>> good evening and welcome to the october 17th 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the board president will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by commissioner and lazarus and commissioner darrell honda and vice president rick's wake. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board within the immediate legal advice this evening. at the controls as a legal assistant and i am julie rosenberg. the executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. the urban forest are from san francisco public works and bureau of organ for history and

we expect scott sanchez shortly. the zoning administrator representing the planning department and planning commission. the board request to turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board his rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with the parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone to assist the board inaccurate preparation of minutes you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live

on s.f. government t.v. and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm on channel 26. the video is available on our website will be downloaded from s.f. dove t.v..org. we went elsewhere in anyone who intends to testify. anyone may speak without taking the oath. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary way to, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. is anyone testifying tonight we ok. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will about to give up me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please note that given we have a board member vacancy, the board can overrule departmental action within three votes. president fung and members of the commission have one housekeeping item. this is item number 5.

the parties have requested that the matter be rescheduled. this is appeal number 18-085. robert roddick versus a zoning administrator. subject property is located at 552 to 554 hill street. appealing the issuance on june 7 th, 2018 of a notice of violation. regarding the residential murder -- merger, not a murder. [laughter] >> excuse me. a merger of a single-family dwelling with a replacement unit substantially reduced in size without first obtaining a conditional use authorization or a building permit application. this is complaint number 2018. so we would need a motion on that. >> so moved. >> ok. we have a motion from president fung to move this matter to january 23rd.

is there any public comment on this item? ok. seeing saying none, on that motion. [roll call] >> that motion carries and the mattress continue to january 23 rd. ok. we will move on to item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the jurisdiction of the board that is not on tonight's calendar. >> there are five of these. you don't necessarily have to follow that when i am talking. >> thank you. >> i'm here to talk about the taxis which you will hear a lot about in the very near future because of the actions taken by the m.t.a., both last night and future actions that m.t.a. will

take. it all began with prop k., which if you are around here for two years ago it was a reform measure for the taxi industry. at lasted about 30 years and then they decided that wasn't working. they had messed with it for a while. what they did is they did a new reform proposal about ten years ago whereby they were going to bring back a little bit of buy and sell into the taxi industry and we had a pilot program. the federal credit union provided the financing for that pilot program. that program lasted from about 2010-2015 and then it collapsed in 2015. they started taking back permits for nonpayment of their loans and there was no way to resell them. that is where we are at today. it is a new reform proposal. it has come about but in the meantime, the federal credit union filed the suit against the m.t.a. for the collapse of the

program. the program had -- the federal credit union loan to hundred 25 million into the taxi industry of which 64 million went to the city of san francisco in fees and transfer feelings -- views. the credit union is suing the city for $28 million. it has taken back 158 of the permits. it looks like it will take back more. that is where this reform measure comes in. the reform measure that was proposed last night wants to take back 260 permits and just take them back. they were the permits that existed before 1977. give those people nothing. they have had this permits for 40 years. we just take them back. they want to take the permits that were never transferred in the program. limits them to not be able to go to the airport. the whole purpose is of the

evaluation of those existing permits i cannot go to the airport will fall. the valuations of the permits that can go to the airport, which are the ones that were sold in the program will rise and the city will extract itself from the liabilities that they see in this lawsuit. in 2016, there were a series of meetings between m.t.a. and the federal credit union and the credit union was pushing m.t.a. to do something about the taxi industry. we are sitting on these permits and it looks like more coming in the city stalled and that is when the federal credit union felt it was necessary to sue the city. they saw that the city was not going to do anything about the taxi industry and was not going to -- thank you. >> thank you ask her.

>> my name is carl and i have been in the cab industry for 40 something years as a driver and a medallion holder with an organization called medallion holder association. last month, we responded to the city's attempt to quash the credit union lawsuit by way of dimmer. they rolled they have alleged for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. we see a lots of that unfair dealing going on these days. the mindset that the m.t.a. stance has taken is it has to go to all -- whatever is possible to help people purchase medallions make enough money to pay their loons be cut -- loans because of these forfeitures. it is arbitrary and capricious to say that someone on the pain and suffering metre is at 99%.

people who might represent, including myself may be a 95 or 96 and the defective pension is blown up now. m.t.a. is trying to steal the rest of it. because the people who would rent my medallion can't go to the airport so they won't rent it. i feel set up like a bowling pin to be revoked. the entire industry may collapse the c.e.o.s of the biggest cab companies advised m.t.a. not to do it and five or eight supervisors weighed in and ask them to wait a while and discuss this tomorrow but they pass this yesterday it is kind of funny because even on the congestion issue at the airport that staff shows up that taxis are causing congestion but we are outnumbered 50-1. there are 45,000 uber and lyft. it does not make sense to look -- to me. what is curious is what happened yesterday is the m.t.a. board gave the discussion to their

director to restrict the use of p. 16 which is the taxi to permit to certain p. 16 holders. i am curious when your board comes to the report, to see if you will exercise your jurisdiction with such a major taking of our income and ability to operate, whether it is your purview or can the director of transportation say that a certain subset of people who have this p. 16 permit cannot go make money at the airport and not be able to rent a cabin but others can? it is sacrosanct and so important to have one group make money and not another. you will see some cases and thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? ok. seeing then we will move on to

item number 2. commissioner comments and questions. seeing none, we will move on to item number 3. the adoption of the minutes. >> mr president? >> we are moving onto the adoption of the minutes to. >> any corrections or additions? >> as i indicated, i would like to make one clarification on item number 4. the plans referred to in the motion are the plans that were submitted at the hearing on october 10th and that are dated 10-'01. i would like to make that correction. >> if there is a motion to accept with that amendment. >> moved to accept the minutes with the amendment. >> ok. on commissioner lazarus' motion to adopt the minutes with the revision, is there any public comment on that item? seeing none, on that motion -- [roll call]

>> that motion carries. the minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item number 4. this is appeal number 18-103. paul lenzi versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. the subject property is at 317 dorado terrace. appealing the issuance on july 23rd, 2018 to a public -- public works order. request to remove three street trees without replacement. this is order number 188, 150. we will hear from the appellant first and you have seven minutes >> is the permit holder here? ok. please proceed. >> thank you. great. my name is paul. thank you so much for hearing my appeal. in preparation for this i watched a firm on you guys. i wanted to thank you for the service that you do to the

community. one of the things that struck me as i was watching those is quite often you are asked to rule about a decision without a lot of context in the neighborhood. it is only 49 square miles but a lot of ground to cover. i wanted to give you context on the neighborhood and about the decision i am asking you to make the other thing i noticed was that quite often the appellant did not make it clear what they wanted you to do. i try to make it very clear tonight about what i am seeking for you as a board to do and specifically to overturn the decision granting the tree removal permit and to reinstate a fine for the destruction of those trees that was reduced by d.p.w. a couple of years ago. ok. a little bit of context. mount davidson manor is one of the smallest neighbourhoods in san francisco. at fault in the west of twin peaks area, west of sunnyside and north of ingleside. might specific section of it is highlighted in red. the street is called dorado terrace. this is an overhead view.

the pavement you see as part of dorado terrace. it is a closed loop neighborhood above the ocean avenue just to the south. but to the plot map referred to homewood ports. back in the 1920s, it was the jewish home for orphans and it was called homewood orphanage. back then you can see that the area was surrounded by trees. this is on the southern slope of mount davidson and was a mixed forest of eucalyptus and pine trees that was predominant in that neighborhood. in the late 1960s, the property was sold and in the mid-1970s it was developed. in 1979, the new development which is comprised of duplexes and single-family homes was started. people started moving in there peerk that is when these trees were planted which were the subject of the appeal tonight. these are two ironwood eucalyptus trees that have been here since 1979 and this is what they look like in august of 2013

unfortunately, this is what they looked like in november of 2014. the property owner had these trees illegally topped. in the written appeal, they stated they were unaware of their obligations for tree care as it existed in 2013. i don't think it takes an arborist to know if you do that to a tree it will not be a healthy tree. this is pretty clearly irresponsible behaviour. this was a the notice i was posted on the trees. knowing they were going to be trimmed that day. because we are talking about events that happened back in november 2013, i wanted to give you an over view of the here. this is also when i made the original complaint about the topping end of the bureau of urban forestry investigated. at some point after that, they placed a fine on the homeowners for the destruction of the trees and then in january 2017 reduced defined by 90%. because the homeowner claims they were making no income from

the property despite the fact that it was a duplex being rented out in san francisco. the last time this property was sold was for $320,000. renting out to put duplexes at current market rates seemed unlikely that they were not making a market on that. if every 2018, the order was placed to remove three trees. there is a stump of a third tree that had been illegally removed by the homeowner at some point previously those also covered covered by this order. you can see in the posted order that the trees were not marked as hazardous, dead or dying. these trees were removed only because they had been illegally topped five years beforehand. it is worth noting during that five-year period we had a number of really bad winters and there were no branches dropped or other destruction done to the neighborhood or to the cars that park underneath those trees. so i thought this was a good time to not only be engaged to get my 6-year-old sun specifically engaged.

and build some data about what had happened to the neighborhood trees in our area. my sun and i did a survey of the trees, of courage trees and what had formerly been trees planted in the neighbourhoods. we walked around the neighborhood and documented all the examples of tree basins that existed. there were 94 tree basins when this develop meant was built in 1979. they had 94 trees planted. the two subject trees are those that are highlighted in orange in the upper left hand corner of the picture. we found a lot of these, which are paved over tree basins. these were done recently that the satellite picture shows a fully grown tree in this position. of the 94 original tree treeplanting sites, there were only -- we found there were 61, there were 63 that have been removed over the years. over two thirds of the trees that were originally planted 38

years ago had been removed illegally or illegally in the intervening 38 years. of the remaining 31 trees, 22 of those trees were marked as being in poor health by the city's street tree census. and only nine trees were marked as being in fair health. we went from in summary, we went from 94 original sites to 31 remaining trees of which only nine are in fair health. and because of the requirements around the width of the sidewalk around to the trees, there is only two sites in the whole neighborhood that comply with the bureau of urban forestry's requirements for tree planting. so every tree that is removed from this neighborhood will not be replaced by another tree because of the width of the sidewalks and requirements for the bureau of urban forestry. back to present day. these are what the trees look like today, september 2018. they have not dropped any branches or cause any disruption

to the neighborhood. so what we are asking for today is that these some of the last two mature trees be maintained. this is another shot of the trees as they exist today. in short, more trees are not coming into my neighborhood. i am already aware of that but i feel we need to preserve the trees we have left. thank you. >> thank you. just to confirm, the permit holder is not here. ok. we will now hear from mr bock. >> welcome. >> that evening. just in defence of the property owners not attending, they did provide a brief as part of the packet so that should be five -- that should be in the file. they are directing the property owner to review the trees. i don't know if that played into

their plan to be here. the e-mail to me and said they could not be here and they e-mailed me about a week ago. as a background, we did issue a flying to the property owner for excessively printing the street trees. the two species are eucalyptus ox lawn, red iron park eucalyptus picket looks like it has been in a fire. the trunk is black. the same species we have on portland as you go from mission street heading up to the commercial district and nina bernal heights. you can imagine how tall those trees gets. it is a very large stature tree at maturity paul presented a lot of photos. i will not duplicate all of them i would love to go through some of the photos that i have that show the site and talk about the reasoning with our bureau. if i could go to the overhead, please. here is a view of the subject

trees showing the proximity where they are planted. they are couple -- they are planted within a couple of feet within the side of the building. here is another view from a distance. showing the side view. i thank you have seen a lot of photos of them from across the way. in 2013, the property owner did hire a nonprofessional to prune the trees and they were severely topped. here is an image of what those looks like several years ago. in that time, the trees haven't responded with a stress response instead of it being a positive response, it is the tree actually putting out leaves again so i can photosynthesize. these attachments are very weak. it would be like taking an i-beam and cutting it in half and blooming things on top of that and calling it good. using that analogy.

these are weakly attached. they will break off as they get larger. not in the first few years. it takes time. these trees are generally iffy at best before they were topped. once they were topped, it really dooms them. it is a challenging site to maintain a tree. this space is for-4 and half feet wide. just showing the current trees, it would be challenging for anyone to prune these trees and make them look good. i wanted to show some of the context of the subject trees. i mentioned tirado terrace in the past. it was not designed with a whole lot of pedestrian experience in mind with not a lot of room for trees and pedestrians. we had a case recently where we talked about public works and

having minimum guidelines for planting trees. it is now up on our website and i have a copy here this evening. most of the trees that we have discussed this evening are not replanted both due to the narrowness of the sidewalk. this sight -- of the site is a little unusual. is a parking strip up against the base of the property. it is within the public right-of-way. around the corner at three '01 tirado terrace, we have a -- just around the corner 301 tirado terrace, we have a similar situation. the key for public works as we support the removal because we believe this is a very inappropriate place to have a large stature tree growing, let alone a eucalyptus that will get bigger and bigger, let alone a tree that has been topped. we want to try and find middle ground. i sent the appellant and e-mail midday today talking about needing to get something back in this location. around the corner are these tribes. these are -- here is a view of

them. even around the corner, these small shrubs are getting really banged up, but i see this species throughout dorado terrace and a couple of other locations. in terms of trying to find something that would be suitable for the space, it is one option. i do want to point out, even the smaller trees, these tribes, as you can see from this image, are being impacted by the vehicles that park at 90 degrees on a regular basis. public works, and like -- in light of the appellant's brief, we are on the same team. we want to seem more green out there on dorado terrace, whether -- wherever there is legitimate room for that. this is another shrub that is set back away from any of the car cars damaging it. we believe that a minimum that the property owner planned at least three of these small hedges. we are open to discuss other species with the appellant with

-- and we just want to caution that we don't want to get tree to be excited about that. there is, fern pine that is often planted up against properties. we can look at other options that we believe won't be a problem of long-term. we were not willing to commit to a medium to large stature tree as is currently here. it really needs to be a small stature tree. and just going back to the original fine, it was for excessive printing of two trees. and legal removal of the third tree. the reason that the fine was reduced so much and reduced by a hearing officer who represents public works who does not work for the bureau of urban forestry the find itself is definitely meant to be punitive. it is definitely meant to send a strong message. the fine was for $5,000 the

reason for a reduction is we are directing the property owner to remove both trees and remove the stumps. the property owner is going to be out of pocket to remove these trees. remove the stumps and plant replacement shrubs. i don't make these decisions. when we issue a find a property owner who has trees, that are, in our opinion, should not have been planted there, the bureau will issue the find to be consistent with how we handle similar cases. the hearing officers are there to be someone who can oversee the public work and provide a sense of reasonableness for the situation. that is a little bit about why that sign was reduced so much. i want to provide a context to that. what i would love to discuss is what i think is suitable for replacement at this location. i really do appreciate the appellant's work.

everything he has said this evening is accurate, related to how many trees have been removed , how many basins have been paved over. we also, in the time that we were contacted by the appellant, we have issued nine fines since november 2013 to 9 different property owners on dorado terrace for excessively printing street trees. lastly, what i want to say, and this is in an e-mail to the appellant earlier today, we will absolutely use our -- we have a full-time public information officer. we need to do a mailing of outreach to everyone on dorado terrace and debrief about the tree situation out there. this is -- san francisco public works is not responsible for maintaining these street trees and we want to know that they should not be printing these trees so we can protect the few that remain and prevents them from being topped. additionally, we will take the canvassing report. i think my daughter should have been out there as well. they look about the same age. we do want to verify how many of

those are potentially responsible. -- potentially read plantable. we will review that canvassing and look at if any of those will be plantable. it will be a very small amount. >> thank you. >> that concludes the presentation. >> i have a question. the appellant actually put a really well together brief with a timeline. so when the permit holder or the property owner that owns the trees illegally did whatever they did, they were given to a certain time to correct that to make a correction to that action and they did not do it on a timely basis. correct we. >> correct. >> so then they illegally cut the trees and moved to the trees and they didn't do any of the work that the city required them to do, and then they got reduced 90%. i don't see the logic in that myself.

considering we've had dorado terrace before us a couple of times at this point and we understand what the new tree planting requirements at the sidewalk is too narrow to have a tree, but in this area where there is trees and they took down three very mature trees, why are they allowed only to put three little small things back and then have a very minimal fine? >> the feedback is that this is a pretty inappropriate place to have a large stature tree. there is 90-degree parking. we both presented photos that show the spot relatively clear of the parking. there is 90-degree parking at this site. the trees, i mean, to some degree, they have been providing a service along with the raised planters that are there. the find itself, the owner has been slow to submit the tree removal application.

i don't know how much negligence or has been in terms of their responsiveness. it has dragged on quite a bit. it is largely on the property owner and public works needs to reinforce that. it can be very challenging to get property owners to take action. these things do tend to draw out a very long time. as you know, even sending a basic request to have someone prune vegetation out of the way the sidewalk, something that seems obvious to us, can take us five letters to send to a property owner. the good news is we live in a very open society. i can't knock on the door and marched them out of the house -- >> i know. >> i'm sensitive to that but we should define because the trees are topped. these trees are in a very challenging spot and i think there should be a focus on that.

the amount of time that has occurred capture the appellant and the property owner could be here this evening but i don't know how well they understand the process. we are pretty much directing them to remove those trees. i feel he public works is saying we want these trees out. i'm trying to defend this a little bit with some of the time >> it is just like when i get a parking ticket, and needs to be paid by july 9th. if i don't pay by july 9th, is not $70 or $75. they don't say they will reduce that 90% and charge you eight dollars for the ticket. >> they were timely against their appeal. i do believe, initially they did appeal in a timely manner with an explanation. >> a last question. you mentioned there are nine other locations in the neighborhood that have been cited. what are those fines? will they be reduced substantially as well? if not, why?

>> i think a lot of them have been. the hearing officer said when they hear our feedback that this is a species that is inappropriate for the narrow sidewalk. there definitely needs to be some reasonableness there. public works, well, the bureau of urban forestry did not create the conditions out there. i would love to bring planning up and say, ok, how did we approve such a development with such a narrow sidewalk and to approve to these trees going in? have narrow sidewalks, but what makes you think we can squeeze trees into this narrow sidewalk? i have said it before. it is nine fines in five years and 12 block area. it illustrates that property owners out there, when the maintenance is left up to them, we are really flailing out there and how best to deal with printing these trees. that is why many of them have been reduced quite a bit. some of them not.

that find will be fully upheld. we did print up the list of clients but i have not done the research to find out exactly what the reduction was per case. >> thank you for explaining that to me. >> are these sidewalks or planters? >> it is essentially a planter that is in the public right-of-way that serves as a little bit of -- >> it does not go through. >> it is not a sidewalk. it is just a limited planter up against the wall. it is a buffer between parking and the building itself. the property line goes right up to the façade of the building. >> are you done? >> yeah. >> i am confused why we are here because what i heard you come up with is a very good solution.

a good reason to tear down the trees because they are oversized in this case, they were mangled anyway. but if they weren't mangled you know what happens to eucalyptus. they grow like crazy and the next thing they do is they are in the building's foundation or they are undermining the roadway or falling down. they are bad trees. in about 30 seconds, you made a very good suggestion on how to mitigate that condition. why are we here when you already have the answers to that? and then if, let's say -- if you have the answer to that, even if the appellants is happy with that answer, can you cut a deal?

in fact, as the property owner, they are missing and they are the key elements. that is why i am confused. what will be achieved today other than being -- talking about the fine? i see inevitably bye-bye trees because they are wrong. and they ultimately see the solution. where are we going with this, exactly? >> thank you for pointing that out. i didn't essentially wrap up concluding where we are with this. essentially, the permit that has been appealed is for the removal of the three trees without replacements. i intended to do a brief on that morning where i had a lot of that time. i was not able to write a brief. i intended to reach out to the appellant and the homeowner. once i received the brief i reviewed it with our superintendent and she said well , let's look at that space.

is there a way to get anything in here? what can we reasonably require to go back in here? we have come back to the table very late with that information. may be there is a middle ground here. i do believe that in our quick exchange earlier today the appellant is still feeling strongly about trying to keep these particular trees and replacement with a large stature tree as possible. to some degree i feel like we are here this evening because we originally said no replacements and now we are saying, as of this evening, replacements but with a lots of restrictions. something that will be much more appropriate to the site. we can discuss something larger than this tree, but we need to be very careful about that. i don't want to overpromise this evening large stature trees on that site. >> do you think that we should

come to a conclusion on this item and directs you to do that? or do you think that we should postpone a decision on this item to a later point to give you an opportunity to sit with the homeowner and the appellant to get rid of the trees? that seems to be an inevitability and to suggest the replacement of the said trees with a compromise and agreed-upon direction? and with regard to the fine piece, i understand that the obligation of ruling the trees and then replacing them would fall onto the homeowner or we can decide that ourselves or not >> actually, the fine is already final. that is not before us. >> ok. >> this is only the approval of

the three trees to be removed. >> do you think we could send you away and resolve the issue? it seems like you are late to the game. may be if you were earlier to the game you may have resolved this already and we would not be here. or do we have to tell you what to do? >> it is possible. i think what would be great is for us to work with the appellant. i don't think we necessarily need to do that as a continuance i think ultimately, and so i don't think continuing it to figure that out would necessarily help. so to some degree, i would recommend or ask that the commission make a decision tonight.

we are asking you to remove the trees for removal so that something appropriate be replaced. i would say to set conditions. there needs to be a minimum of three trees, small trees or shrubs. they could be a minimum in a 24- inch box. we are directing public works for the fine processes and directed the owner to remove these trees. if they are approved to the owner will -- will bear the cost to remove. that will be punitive. additionally, they need to remove the stumps and purchase and plant 24-inch box size plant material. i would say it, let me make that clear, that will come automatically and we don't have to talk about that? >> do we have to address that? >> we need a decision that approves. we would need approval to remove the two remaining trees on the condition that they be replanted with a minimum of 324-inch box replacement plant material.

>> we would have to state that in the record. >> with species to be discussed and we are open to the direction of requiring that there be a meeting between the appellants, myself and public works and the property owner to discuss the species. and perhaps we could then see how the appellant feels about some of the style on it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> how can you add to these conditions? the permit holder is not here they have not been notified of any of this. you are winging it here at a hearing. >> i find that unfair. what has been appealed is the removal only and you are adding all these things to it. >> to clarify, the property

owner is aware that they are required to remove the trees. they are aware there is an appeal hearing and none of that changes. they are aware of all of that. i also e-mailed them today and suggest to let you know, i will be recommending -- certainly i will recommend removal of the trees that we really do need to look at what will be planted whenever you remove a tree you can replace a tree. i do feel like the property owner is informed of what is taking place this evening. >> are they informed that there would be the intent that not only to replace the trees if they are torn down and removed with something appropriate, but they are also going to bear the cost of the tree removal and they will bear the cost of the

new planting? are they clear on that subject? that is a blindside. >> to clarify, they are aware that the cost of the removal is to be covered by them. the only thing that would be new is that replacement requirement is being considered. they could be here this evening. they were notified of the hearing. i don't feel like there's anything new that's being placed on them as the property owner. just to wrap up my comments, if it was continued, that would obviously clarify it. >> thank you. we will move to public comment rebuttal. is there any public comment on this item?

seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. >> i will be very brief. i want to say thank you to chris for his e-mail earlier today. it was a little bit late but it was well-intentioned. i also recognize the efforts of the bureau to help protect or at least find when these trees in my neighborhood are damaged. i would say that having nine trees damaged in the last several years alone is pretty high for a two block area. something has gone very wrong in the way that the city is approaching this problem. there's two other points i wanted to share with the board. first is that the homeowner is a nonresident and is not a resident of san francisco. so their attachment to this neighborhood is limited, at best second is that as commissioner honda noticed, they have a history of noncompliance. i am concerned with placing and adding conditions to the permit. simply that they would just not comply with them.

and then my last point would be that the $500 fine -- if the fines are meant to be punitive, regardless -- irregardless of the cost of tree removal, that if $500 fine is insufficiently punitive in this case, given the damage done to some of the last mature trees in the neighborhood thank you. >> mr buck, do you have anything further? >> just briefly, i am with public works. i would just reiterate that the reason for the fine is that this was a fairly poorly planned out tree planting that occurred here thirty-nine years ago. the sidewalks are way too narrow to accommodate street trees. up until a year ago, the responsibility to maintain the street trees was 100% the responsibility of the property owners. that has changed due to the

passage of proposition e. san francisco maintains the street trees. i feel like all of those issues underscores how terribly the conditions are out there. it really does. it shows you why -- street trees in a narrow sidewalk failed to deliver on the promise that an urban forest is supposed to promise. we really use dorado terrace as a low point in terms of planning and urban forestry. it just was not big enough for street trees. but they were planted and both the property owners and public works have been shaking our heads to manage this. it has been challenging out there. we have upheld the ordinance and we do issue fines. sometimes we reduce it quite a bit and that is a little bit of background. that is it. i want to emphasize how challenging the sites are out

there. >> thank you. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> comments? >> i guess they planned this the same time that the original gap was leaving ocean avenue back in the seventies, i guess. it depends how you feel that president fung if their presence be required to make a decision. it was evident looking at the brief that the people that owned this land are not really responsive to any of the city's requests. i don't know how accurate it is and whether they are absentee owners were not that would lead to the reason why they are probably not here in this particular hearing as well. but i do feel that noncompliance consistently does not reward -- does not deserve to be rewarded. >> can i ask you a question?

in the context that there's a history history of noncompliance by the owner and in the context that obviously the property owners abuse the privilege of ownership by destroying these trees without permission and against the statutes, what happens if we say rip them out, put them in and you are paying we and they have this history of noncompliance and unresponsiveness to city direction? does this go on forever? and they play whack a mole? what goes on here? >> thank you commissioner. we would ultimately issue a fine for failure to plant required street trees. so we do issue fines for that. we issue a permit some when they remove a tree. it all looks good and they don't plant.

it drags on for a long time. we sometimes will threaten -- we will place the threat of a lien on the property. we have rarely had to do that. and then we will issue the fine for failure to plant required street trees, which is essentially the same fine amount for illegal removal. so that usually gets attention and brings people back to the fold. sometimes that can take a while getting them to respond. i think right now, in terms of noncompliance, we did issue a fine. they did submits the requested tree removal permit application. i don't know -- there was some -- i don't know why it has dragged on quite this long. it is a matter of the case literally sitting in our docket and we finally get to it. so i do want to caution folks here. the fine was issued and they've

paid the required fine amount that was greatly reduced. they did submit a removal application. there was a delay there but there has not been what i would say gross negligence in terms of this process. it has taken long but there has not been a pattern of them not complying. it is more just that it has taken a really long time. it took us over a year to issue the fine. it took a while to schedule the hearing and it was rescheduled at once. so really it was about a year ago that we got removal application. we posted the trees i would say and it has taken a while to get where we are. so they have been responsive to some degree. it is terrible what they did to the trees. i wish that that was an outlier but i can't tell you how many people are doing that to street trees. it is a common occurrence. in this case, the trees weren't -- they were right up against

the property. whereas most street trees, when someone does this to them, how can you defend it we it is unconscionable. to some degree, i would caution that it is a tough site. they have been relatively responsive. they are not going broke on us yet but i understand the concern we would certainly want to help encourage them to maintain this area better. we could help out with that. >> when i have owned property in the city and we have a look lovely cracked sidewalk in front and at some point, a neighborhood is swept through by d.p.w. and they leave notices on people his door saying that either you fix it or we will fix it for you and we will send you a bill for x. number of dollars. is that -- do you have the jurisdiction to do that we.

>> we do when it comes to sidewalk damage because that is considered a public nuisance or safety hazard. to my consternation, street trees have never been given that same do. they think it is just a nicety. it is not public safety. we can't force that on someone. what we will be doing with prop b. and our funding to maintain the street trees, we are now inspecting every street tree once a year. at a bare minimum, we will be out there once a year looking at street tree conditions. that is one other safety net here. we won't be ten years before we are working with the community on dorado terrace again. i really do want to extend to that to the appellant, but we will look at what we can do to make things right out there within our purview as much as we can. it is perfect timing. it is -- it has been a rough road out there and i understand the frustrations of those who

are in that immediate block. many of them do care about the trees. many don't. so it has been a challenge. i feel like we do have a mechanism to enforce this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i will try a motion. if that -- is there more discussion? to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the required replacement of the trees as appropriate. a minimum of 24-inch box. species and ultimate size to be determined by the bureau of urban forestry and that the cost for all of this will be borne by the permit holder. >> ok. we have a motion. >> comments by the board, i have a comment. does anybody else? >> the legislation has changed. it is now the department's responsibility.

taking down and putting back as required based upon their standards. if these trees were inappropriate in the first place , it would have been their responsibility, the department's now. the fact that they screwed up on it, they are bearing the cost for removing it which is the cost that would have been borne by the city. so i'm not supportive of the motion. >> would you be supportive of a motion that dictated the same thing, however that the action of removing the trees and replacing the trees as paid for by the city of san francisco would be under the control of

the bureau of urban forestry? >> i don't understand that. >> they would have control anyway. >> i mean, that is where i was getting out with my question. these trees will come down because they are wrong. they are damaged. they are et cetera. and i think our goal here is to -- if we find it is inevitable, they will come down and we want something to be replaced, to replace them appropriately so the neighborhood will be enhanced. what we are struggling with is who will pay for it? if you will not support that parts of the motion, that includes the property holder paying for it, then do we change it to require that the trees come down? to require that an appropriate tree be replaced but it will be born -- the timing of that and

the costs for that will be at the behest of the city? >> i think the city would have that option in any event, based upon the legislation. >> so the issue is just the cost >> the question is that i brought up earlier. is that usually when we add conditions to remedy the complaints or some issue that has been brought up between neighbors or anything else or on a project, those complaints and the issues have been brought forth already. this replacement has never been brought forth. it is not in the written, therefore it might be -- it is unfair. >> why don't we continue it and give the permit holder the opportunity to come before us? give it a short window and have them -- we will give it a week

and have them come back? does that satisfy? >> there is a motion on the table. if there is a motion to continue , then that would have priority. >> i will withdraw my motion. >> i will make a motion to continue the case. so that the permit holder has an opportunity to hear what is potentially happening to that property. >> that would be continued to october 24th, next week. that is fine. >> you have time on up -- do you have time on october 24th? >> no. >> we could put it on to december 5th. >> december 5th? >> not much meetings in november december 5th?

>> we could probably squeeze it in on november 7th. >> november 7th? both parties? chris? >> ok. we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this item from november 7th. on that motion -- [roll call] >> may i ask a question first? if the permit holder does not show up on november 7th, what is our -- >> the department will be in discussions with them. if they want to show up they have a choice. >> they have been given the opportunity. >> i think chris is going to talk to them anyway. >> ok. >> thank you. >> we had an aye from president fung. [roll call] >> that matter is continued. thank you. we will now move on to item number 6.

this is a special item. informational presentation from planning department staff on the department residential roof deck policy. >> madame director, can we have two minutes? >> two. >> i'm tired. >> i >> mr. duffy, you know your case has been rescheduled. okay. all right. he just missed us from being on vacation. that's what it was. >> exactly. >> welcome back to the october 17, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. we're returning to item number 6, this is a special item from the residential decks policy. and mr. sanchez. >> a good evening, president

fung, members of the planning department. this is the first of three items we will bring that relates to the draft roof decks policy which the planning commission considered in late august and specifically asked for the board's feedback on the draft policy. other items to bring to you would be an informational position on a.d.u.s, accessory dwelling units as well as historic preservation. there has been discussion of that earlier in the year and we will work with the executive director on scheduling, and i appreciate we were able to make good use of the hearing tonight and squeeze us on for this item. we have david winslow, principal architect who has been before you before to discuss design and have design conversations. also louise barata is our senior urban designer and reviewer. we have an expanded design and review function in our department. one of mr. winslow's roles and responsibilities which is new over the summer is related to d.r.s and he will be the point

person for all public d.r.s that are filed now. this is an interesting change in how we process discretionary review applications once the public has filed the discretionary review, mr. winslow will take the information to the planning commission insuring consistency to the commission and feedback to the department staff. it's been happening for several months, and the planning commission has had good responsibility to that. i will turn it over to mr. winslow who will be providing this presentation. >> before you leave, you said there were three presentations? what was the third? >> historic preservation. some of the issues that have come up over the last few months, maybe looking at secretary of interior standards. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> follow along. thanks. >> good afternoon, president fung and members.