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 up with are a lack of pedestrian clearance, low branches, a lack of clearance over the road to establish a 14-foot clear an directionally over the face of the curb for ought owes. it's both restricting pedestrians. there's more and more discussion about how much space do we need

for pedestrians. it's about how much damage the trees are being subjected to. one thing we can certainly improve upon is really creating an educational section on our website that documents that and the struggles that we're coming across in san francisco with trees and allies. it's not a very pretty picture. there's a lot of tree mortality, there's a lot of damage similar to what we saw this evening in the photos. and when we look at -- when we go to industry events, of course san francisco's always unique for a number of different reasons. we have other colleagues who say and never plan in less than a 6x6 basin and they're thinking of san jose or some wide sidewalk area and we're thinking like, we're going two feet, two and a half feet, three feet and they're like where is the room for the tree and you just go, well, you have to thread the needle. so we need clearance away from the windows. we need clearance away from the

facade. we need clearance over the road and we see a lot of trees damaged over the road. we can do a better job really trying to demonstrate that and there really is a real battle for getting these street trees to survive. and a lot of them have gone unplanted because we're directing the property owners not to replant them. so it is a real issue. it's probably not something that's come up a lot. but i do feel like there is a -- there's both an interest in really creating these living allies but contrary to that, there's efforts by the planning department and friends at urban forest, some of it is conceptual with colorful murals. it's a real challenge. i always point to north beach. there's some allies in north beach that have zero street trees and they're some of the most amazing, quaint allies that you see. the sidewalk is three feet wide.

we just need more room for our street trees and we're trying to be better advocates to make sure what we're sitting in will survive long-term. >> are there no species with a tall enough trunk to alleviate the issue of parked cars offering even when there is a no-parking situation cars that would come by and swap the tree on their way by. >> it is a little challenging. it's counter intuitive. but for a narrow sidewalk, we need a very up right species. a lot of our small stature species that are small in maturity tend to be oval and round-forming like a japanese maple or something like that with a lot of low branching. there are a lot of up right species that are large stature, where they're like we'll be very narrow up and right but it's

also going to be getting much bigger. the trunk, the root base, reall- >> like a palm. >> yeah. i mean a palm in some ways is the engineered -- that could be an answer. but it is, there's not a huge pallet. we've talked about do we have a -- do we shorten our expectations on an alley tree and say we'll get 20 years out of a purple leaf plum and we know in 20 years if it gets banged up too much, start over and begin new. we've had those discussions. but we're still really trying to hold the line with the seven foot sidewalk as our minimum. >> but that's really one size fits all, isn't it? >> i mean, it's -- it's pretty straight forward. we neededfour-foot- wide path of

travel for pedestrians. we have a certain amount of space leftover for street trees. >> president fung: this is not the first time the tree issue in all he's havallies have come up. we've heard of multiple times and i'll go back to your example. i can remember multiple times in north beach where this board has been granted an appeal and the replacement with those trees that has potentially less impact, maybe not when they're 50 feet tall but -- isn't there some -- and i think that's what commissioner swig says, isn't there a solution to this issue without having bare allies?

>> that's a good question. it's one i've been dealing with since 2005. it's always how small is too small to plant a tree. we used to allow a three-foot basin and allow there to be a layer of bricks along the pedestrian edge so there's at least a little more accessibility for pedestrians. that was a thought for a while. we increasingly have just seen so many trees get damaged. it's just the way that the industry and the professionals are approaching it. now i think it's right for residents to assume when you move to a block it's tree lined. you just anticipate that this is going to remain that way. a lot of examples where that doesn't -- isn't the case. derado terrace off ocean avenue, we call it arbor-geddon. it's the worse-planned street

tree setting. they're way too narrow for trees. we're finding owners are butchering the trees and they're trying to manage the tree the best way we can, which is essentially cutting the canopy off. derado terrace is really a low water mark point from a how did that happen. in terms of the pedestrian we want it all. we want a little narrow sidewalk for pedestrians but let's throw trees in there so the new homeowners who move in have something green. in the bay view, there's a similar subdivision that is brutal. >> those are all fairly new. i've sold off la cont and those are new developments. we're taking '80s and '90s. >> correct. exactly. there's a few other examples i have where it just -- well gold

mine, diamond heights neighborhood is another area where the sidewalks in diamond heights are so narrow that there's a lot of landscaping and vegetation at back of the sidewalk and so in diamond heights we're doing a similar thing for years. the tree needs to be removed and we're saying the homeowner, those trees are maintained by public works. oddly enough, they always were when diamonds heights. >> it was an development, correct. >> that could be the case. that's an example where there's a setback wher where there's something off in the community that is green. that's easier. when we know that there can still be a nice plant, shrubs but i get it. we're pro trees and you know, i can't say that everything and everyone within the bureau or the department is all in the same beige. there are a lot of varying approaches to this. if we were looking at a two and

a half foot wide tree basin, you know, but then it's like well if you are looking at a two navdeep basin why not two feet. if not two feet why not 18 inches. >> remember that the same discussion occurred on the masonic redo. the planter is only a couple of feet wide. in the middle of four lanes, you know. >> sure, it's got to be at least three and a half feet. it's another example of street trees getting the pinch. we can't upset bike lists and we can't upset motorists and pedestrians and the trees end up with a three and a half foot wide median in all that space. they're always getting the pinch. at a certain point we're saying, you know what, we're not being successful in establishing those trees. >> any further questions?

>> i am still not satisfied with the ones -- we're going to play ping-pong, president fung and myself. the one size fits all just doesn't work for me. i think that's the issue. i think whether it's -- why can't it go to a two and a half foot wide. why can't there be a met grate around ha tree trunk that is stabilizing the continuation of the sidewalks so that there is some grace with, for lack of a better term, so that a person in a wheelchair can get by and still allow a tree and still allow a street to be harmonious

and add trees as the appellant's self-made graphic showed. it really enhances the situation on the street. that's what i'm wrestelling w the gums need to go because they're going to be a problem in every which way you described. but, why not replace those gums with something appropriate in a narrower base is my question? just because the director, with all due respect, decides that, you know, the next director could come by and be completely different. i don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater due to one director's point of view versus the harmony of an alley. i'd like to figure out a solution with that. >> ok. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment

on this item? please approach. if you can come up. just one person? two? can you come up front, please. thank you. >> a few years ago, my tree died and i had to have it removed. i got a tree guy. the city approved it and they said well, you can't -- the city at that time, i don't know, if you took a tree out you had to replant another tree. he said you have a choice of replanting or not because your size or your footprint for the tree is too small. so they gave me the choice there. i had a small and that's why i can't understand him saying oh, he can't give on that.

i agree with mr. swig here that you can make adjustments. the other thing at issue is i've been living in this house for 40 years and i've seen this tree ascend. it's quite large right now. it's not a straight, it's moving over this way. it's like a canopy over the street. and i'm concerned because of all the wiring and we've had severe winds in san francisco over the years. this is a species that is related to the eucalyptus. years ago before they did construction down there, there was a bunch of eucalyptus trees and a few of them were knocked over. as my concern, since they're leaning, if it falls it will

fall on my house. or it could discharge wiring that could start a fire because it's all electrical wiring there. i just wanted to bring that to your attention, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi there board members. my name is ben. i am the homeowner and resident of the property adjacent to mr. potter's at 471 hickory. i support the removal and replacement of those trees. for all the reasons mr. potter gave. i'm not going to reiterate those. i would like to call board's attention. i came here prepared and rather fired up to call to the board's attention the inconsistency between the rules as given by the bureau of urban forestry and what is shown in the findings of the denial that mr. potter is appealing. as you know, they have claimed venues including specifically denial that the treat trees are not replaceable due to current withstandings and that sin

consistent with i found. i asked the bureau of urban forestry can you send me the standards and the woman said yes, here are the planting orders. >> overhead, please. >> the implication here is this is out-of-date. i was told it was current. i'm now even more upset that i'm spending time worrying about something that is not current. this shows a 6'6" sidewalk that includes the curb, the sidewalk at 477 is 6'7" inches. it meets the standard of the diagram from the order and shows this exact scenario. you can see this is also in your packet from mr. potter showing the width of the sidewalk. that width is the edge of the curb, the outer edge of the curb as shown in the director's order. this seems simple to me. i was prepared to say it seems simple. something went wrong. mr. potter has asked to replace the trees and he has been given

the run around. he is told well, you k. you can't. this is the director's order and here is the current rule. is it an informal rule. i don't know, i've called and tried to find the answers. the denial states it's the sidewalk width and this is the director's order of planting according to the bureau of urban forestry. there may be a different one but i haven't seen it. the city owes mr. potter and the commission a pointer to whatever the adopted regulation that they're citing for the minimum of the basin. i know mr. potter and i know he has worked in good faith to replace the trees. i am here speaking for fairness and good governance. i don't like the idea, i understand this may not be the central issue here. maybe it is? i don't care for the sense my

neighbor has been given the run around through the process thus far and i think he needs to be showed with clarity if this is a rule, someone has to point to that rule because i haven't seen it. we can't ask members of the public to tell them to follow the public and they can't do it based on rules they can't find. i ask the board to right that wrong. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comments. seeing none. we'll move on to rebuttle. >> mr. potter. >> you have three minutes. >> thank you. first off, i want to say we are right near the octavia boulevard. there's a lot of traffic and noise there and having trees is really important as a buffer for both the pollution and the noise. i think replacement is very important for the block.

again, i had mentioned previously the alley on one side of us is lilly. the alley on the other side is linton. they are currently planting sidewalk gardens that are lower than three feet there and tree basins that are narrowing than three feet as well. over the last two months or so so that is inconsistent with what we're being told tonight. also, lilly and linden are featured in the marketing material for both the city and friends of the urban forest about ideal neighborhood involvement and greening up your block. if those allies, these streets are the same why are we being denied the opportunity to do what they're doing. we're sandwiched between the two of them and our block blocks bleak and grey by comparison. we're all upset by it. it seems crazy to me.

i think there needs to be a more thought out plan for the allies. especially these alleys in the center of the city a few blocks from city hall itself. that's my point. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. buck. >> chris buck, san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. just a couple of things, not so much rebuttle but just confirming some of the feedback that we've heard this evening. just reiterating that the owner did apply to remove both trees with the intent up front to replace both trees. correct when a tree is removed it be replaced and of course it's subject to meeting guidelines that we have. i apologize. i tried hard to get a copy here before you so i can have that

with me this evening. i don't have that with me. it does appear that a colleague provided the old director's order as outlined. i completely understand the frustration and we're not trying to purposely move goal posts on anyone. the appellant's brief really stated that they're confused and frustrated. it is confusing and it can be frustrating. i've been dealing with this issue for five years and with public works since 2005. you have to really love trees to stay in this job that long. because really, my job is an educator, it's not to move the goal posts, we want to explain and be consistent. we will get a phone call tomorrow with an opposite concern. someone who doesn't want a tree and we say no, it has seven feet there's room for a tree and they insist it has to be as wide as deloris. i'm not sensitive about the

negative feedback. i do want to work to try to figure out how we address this long-term. this is not going to be the last tree that we need to remove on an alley. i hear the feedback from you, commissioners, this evening. i will bring that back to our department. karla was the captain of our debate team so she has me on the verbal argument. i just want to address some of the concerns. we're not here to be defensive or move the goal post. this is an o an on-going issue. it doesn't always come up here. it has in the past. there's one example, there's a little u-shaped street off first street. i'm blanking on the name. it's gus or guy and it turns into another alley. there's a high-rise development and what we did on that block, we had a removal of like five

brazilian pepper trees. replacement with trees that we had to move to a shared street model so we can get the sidewalk width to allow replacement trees to occur. we've had the issues here before. most of the time, we've been able to address them. but a lot of times we can't. we don't find enough room to find replacement trees. sometimes we go to the shared street model where the trees are actually placed in the parking strip area. linden alley is an example of that. there have been some efforts. unfortunately not everyone has the funding to pull off the linden alley project as was installed by blue bottle cafe. it's one of the potential solutions. so we're actively engage in this process and we hear the feedback. >> mr. buck, i've got two quick questions. so one, you are coming to the board of appeals and you can't

get a copy of the director's -- >> it's a testament -- >> how is a member of the public going to get it when you, from the department, has a hearing and can't get it? and the second question is, what is on your website? do you have a website? >> we have a website and i can check what is referenced on the website. we were consistent with a property owner that the sidewalk is narrow. it was discussed in our resulting decision. we've had multi-million dollar projects come before us and they want to plant street trees. we want street trees. the sidewalks -- sorry to interrupt. i'm just asking because if your director's order indicates seven or 6'6" including the curb, i mean, until you've modified that how are people to actually know this? >> sure, so the public can get

concern about tree removal and have reasons for wanting trees to stay or be removed. we have been conversing with a property owner, right. we've stated up front that this sidewalk is not wide enough. we have not provided the property owner, the ap amply ca. it's embarrassing to say i have a colleague who gave me the old director's order. that's i a embarrassing. we're not getting calls from the public to say you are giving me wrong information. during public comment people can say whatever we want. >> i want to find out what information was given and what information is available if you can't get a copy it's concerning for me because the public will have a hard time acquiring that information. >> sure. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> can you please discuss linden and lilly streets and how they have been able to refresh those streets in recent history successfully and why shouldn't that apply to hickory street? [ please tan stand by ]

>> there has been a recent planting by friends and i will need to -- i have made it to hickory to make measurements. i did not get to where friends were established or recently installed landscaping entries. that need to go, the measurements. we reviewed those projects and my understanding is we had a 7-foot sidewalk where those were allowed. we need to look into that. >> president fung: what would

happen if i propose that we uphold the appeal and allow the removal of the trees and the replacement of those trees in a 2-foot box? >> it is a good question. it is a good question. i do not know what we would do in that case. the director's order is 7 feet. a three-foot minimum basin. we have been telling a lot of other property owners the same thing. the public may not know that. the public is not sitting in all of our conversations and decisions. we have a lot of property owners who do not have trees in front of their homes. because we have been sticking to these guidelines. it is not easy to do. it can be like herding cats, but at some point we are striving for a better survivability of

our street trees and having more space for pedestrians. we need to start somewhere. unfortunately, there's a lot of inconsistency out there. it is not that we are trying to mislead the public, it is truly, there are inconsistencies out there. we are just looking at, is a 2-foot base and enough space for a street tree? it just starts to feel a little bit like we are -- it is just not realistic long term. i don't know where we go from that. i do not know how we would handle that. the maintenance responsibility, it could be that we require the owner to accept maintenance responsibility for the trees. but it's a little unprecedented, to answer the question, in terms of how we handle that, a decision like that. it is a fair question.

>> vice-president swig: i am just doing the meth. if you have a 6-foot six sidewalk, six images that go to the curb, 2 feet goes to the basin, and forefeet is allowable for the pedestrian space, that enables a wheelchair access and, you know, that is a good scenario for handicap access or accessible access. so why not would be my question. i would be willing to go in that direction if the rest of the team goes with me to challenge the viewpoint of the department. and set a precedent. >> it is is a reasonable line.