requirements of ab009 and i just am getting back to the ab009. in our building code in san francisco, there's 100 administrative bulletins. they're in there because of san francisco and the different issues that we deal with when you are trying do construction. there's a lot of good information on them. in the case of ab009, because of

our construction goes to the property lines, if someone wants to put a window in, the state building code would prohibit that. there's openings zero to three feet. there's no openings allowed for the table in california building code. ab009 does allow property line windows if you meet the conditions of the administration tivadministrativebulletin. so it's a good code section. it works very well. it is approved on a case-by-case basis. i would agree tonight, with the appellant, that one of the windows, there is a permit at the appellant's property he is building on that is requiring a roof deck. there is one window that will be closer than six feet to one of

the opening on the neighbor's property. that's going to be an issue. i have to inform the appellant as well, because of this whole issue that we brought up here, it's possibly -- there's a possibility his permit has been approved and that was permitted at the -- for the roof deck, because of the proximity of the skylight opening and the stair going to the roof deck. that is something we need to address. i thought i would add that as well. there's a photograph in the brief of a window, and that will come up in front of that window. if that window is allowed to remain. i talked a lot. i'm available for any questions. i just ask the senior inspector walls with me. hopefully i've covered everything. if there's any questions, i'd like to -- >> i have one.

so, the large window, there's several windows. i think there's six openings. the very large one that the tenants are actually here for, so, that's structural. it's a load-baring wall. and that's on the top floor. that load needs -- as i understand it, it should be carried down all the way straight to the ground, correct? >> i'm not going to answer that question. i'm not an engineer. all i will tell you is following the last hearings, mr. yu and the engineer of this -- of these plans, met at d.b.i. and i have mr. yu satisfied with the structural requirements on the drawings. he stated that to me. mr. wallace sent a letter in basically saying that. i can read the letter out if you want. i'm not going to answer structural questions whether loads get carried and where they get carried. >> ok. >> it's not my job. >> ok.

>> i have a question. the window that is problematic, because of the roof deck, but which came first? or does that not matter? >> well, that's a good question. [laughter] the roof deck permit was issued i think 2015. i have the details of that. >> it's recent? >> yeah. the attorney representing the permit holder started -- stated these windows were in existence for many years. that's not what our notice of violation said. i believe mr. sanchez brought up an overhead that we didn't have those windows there many years ago. you know, properly line windows, i think the permit holder, as far as i know, and i've met him on a daily basis sometimes twice for the last week. has never said to me or disputed the fact that these windows were legally permitted or disputed our notice of violation.

that was news to me saying that the windows were with a permit. i'd like to see that permit. the d.b.i. inspector who issued the notice certainly said he couldn't find eye permit for this work. i don't know what comes first -- to answer your question, we're now dealing with the permit to legalize the openings on the windows for the windows. so, i guess, if you want to know what comes first, the roof deck came first because it was first to get a permit issued. >> ok. >> there's what ki came first te permit or the windows? they were done by previous owners. this gentleman, i'm pretty certain he didn't do the work. he has taken care of work done without a permit by a previous owner. so we do appreciate that. >> i have multiple questions. anybody else? >> i just had -- the aforementioned window that will

have something in fron front oft and it will be a problem. look into your crystal ball and tell me what should be done? >> well, we're probably going to issue a correction notice for a wall. he has openings right on property line as well on the roof. they go up. if you do an opening closer than three feet to the property line on this occupancy, i believe, you would need to have 30 inches on the walking surface of that roof deck, to protect the permit holder, the permit holder's building. >> so that window will get blocked. >> a little bit, yes. >> and so he is aware of that too? whether the window was there, the building is there so it's closer. it would be required whether the window was there or not? >> correct. exactly. it doesn't matter. because he has caught an opening in his building closer than three feet to the property line it should have required a power

pit. all this started over this permit for the roof deck. i think the permit holder for the windows complained about the roof deck and the work that he was doing and then when he got his permit he complained about the property line windows. we're used to seeing this. >> and so that, again, that window is not a legal window in that there's no record of a permit on that window? >> that's what our notice of violation stated, yes. they subsequently obtained these permits to comply with our notice of violation. >> and in your opinion, should that window be abated either by -- >> that's not before us, though. >> yeah, ok. is that part of the permit? >> no. >> it's not part of the permit.

>> it's just an exiting window that is a -- >> it has a future corrective action. >> that may have a future corrective action in front of us. >> which they come back. >> in the norm of a notice of violation. >> it's not a window but a skylight. a opening for a stair to go onto the roof deck. >> it's not a window. >> i should have taken your advice. >> what was that. >> you told us to revoke it the first time. >> i remember that. >> i didn't want to add extra process and i thought who would go back and i wanted to resolve it here. >> it's been brought up by both sides. we have to structurally sound deline. design. >> i don't know if mr. walls wants to answer or you want to answer, is this a revision now? >> when i was here the last tim-

>> it was different than the original permit? >> i thought it was going to be a special conditions permit. which is why i actually didn't even refer it to structural because drawings would have to still be -- the header size is what i was worried about. the plans would have to be reviewed by d.b.i. but i thought it would be a special conditions permit. after the first night. i knew the scope of work was wrong and i knew the header details needed to go on there. but, i was thinking of a special conditions permit. that's what i was thinking. >> we did raise questions on the fact that there were no structural details. it was all field adjustments to be made. >> that's right. that was partly me as well. you give someone a permit. they'll put a table of the header size on the drawings. the building inspector will go out there and the engineer goes there and they'll open it up and if it's meant to be a 4x12 we're

ok. if it's under sized we could have a problem. my thinking is we would do a field observation and see what it was. it could be a revision permit required for more work. i believe, in the interim, the engineer has gone to the site. they've opened up the wall and he is satisfied with the header sizes. that's what his letter says. maybe i should read it out? >> i do have some questions on that letter. we can discuss that more fully. i don't know whether you want to answer or mr. wallis. the structural engineer's letter states the things he added for thin walls for additional straps and everything else, he says it improves the structural response, which is probably true. nowhere in that letter does he state that he is now upgrading this to code. in terms of those openings.

>> code structural design? >> yes. so, you are saying that this is been agreed upon by your structural reviewer, is it to code? >> according to mr. yu he is satisfied with the structural design? >> ok. >> well, i'll let him answer. i don't believe he does structural. >> you could answer it. >> mr. yu was leaving on vacation last week. i know it's a rush to get this -- they met twice. this letter was the result of it. well actually, this is april 9th. >> the letter is not so definitive. >> i think, my understanding is that mr. yu was satisfied with the revision to the changes to the plans. there was a few e-mails going back and fourth about it and

they were satisfied with it. that permit, of course, if you did up hold the permit and these plans, they would still need to be reviewed by d.b.i. if we do a special conditions permit? >> yep. >> yep. >> or, you know, so -- >> anyway. that's where we are. >> since you came all this way, do you want to say anything? >> what i would like, i think there was some discussion about the california building code on percentages and stuff like that of openings and what's permitted and that's why senior inspector wallis is here. >> i always want to hear. >> i want to thank him for being here too, you know. >> sure. >> good afternoon president, commissioners. senior building inspector d.b.i.

here to elaborate to the best of my ability on building code and san francisco administrative bull tins. in regard to property line openings. >> between zero and three feet they allow no openings with one exception but it would not apply to this. between three and five feet limited. 15% and that would be protected opening and the definition of a protected opening would be a fire-rated window assembly. so you have unprotected openings, non rated windows, you have unprotected sprinkler protected openings and then you have protected openings. so, the allowance that ab009

makes for property line windows between 0 and throw feet is that one, the window assembly, based on the rating of the wall for the occupancy and type of construction, be approved at minimum would be 60 minutes and one hour. in an occupancy also requires sprinkler protection in the event of a fire. the glazing protects against the fire and the smoke and the affluence of the fire but does not in its self pre the transfer of the heat at the property at 155° or so the film would break and that would douse the window with water subsequently, protecting the inside of that building from fire from the

other side. that is kind of the -- what the intent is is to protect and those are the requirements for an r2 occupancy in this case. >> with this said, it's been revised to include the rated assembly for the window. and sprinkler heads. >> yes. the sprinklers will be a requirement and will be on a separate permit. sprinkler permits are stand-alone permits. >> there's no reference to it. >> that would be a requirement for every opening that they're proposing to install or legalize since they're already there. to elaborate a little bit on existing window conditions, this is something that happens quite often. a lot of buildings are really old buildings. they had openings on property line. the difficult part is for the applicant or the project sponsor to demonstrate and prove to us

that that window actually existed. in speaking with the defendants on the appeal, they've never, like joe duffy said, they've never really said to their knowledge the windows were put in without the benefit of a permit. and they were trying to comply with ab009 to the best of their ability and from what i understand from the permits and everything, they've done that with the rated window assemblies and they filed the proper documents in conjunction with ab009, they've been recorded with the city and county of san francisco recorders' office and knonote orized. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?

>> good evening, thank you for taking your time and wanting fair outcomes for all of us here. my family lives long-term in the apartment in question. so please remember that our life will be the most affected by the decision you make today. so thank you for keeping us in mind and the impact it has already had on us and the future. i agree that the window should be made fire safe and that should resolve the core issues we're here for today. and secondly, i do want to share with you how much our ba way of life is being affected. as i mentioned before, i'm going to recap a couple things i feel is important for me to say out to you all since you are trying to ensure a fair outcome for us. we have lived in north beach for the eight years. and are deeply rooted in the city that we love and we're building our future here.

the apartment will be out home for the foreseeable future. the background on us, we are good people with strong community values who are known to maintain good neighborly relations as always. both our parents, my husband and mine, we're kind-hearted people and have been taught to be the same. my husband is a softwaren again ire and i'm a owner of a dental practice in the city of san francisco in the union square. and we live and own businesses here in san francisco and have been contributing our best every day to the city. both personally and professionally. we work long hours and give back to our community. and coming home to this home, this apartment, and having dinners and just enjoying in our house and in front of those windows that are being talked about today is a big part of my family's life. i must say this process of appeals has been a little taxing and strenuous on us, as you can

imagine. this is the third time we're here today and i'm appreciative you are so, you know, very understanding of what is going on here and it really means a lot to me and my family. a family family and creating a loving home atmosphere are core and essential feelings that define homeliness. as of these few months, i've been unable to enjoy my new place where we moved just a few months ago as my own home. we've sacrificed a lot already. this is our dream home. you know, so dear board members, this is not just a window it's part of our life that brings out the best in us that we can give back to our society and our community. i can see with the full conviction as i walk into my office with a bright smile and that's saying a lot for my patients and for those who i really care for.

this is my family's day-to-day life and any impact is harsh and it will be a hard ship on us. thank you so much. i request you to allow my family to continue to enjoying in its current form the windows. >> any other public comment. you already heard from my wife. thank you so much for taking the time and effort to ensure a good outcome for us. and keeping all of us -- taking all of our best interest in mind. you know, i think my wife already spoke about how stressful this over all process has been for us. i understand that we have to do it to ensure a good and fair outcome. one thing i do want to point out

is the windows were already in place, i don't know permit wise from 2010 on wards and way back before that. as i might have been through google search back. i saw those have been in place. of course you know the time lines. i mean, we have talked about it a lot so you guys are aware of the timelines after that. one thing i want to point out, as a tenant here, from my point of view, and i'll be a tenant here and a tenant in other buildings, what i'm seeing is my landlord, he acquired the building last year and he has a notice of violation. actually, i'm not sure of the process but when you are going through this i learned many details here. he got a notice of violation. as a landlord, he had a lot of options and paths to go down but

the first thing he did is this is a fire and safety issue i'll bring it up to code. no matter the cost and whatever, right. and he went ahead and he taught best and tried to upgrade the windows and then the whole process started rolling. now it has been kind of -- now if it turns out that this n.o.v. has been trying to make the windows fire safe, it's penalizing him in some way and punitively punish him it sets a bad precedent for anyone else who wants to take action. as a landlord they'll make their own business decision but as a tenant living in such properties, i'm sure i would be a tenant in san francisco for a long time. and in general, tenants should probably see if the landlord starts taking those options based on precedent, i as a tenant will put in unsafe

position and i would please like you to consider that. i know you probably already have taught through all that but it just came to me mind and i wanted to bring it up. we have, i think we already mentioned this whole process. even when the structural analysis was being done there were holes all over our house. i request you to please support the permit and allow us to make it fire safe and bring it up to intent as needed. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> who would like to start? >> go ahead. >> this turned into a lot.

for a while there, as we went through multiple gyrations through the rational here, i was not supportive of the extended windows. if i was to look at it pur purey from a qualitative subjective point of view, it's probably the reason for that 25% that's related to both structural issues, in terms of the shear wall. i would agree with the building department that our city probably had a number of windows that were on property line windows. however, what we have seen is a

proliferation of new property line windows everywhere. i am not totally endorsing those throughout our city. however, in this particular case, the changing of the windows to a rate assembly, the addition of a sprinkler head is more than what most people do. even though the percentage is extremely large, i probably will support this special conditions permit. >> anybody else? >> i agree with my president, at the same time, i am generally

not supportive of property line windows. in this particular case, with the amount of process that's gone through and the fact it still needs to go through and be routed through building, i will agree with that. >> do you have a motion? >> i move to grant the appeal and to allow the issuance of the special conditions permit based upon the revised set which will have to go through further d.b.i. and check review. >> ok. so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be

revised to reflect revised plans that will be submitted and approved based on d.b.i.'s review. >> i think the department might -- did you want to say something, senior inspector? >> sorry. one thing that will come into play is the declaration of use with one of the windows that is close to the wark that has taken place. the department will take into consideration that there is a possibility that window, because of those construction, we might have to get into a legal thing but that -- because of the roof deck and the commissioner lazarus brought up, what comes first. what is existing, the window was existing but now there's a permit and that declaration of use says if you build within six feet of that, that you may not

be allowed that opening. the read the building code may take over here. i just want to let you know that. >> that's why i asked, would that be pertinent if there was a wall there. it's more if it's a window. >> correct, yes. >> do you want us to make an exception of that window? >> it possibly is going to be an issue. i mean, it's definitely in the declaration of use. now we're granting a permit but that may not have come up as part of -- these people signed that. >> the caveat with the exception of that specific window. >> that's what i wanted to correct you on the motion. >> should that be removed from the plans? >> it needs to comply with the provisions of the building code in relation to ab009. >> well, can you canno you condn

the building requirements based on the proximity to the roof deck? >> except, they're not exactly sure -- you are not exactly sure what the next step would be. whether it's a revision permit or whether it's -- it's just not allowed. >> well, i mean we're into a situation where this permit is -- this window is besides an opening on an adjacent property. that window, in my opinion, estating if someone does construction, and it is by an opening, he can lose that window. >> do we know which window that is? >> yes, it's the one closer to the front building. >> the big win. >> one of the big windows. it's going to be a power pit in front of it anyway.

it's something that -- >> if your motion allowed us -- >> what i'm hesitant to say is, should we continue this case based on the other? >> d.b.i. will address it. >> can we -- first of all, i think we have to clearly call out and describe that window if we're going to deal with it. so we're all clear. is it the east window. the west window or whatever, that's number one. number two, i would suggest that with the permission or you may want to revise the language, mru agree, that we let that window be the corrections of that

window be at the discretion of the building department. >> it's the window and unit 448b in the living room. >> 448b. >> unit 448b in the living room. >> the resolution of that. >> the resolution of that should be at the discussion. >> that's fine. >> so the resolution of window in 448b should be at the discretion of the building department. with the additional language that i might suggest. >> i will do my best. >> part of the problem is we don't have the other property's plans when we're approving this one. and now that we know this, i think it's news to me. >> it makes sense. >> we can do that under that special conditions permit. >> have at it. >> that is satisfying the

concern i had with my earlier question. >> right. >> so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised subject to approval by d.b.i. of revised plans with the exception of i the resolution of the window in the living room of 448b is subject to the discussion of department building inspection. on what basis? >> president fung: they're preexisting. >> on the basis they're preexisting and perhaps we'll then conform with the building codes. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries.

commissioner wilson is present. if we can just give her a moment. >> we're going to take a two-minute break. >> welcome back to the august 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now moving on to item number 7. this is appeal number 18-083. bureau of urban forestry, subject property is 477 hickory street. on june 42,018th of a public works order. denial of a request to remove two street trees. this is order number 187812 and we'll hear from the appellant

first. >> you have seven minutes, sir. >> hello, my name is keith -- i live at 477 hickory street. i'm the property owner. in 1992, these two red flower trees were planted. i've taken care of them for 26 years. i've been responsible for maintaining them, trimming them. they've gotten way too large for the street and they're over 55 feet tall now.

over the years, there's been lots of trucks, people renting u-haul trucks with broken branches and there's lots of scars on the lower parts of the drunk. this image here shows some of the current issues with the trees. there's always been a problem with the tree now that it's larger. it's in the way of the fire escape at the apartment building next door. they trim the branches off and i do but it's contributed to an unbalanced canopy on the tree where it's lopsided. that has contributed, i believe, to the fact that these trunks themselves are bending, they're not parallel. they're leaning. leaning into the roadway. and the canopy is leaning into the roadway and it's not balanced.

so, i've submitted 15 to 18 neighbors who want the tree removed as well. when i original reappl originala permit it was to remove the trees. my hope was removing these trees which are too large, and putting in more size appropriate trees instead, it would encourage other neighbors to plant trees up and down the block similar to other small streets in our neighborhood like lilly street, hey valley has several streets that are neighborhoo named afte. hillary, hickory, linden. they're in between the larger

streets. at this second -- at the hearing, the decision at the hearing was -- sorry. hold on for a second. the second denial of my request to remove the trees stated they could not be replaced if removed. this was disturbing to me because we have always had trees on our block. when i first moved in there in 1987, there were trees that lined the block. there were a dozen of them. and in january and february the whole block was blooming bright yellow. those trees have a short live span and they've died and there's four trees left on our block that are on their last legs and they need to be removed and replaced. if you go up a block over to lilly street, it's the same sidewalk with and they've got cherry trees --

>> can you speak into the microphone. thank you. >> on the narrow street next to our street, there are trees, small trees planted up and down the street and also sidewalk gardens. our requests to do the same have been denied for some reason. it was by city and friends there before us. we're confused. we don't understand what the city policy is. i don't understand why these trees can't be removed and something more size appropriate put in their place. recently, in the last week, for instance, the trees have been hit again by a truck and took a huge scar right in the middle.

here is a closer shot of it here. the city had -- the trees have pushed up the roots. the city had it repaired. the basin itself leaves less than three feet of space on the sidewalk to get by. my partner is disabled. you can't get a wheelchair or walker through that space. there's a gas pipe right there. but that's only 32 inches. it's way too narrow, replacing that basin with a two foot basin and smaller tree would solve the problem and that's what i'm trying to have done. the city is saying that that's not feasible and i have not seen anything available publicly that

says otherwise. that's why i'm here today. >> i have a question if you are finished with your presentation. >> i wanted to show one more thing if i could. i did a quick digital rendering -- here is half of our block. >> if you are looking at it sir. >> here is that same area with trees planted there instead. this is what we collectively, as neighbors want to do. and that is part of what i'm applying for so we can have a cohesive tree plant for our

block. >> you have 30 seconds. >> i don't have anything else to say. >> the public works' order references removal of two street trees without replacement. >> i applied to remove and replace. i wouldn't have applied to just remove. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the department. >> >> good evening commissioners, chris buck with san francisco public works urban forestry. excuse me. my voice is a little shot too. thank you. the two subject trees are formally eucalyptus now it's in the gene us and they are a large

tree at maturity. at this point they are becoming mature. the sidewalk is very narrow. the location, we'll talk about that. it's a six-foot wide sidewalk from building facade to the start of the sidewalk. not face of curb but to where the curb starts so 6' sidewalk. both trees have damaged the sidewalk repeatedly. the tree to the left on the downhill side did have the sidewalk repaired by the property owner and we did work closely with the property owner coming out to verify what roots were pruned and removed. whether or not it was destabilize the tree was the key issue. we were at that point. if the roots that were cut at that point in time would destabilize the tree we were prepared to approve it. we were surprised that in fact the roots that had to be cut were small enough it would not destabilize the tree we went into that site visit with an

open mind. the roots that were required to be pruned would not destabilize the tree and the repairs were committed. the city now that's the maintenance responsibility for both of the trees. both for pruning the trees and for future sidewalk repairs. over all, the tree conditions, as you can see, these are not perfect trees thi. there have been injuries to the trunk. a couple of issues can be adequately addressed. the fire escape can drop down, someone can access that and drop down the way it's designed. the street lights across the street can easily be pruned to maintain. the street light, the fire escape issues can be addressed. we have a history requiring more and more space for trees. back in the day, maybe the tree lobby got a little over ambitious and really planted a lot of trees and a lot of allies. there are a lot of allies along

polpolk that are named after trs like red wood, cedar, hemlock. lilly, rose, hickory, are other examples where the sidewalks, over the years, were requiring more and more space to plant street trees. knowing what we know about both accessibility issues for pedestrians and also the amount of damage to street trees planted in narrow allies and that are owe sidewalks. when i started in 2005 there were two meet and our most recent director's order now requires a tree be planted in a minimum three by three tree basin with a four-foot path of travel. we need a seven foot wide sidewalk in order to plant a new tree or replacement tree. we cannot knowingly create a.

d.a. issues for accessible in the sidewalks. the issues with the current trees is a three-foot path of travel with one tree and a three-foot eight inch path of travel with the other tree. we do acknowledge the mr. potter did a very accurate brief. he really captured, and i agree, both the frustration and the confusion that is out there on these allies. there's a lot of inconsistencies. the challenge that's we don't want to create a problem knowingly moving forward. the goal is to really increase pass the travel on these allies. that is a big impact. in some of these allies you may have four varying sidewalks with one alley were in front of the subject property that's only six feet wide, a little farther down the street it starts expanding wider. there are cases where we've allowed replacement trees in

other locations where we're not allowing the trees due to the narrowness of the sidewalk. we've had development in the area. the development itself is triggered the planting and we cannot allow the planting and allies do the narrowness of the sidewalk. other items just to recap. we've touched on a bunch of it. i do appreciate and agree with the appellant's frustration witd photos with the addresses on lilly and receipt documents how many trees he found that doesn't have this idea on the seven foot sidewalk we're talking about. over all, what we're asking the appellant is asking you to overturn our denial allow the trees to be removed and also to be replaced. we're recommending that our denial of the tree removal be upheld. if the removal is approved of the two subject trees, we can

allow two replacement trees to be planted on the sidewalk. the sidewalk is six feet wide. that would be a two-foot basin with a four-foot path of travel. we're not going to be a able to allow that if. the approval is granted to the affronting property owner, i get it. these trees are a large stature. we're always talking about planning for the future growth of the tree. typically we would not want this species in a sidewalk this narrow knowing what we know now. i think the 'em physician is that there are a lot of examples as the appellant found where there are some recent trees planted on the sidewalks. we're trying to prevent that from happening. we don't want that to happen. those are our conditions out there and some are existing mature trees and some are planted a little bit more

recently and we've been working on the revision of the director's order involvement and p.u.c., m.t.a. and any number of issues within the public realm to make sure we need the maximize and allow pedestrians to access the sidewalks. what happens when you have a tree and a narrow sidewalk is you have people forced out into the road which say public safety concern. we didn't have pedestrians crossing out into the road. it might seem quiet at the time but if someone comes in at night, doesn't see there's a pedestrian walking down the middle of the road, there's a real liability for the city. so that is where we are. we're always pushing for more space for street trees and 7-foot sidewalk is our current guideline. so that is a sticking point that we're not willing to budge on regarding the removal of the trees. there are issues with the trees.

>> considering that these are large statue trees, they're really not designed, the department is recommending they not be removed? >> correct. we don't -- yeah. the ideal scenario is you would have a dead tree or a tree in severe decline. you would say that tree needs to be removed. we do have a couple members of the public that protested. we really do -- the repairs have been made. the owner made repairs. >> so you seen the photos? >> have you seen the latest photos? i did see the recent damage to the drunk. >> and that is why i think these trees have had issues. >> the last question is that he has stipulate lated his partner is has to use eye wheelchair so

the city is he go from his drive way into his street and his house. >> that's why -- if we, you know, i guess the response that is are we going to remove 500 street trees in allies. >> i'm just making sure. >> that is what you are suggesting. he can't get access from where the garage is to the front door so the only way is for him to go out the driveway into the street and go back up. >> sure and this sidewalk doesn't just service both the owner and the immediate neighborhood, it services the city. >> that's what the city is recommending? >> yeah, there are a lot of existing obstructions in the public right-of-way. some are even far smaller than that. i would say that's our argument for not being able to allow replacement is we need accessibility on these sidewalks. we know that accessibility rules are much stronger than our tree

lobby for good reason. >> so -- >> go ahead. >> so, i am a little confused on this. first of all, if there's a lack of accessibility for someone in a wheelchair that is probably against the law but i'm not a lawyer and i don't know the code. to force someone out on the street to get killed by a car, versus making a change to a tree basin, i vote change the tree basin. and i think it would be -- if someone files suit to that they probably would win in this environment. but, i don't understand -- why can the -- i'm questioning

the -- with all due respect to your director, i'm questioning the wisdom of a generic, we're only going to do three foot basins, when it is the advocacy that we hear from you on a constant basis. we want more trees. so why is there this -- where we have different conditions within the city and we do have these lovely little allies where people live and where there can be two-foot basins that would have simply lovely trees and enhanced the condition of the alley. why is there this -- >> to limit a three foot basin without exception? >> i understand the feedback. it's really about survivability. what we end