>> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect. my clients are here along with their 85-year-old mother and their children who are in the back of. as the last commission hearing, the commissioners asked us to review our design to see what additional combinations we could make with the adjacent neighbors who have objected to the project we met twice with them. who are here and the immediate neighbors to the north. we met on october 23rd and again on november 6. [please stand by]

>> we also agreed to conduct a visual survey of their house to document existing conditions with the understanding that my clients will be responsible for fixing damage that might be caused by the new construction. we discussed the disruption that construction could cause, minimize disruption, hiring a mutual contractor and coming to

a mutual agreement with them about days and hours of work. we did an additional sun phase as requested by the neighbors and shared and reviewed the result with the neighbors at the last meeting. both opposing adjacent neighbors expressed that they do not wish to oppose kelly and jason having the house large enough to affect arthur family. in a short conversation with cory teague, he further asked about reducing the family room on the second floor, and also on the second, the master bedroom closet on the third floor. we looked at the floor plan, but neither of these benefits looked like they would -- these would

benefit the neighbors. thank you very much. >> president fung: thank you. >>clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. teague. >> is it deputy zoning administrator or zoning administrator? i think that's going to be announced tomorrow? >> i think in terms officially paperwork -- >> well, congratulations either way. >> i appreciate it. [applause] >> cory teague, planning department. good evening, commissioners. the case on 1750 alabama, i wasn't here for the last hearing, but i did want the entire video. obviously, it's clear the family who lives here has specific needs that they're trying to fulfill, and they're not trying to thwart that, all things being

equal. the applicant both outlined some of the changes that he have made. they did take the ground floor area and propose that to convert that to a proposed a.d.u. i think it is helpful because it is changing the land use context that's being proposed, because that would ensure in the future that it is two separate units as compared to two significant rooms but only one single unit. the removal of the roof overhang and the rear trell i say did a lot to bring the perceived mass down and deal with some real issues of shading from those elements. i think also the overall ceiling height which drops the height of the building overall, i'll point out that that is an amendment to the plans that does reduce the mass, although it doesn't actually get them anything in terms of the calculation of mass reduction, because they still

have the same amount of studs, same amount of floor area, but i do want to look at that as being an important amendment. part of the challenge with this variance was again, acknowledging the property owners have difficulties that they're trying to deal with. if the only rationale were that families need more space, we would grant every variance. in this specific instance, they called out two things that were driving the building. one was the separate ground space for the mother, and the desire to have all the bedrooms on the third floor. but beyond that, the second contains perhaps an excessive amount of common space. there is a kitchen, a full

dining room, a living room, and a great room. additionally, the bedrooms on the third floor, while they are not massive by any measure, there could be some shifting at the third floor and some shifting at the second floor, and not for the purposes of appeasing the neighbors, but if you're requesting a variance for more space, to specifically accommodate the two reasons. all those together, i think would result in a much more reasonable variance request. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. >> mr. teague or deputy zoning guru. the question is how far off are they in regards to the variance and it being code compliant? >> again, look at the plans, but

the original variance that came before us, as you may recall, they're required to reduce the amount of building mass on the side by 650 square feet. they have reduced it, i believe, 85 or 82 feet, so they were requesting a mass reduction variance of something like 780 -- or i mean 580 square feet. i believe the number it was reduced to in the plans you have before you is somewhere closer in the 500's or 400's. one of the amendments or the revisions that he made was at the -- that they made was at the rear of the second floor, they pulled that in and created a desk space. but some of that was tucked under an overhang from the third floor, and that area that's tucked under technically doesn't count towards reduction. i'm not sure exactly what the

number is. but it went from a 580 square foot over the code requirement to something around 400 square feet over. but the architect can address that more specifically. >> and you mentioned they're not getting credit for lowering the ceiling height, but it still does reduce the footprint. >> the knnumeric calculation do not increase, but -- [inaudible] >> so the mass reduction requirement is agnostic on what you're doing inside the building, and it basically just says here's your basic building envelope, reduce it by 150

square feet. when the bhlg laws were adopted in bernal heights, it wasn't how it was today. it does require a little bit of an amendment to the layout because they have to put in a full kitchen in that area and change the entry so that it is a separate unit, and so it does change the land use context of the project and how it will move into the future. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> thank you. >>clerk: is there any public comment on this item? okay. and i just want to -- >> president fung: somebody just raised their hand. >>clerk: okay. public comment. please come forward. how many people are here for public comment, can you raise your hand? okay. can you lineup against the wall, please, and make sure you give a speaker card to mr. quintara.

>> the first person please come forward. let's not be shy. >>clerk: ma'am, please line away from the door. ma'am, ma'am, 'cause we need to keep that side clear. okay. go ahead, sir. sir, you can fill that out afterwards. that's fine. >> hi. hi. very well. good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board of appeals. been here before, but basically, we've been asking three items, bring the project in line with compliance of the code, allow us to benefit from the sun light from the south facing window, lower the roof line to reduce the amount of shadow in our neighbor's rear yards. this has been achieved, but it has not reduced the square

footage, the area. by way of negotiation for support, having posed the cover of the south facing property line window rather, the sponsors have offered to pay for filling in that window at their cost, offer to pay for any damage their contractor may cause during the construction, and reglaze or ad an additional sky light. i feel these items should be an obligation, not an offer for negotiation and support. i therefore cannot support this project as it stands. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening. my name's brandon powell. i'm on the northwest property review board. this property's not subject to this review. just want to give some context that i've seen a lot of projects in bernal heights, and i wanted to offer my support for this project. i think it's important that bernal do its part to increase the density of housing in san francisco during this housing crisis. it's also important that we support the sustainability for san francisco for families in a city that's increasingly hostile to family, especially multigenerational families. i also understand there's some legacy issues based on the fact that the project was -- or the house was built before existing code was developed, and some of the mass reduction that is required is due to the fact that their house is in front of the

neighboring houses on the street. and just wanted to offer my support for this project. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good evening. my name is norma garcia. i was here at the last hearing. thank you very much for instructing the project sponsors to sit down with the neighbors to go over the most recent plans. that was very, very helpful. we met twice, as they mentioned, and as our request, they dropped the roof line by a foot in the rear, which is helpful. as i mentioned, one of our greatest concerns was the excessive loss of sun light in the rear garden. that's been largely addressed. i do say, though, i was a little surprised by the comments offered by mr. teague. i was not aware that he had asked the project sponsors to consider making some changes to

the third floor. nor was i aware that he believed that the city believed through him to the second floor contained too much common space. i would have liked to have review that with our neighbors. that would have been helpful information, and we didn't have it. the decision's in your hands, and we ask that you make the most fair and equitiable decision possible. there are lots of decisions when it comes to housing, and certainly, preserving quality housing for families are important. i'm one of those families, and so are families here to speak. >> i'm sorry. as one of the neighbors, are you for or against this project? >> we are neutral on this project, and ask that you give due consideration to all opinions on this project. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >>clerk: okay. next speaker, please. >> hi.

i am victoria chabin. 1715 alabama. i want to say the first word of sun light, this has been an extremely stressful and exhaustive process. the lack of resolve has caused much anxiety. we met once with john. john asked us to be direct. they have made adjustments, but they have not addressed all our concerns. to date, the structure has not been reduced to meet the requirements of section 242 of the planning code. despite any agreements with other neighbors to remove their immediate concerns, the truth remains that we are all subject to the bernal heights rules. we can't just skirt those rules because we can't figure out a project to fit all those needs. although adjustments have been made, we have one room in our home with this sun light. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi. i'm carla, and i'm 1717 alabama, which is the property next door to kelly and jason. we've only been there one year, and kelly and jason have been great in welcoming us to the neighborhood. we had an opportunity to sit down with them and express our concerns and actually brought up three different concerns that we had around the potential noise that was going to cause on our property, since we have a 1.5-year-old baby and another one on the way, and they assured us that that would not be a problem. also, we have another -- probably next to us has already been going under construction, and it's an empty property, so when i compare the project, it's someone new to the property that has a much bigger property versus a family that has been

living there over ten years, i feel, like, really bad that we're, like, preventing them from actually broadening their space to accommodate for their family and their mother. the other thing was a turnaround, two windows in our property are going to be blocked with light. we understand that they have a lower property than anyone else on your strip, and it seems like if they have to grow, they have to grow up, and their architect came to look at the plans, and they found a way to make it that we would actually have some light coming into that window. and then, the other thing we had also raised concerns around was the foundation, and they had committed to taking photographs of the foundation to make sure if there was any negative effects on them, they would actually address -- address that in due time.

i just wanted to highlight that as a new neighbor to the -- to bernal and also as an outsider, that we're actually not even from california, i feel like families that have been in the neighborhood for so long, it's crazy that they're not, like, allowed to stay in the neighborhood and are supported by people around them. so i just want to say i'm for this project. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm sue gordy, and i live two doors away from the project. you heard about the last meeting. we all have been presented with copious notes about concerns, people's feedback. as they have from the beginning, kelly and jason and their team

went in to the process trying to defuse stress and also in the spirit of compromise, they made a bunch of changes that were presented earlier. i think this process has gone on for them for two-plus years. this is maybe the fourth or fifth set of changes since the 311, and i think at this point, we've all been given a lot of information, a chance to share our concerns. changes were made in relation to those concerns. as kelly said in the first hearing, her family can't just move to another home. it's not possible. i would hate to see an asset to the neighborhood, a family that's just amazing because a denial of a variance that's

within scope when so many have been approved in our neighborhood. we've had many other buildings on the block that have been granted variances and allowed to build, and i hope that they're allowed to, as well. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. commissioners, i just -- commissioner tanner, i just wanted to clarify. did you have an opportunity to review the video and materials for the appeal on this case that was heard october 10? >> commissioner tanner: i did. >>clerk: okay. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> may i ask a question of the city attorney. >>clerk: if you could speak into the microphone, please. >> sure. you know, i'm so shy and reserved. >>clerk: yeah, i know. >> there -- there was an offer that was made by the project sponsor to pay for -- without

any contingency one way or another, that they were going to fill in a light source in a neighbor's house. we heard the -- and make another light source in a neighbor's house. we heard the neighbor say they want that affirmed, because as they say, talk it cheap. if we move forward on this, can we put a requirement of such type on -- on an affirmation to move forward? >> commissioner, i think that might be outside the scope of this variance decision. >> right. >> it would be more appropriate in review of a site permit. >> vice president swig: so what will happen then, i want to memorialize promises made,

promises kept. if we can't make the promises -- get into -- we can't make the project sponsor keep the promise, and if we do, in fact, move forward, i'd like to make it clear what the opportunity for the neighbor is to assure that the project will be kept. >> commissioner honda: if we move it forward, we'll probably have a second bite at the apple. >> i'd like to clarify, i don't understand how these types of matters come under our jurisdiction or the payments between parties for certain things come under our jurisdiction. >> i'm sorry. i thought the proposal had something to do with in project, they were going to do -- >> they were going to modify an adjacent property to add possibly a sun light -- >> the project sponsor is

proposing modifying a neighboring project. i would agree that is not part of this particular project. that would be a private agreement between the two parties. that's what they wanted to agree to. >> how do they handle it? >> between themselves. >> does it become part of a site permit later? >> yeah. they would make a private agreement that would resolve any potential appeal. they would agree, we won't appeal your site permit if you agree to do x for us. >> so in fact, although -- although we would accept that there would be good intention from this project sponsor to do it, and we would like for the neighbor to think they were going to honor those words, we really can't deal with that in this, and that's your prescription is to deal with it separately. >> that's correct. work on a neighboring property

would be outside the scope. >> i just wanted to memorialize that and give them information. that was the purpose of bringing this up. thank you. >> president fung: commissioners, who would like to start. >> vice president swig: i'd just like to -- i might as well start since my name was brought up. i appreciate, one, that the project sponsor really listened to us and really followed through and initiated conversations with the neighbors, the neighborhood, etc. that is something that quite often doesn't happen, and i appreciate that you listened to us. and i was comfortable that they worked hard and getting somewhere that would serve both parties that would -- without having a significant effect on the character of the neighborhood, even though,

according to the formulation of the square footage in bernal heights. >> madam director, is this an errant abuse? >> no, it's not. >> so our official totals is that we are 469 square feet over that total, but of that total, 269 square feet is the nonconforming portion of the building. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and then, mr. lum, again, remind me that i understand that bernal has a higher standard for conformity. is it 25% reduction? >> it's actually a -- well, it's a very difficult code to administer because you have to conceptualize the largest building possible, and then,

you're supposed to subtract the 750 square feet from it. so it's complicated. >> so -- but for a nonplanner, unlike my fellow commissioner, what is -- >> oh, what is that reduction? >> yeah. >> you would -- theoretically, without the mass reduction requirement, you would be about 3,000-some-odd square feet of space. so if this was r-2 zoning, you're at 2300. 2385, i believe. >> and you guys are at? >> we are currently at 28? >> we're at 2387, and we're allowed 2356 total. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you.

>> week after week, we hear appeals. very rarely do we see project sponsors actually meet and try to -- to resolve issues, and unfortunately, living in as dense of a city like san francisco as we do, we are going to have these issues. given, even at the last hearing, the bar for a variance is actually pretty high, i am actually in support of -- of this variance. having long-term and eve native san franciscans with families in san francisco, and leaving our city at a rapid pace, i'm very supportive of people that are willing to make modifications to their daily life in their dream home so that they can stay in san francisco. and then, further, to bring

multigenerational families fack together so that grarnts and grids and -- grandparents -- back together so that grandparents and grand kids are together -- sorry. emotional. >> i agree with what commissioner has mentioned. i think what is also really valuable to the project is the addition of the a.d.u. it's not just roomed down or an addition to the home, but in the future, it will be a rent controlled unit which will be available to renters in san francisco. so not only are they able to bring their family under one roof, they're providing housing not only for their mother but for future san franciscans, as well. >> president fung: i think i

stated this last time, but having participated in reviewing the bernal heights restrictions and at that time, the proposed code, it's a question of whether this variance and the mass reduction that is defined by it conforms to the intent of that, and i find that it does conform to the intent. the -- the level of development of this particular property is in line with original intent of those code requirements. i'm prepared to move to over rule the z.a.'s denial of the

variance on the basis of the intention of the bernal heights special restrictions are met. >>clerk: reference the revised plans? >> president fung: no, it's not a permit. >> i would seek the zoning administrator's for the planning department's input on this, but the variance needs to be supported by facts for each of the five findings. so i think the proper course here would probably be to continue the matter for the preparation of findings to support the grant of the variance if that is what the zoning administrator is intending to do. >> president fung: and the inclusion of the revised drawings, counsel? >> right, right. >> thank you again. cory teague, planning department. i agree it would be helpful to have the findings drafted, and

then, specifically, it is at the discretion of the board if you would choose to grant the variance for the plans that were part of the deny variance or if you are approving the plans that have been amended to this point and been submitted to you for this hearing tonight. >> president fung: well, the findings would be based upon the amended drawings that they submitted, and it will be produced by the project sponsor. >> can i just ask a question. so if the variance is approved and they have to go and get their site permit and all that stuff, would their plans possibly changed and we'll be finding ourselves back here again because the plans have change index some significant way or some minuscule way? >> correct. the plans cannot change the variance because that's the only

thing that's being approved is the variance themselves. plans start to change when you're having to deal with building code and fire code and some of these things that can trigger slight changes. as long as it's consistent with the variance, it will be okay. however, having said that, if the plans were to change in a more significant way than was permits, if someone has an issue with that, they would be able to appeal that building permit. specifically, if your concern is could you approve a variance that's an a.d.u., and then, the a.d.u. goes away that was required, that could be part of the conditions of rationale of approving the variance. >>clerk: do we have a motion to continue? >> i move to continue on the

basis arrestticulated by our ci attorney, based on the evidence provided. >>clerk: okay. we have a motion to continue by commissioner lazarus for the preparation of written findings in support of the variance in support of the written plans submitted in tonight's hearing. >> president fung: let me ask one last question of the z.a. weren't variance findings submitted with the application? they usually are. >> that's an issue that's going to come up in a later matter. the zoning administrator and the board of appeals are under no obligation to accept them. those findings are referencing a project that's been somewhat changed, so the wholesale adoption of those plans may not

be appropriate -- >> president fung: general? >> i'm saying the design is a little bit different. again, depending on the wording that they provided in their negotiation -- >> president fung: i think let's stay with the continuance. >>clerk: okay. wi are we going to clarify for the record, this would be the appellant preparing the findings in consultation with the zoning administrator. okay. so on that motion by commissioner lazarus -- [roll call] >> we need a date to bring it back. >>clerk: january . we're pretty full in december. i mean, i think -- >> we are. >> when do you think you can get the findings together? >> thank you, brad.

>> we can squeeze them on -- >> which one? the 3rd or the 12th. >> how about the 5th? >> okay. the motion is to continue to -- >> december 5. >> december 5. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and we'll see you december 5. okay. so can you please submit them in of the property owners.the

the basis for our appeal is that this ash tree, while very beautiful, is very much overgrown. it's improperly placed for a sustainable maintenance, and the removal of the tree is necessary for us to have sufficient access

to our property long-term because of the placement of the tree. so i hope i can do this right. >>clerk: overhead. >> thank you. so general characteristics of this tree is that they grow to 80 feet tall, and they have a trunk diameter of 50 to 80 inches. they live 50 to 100 years, and there's a high potential for root damage, which has actually happened at our home. this tree is estimated to be 75 feet tall, limited to be 50 years of age. according to one of three arborists, it's already over growing its space, and is very likely to continue to do so even if we continue to trim the

branchs as we have been every year since we owned the house, in 2005. actually, we've been doing it since 2002. over here is a condo site map. this is a blow up of that. there is a 36 inch opening for the gate, and only 27 inches of that space is available for the sidewalk. and that is entirely due to the width of the tree, so this blowout shows the gate, the sidewalk, the tree, and the driveway. this tree consumes all available space. there's nowhere else for it to go. this is probably one of the more compelling pictures. this shows the scale of the 32 inch diameter of the trunk. if the trunk grows to 64 inches, as it is very likely to do, it's

encroaching into the fence and into the driveway, impacting our ability to use either one. this shows the 27 inch sidewalk. this line shows the roots that will have to be cut in order to repair the sidewalk. 27 inches is not a.d.a. compliant. we are all approaching social security age, and we want to make sure that we are able to get walkers and wheelchairs, canes in if we need to. this picture shows the north side fence that is being displaced by the tree roots. this is showing on the other side -- this is the front gait. these are the tree roots. this root mass is about 2.5 feet tall, and it's encroaching into that driveway and making that driveway unusable. great deference to the bureau of urban forestry in their mission, but in their own report, the

bureau acknowledged that this tree is overgrown and it will continue to grow, even if we properly maintain it as we have done. and ultimately, for us, this is an issue of accessibility in our property, and making sure we have ongoing accessibility without having to face a nonwinable battle in trimming the branchs of the tree, which is not really so much the issue, it's the roots of the tree that's causing the encroachment to our property. we have concerns about the ongoing damage. this shows the displacement of the entryway sidewalk. one of my neighbor and good friend, christopher, lost his eye earlier this year. this tilt is unacceptable, and it has to be fixed now. we are concerned that if we don't remove the tree, that this damage will continue to occur over the years. and in fact, we had damage from the tree roots in 2005 that

necessitated a water line replacement. this picture shows the replacement of the water line and the pg&e service line running out to the street here. here is the street sidewalk entrance. this picture shows from the outside of the property the displacement of the gate. you know, 18 years ago, this gait was lev gait -- gate was level, and this gate closed. you can see we have to fudge with the latch of the gate or so just to have a working gate. our neighbors were robbed earlier this year, and we have safety concerns with a nonfunctioning gate. during the water line maintenance, we had to cut tree roots already. we are concerned that cutting tree roots again will lead to destablization of the property. several large roots have already

been severed during prior maintenance. we also have concerns about safety in this tree stays up. it's 70 feet up, and it's a giant wind sail. we live in glen park, and the winds come out of glenn canyon every evening and blow ferociously through this tree. we are concerned about the occlusions for this tree, and those occlusions are points of failure for the tree. the ones that i showed just a moment ago, these are the hundreds that hang over lippard avenue. if they go out, they're going to reach across the street, and take out the power and at&t and cable service for the entire block. these are occlusions over my uphill neighbor's property, the neighbor who's complained about taking this tree out. if this tree fails, they're

going to take out part of his house. you can see the lines across the street where if any of these branchs fail, it will take out neighborhood services. so ultimately, we're appealing to this board in asking for some consideration for the fact that we love this tree, we've maintained it for many years, but it's a nonwinning battle for us to continue to prune branchs when in fact the roots and the trunk of the tree are what's going to prevent us from being able to access the property. thank you very much. >> commissioner honda: so sir how long have you been at the property? >> 18 years. >> commissioner honda: and in the 18 years that you've been there, how significantly has this tree grown? >> you know, i have -- had, i'm sorry. i don't have that picture handy, but it's grown considerably. so you know, we trim it every other year. it grows about 36 inches

peryear. >> commissioner honda: yeah. i noticed in the brief that the monogrowth was pretty significant. >> okay. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of urban forestry. >> good evening, commissioners. chris buck, san francisco urban forester, with the deputy of urban forestry. if i could have the overhead, i'll go through some slides in our presentation. i want to say right out at our public works hearing the other month, this property owner has definitely maintained this tree

for a long time. most property owners would have pursued removal many years before now. that said, i'm going to go through our presentation and why at the staff level and departmental level that we denied the request for removal but also how we feel at this point in time in presentation for this evening's hearing. this tree is an ash tree. we've got a number of these planted on masonic and other locations throughout the city. it does have some weak attachments, so the report submitted by the applicant, they are referred to the structure here as poor. we refer to it as fair, but there are some codominant leaders with occluded bark. some of the angles of attachment are not that bad.

they're wider angles of attachment. there's not a lot of branch failure, so we have a very rig vigorous tree with some fair structure and some poor structure. in preparation for this evening, i would say we really want to make a decision in this with our heart, but the head on this one is kind of winning out, and this is where we want to concede some key points and really look to your guidance. i don't believe that these repairs to the walkway -- they are technically feasible, but i don't believe we're going to get enough time out of them. and so in the last several days in preparing for this hearing and reviewing these images, we've reviewed it with our superintendent. i gueet it. it's a big, large, beautiful tree, but how much time are we buying if we make this property

owner repair this walkway? additionally, the walkway is pinched down to 27 inches at its narrowest point. the property owner uphill is very much opposed to removal of the tree, has offered to move up and replace the fence, however, that's only going to buy us four to 6 inches, and with the species and growth rate, it's not going to improve and get us to 36 inches, so we're still going to be far short of a 36-inch accessibility path. so in preparation for the hearing, we've wanted to say gosh, this is a really beautiful tree. we'd love to see this tree remain. as you see in your brief, the property owner has done a very thorough job documenting the resources they've put into maintaining this tree. they clearly have good nigbeen it every two years at a great cost, so in reviewing the

optimal site and replacement tree. there is a redwood tree in the front yard. it is pointed out with a black line. subject tree is circled in green. there's a gas line and a water main that is directly below this subject tree, so there's no room to plant a tree as a significant future tree. actually, the removal of that tree will allow the redwood to take over some of that fence. here's a look at that tree over the fence. the redwood tree is the darker tree to the left behind the property. one possible replacement location is in the sidewalk on the downhill side of the driveway; however, in talking with the applicant this evening, there may be a sewer line in that location, so replacement in that location may not be possible. another idea, the appellant is very much -- sort of, you know,

would love to see more trees be planted on the block. so one of the things that i wanted to propose is the applicant plant two trees on the street line of their property. [please stand

>> we really like the idea of the uphill owner working on this issue but it will not buy us long term and long listing -- long lasting results. we actually believe that removal would be reasonable. thank you. >> thank you. can you answer the question around the replacement of the street trees. that there may be a gas line or a sewer line. do you know the conditions of what the sidewalks would be in terms of having replacement street trees or we don't know right now? >> it sounds like directly in front of their home there is a sewer line on the downhill side.

it does not look like -- when i prepared this slide this afternoon, i was optimistic but they have informed me that they have a sewer line on the downhill side of the property. that would knock the site in front of their home out of contention. it does look like the uphill neighbor has a site as well as a downhill neighbor. >> and with that property owners need to be supportive of the street tree being in front of their property? in order for that to happen? >> ideally can't legally, no. public works now has the maintenance responsibilities for all three trees. the applicant is willing to water and establish the trees for three years, at which time, public works will assume all responsibility and liability for the trees. we would work with the neighbors to let them select the species that would go in front of their own homes. we would be as accommodating as possible. ultimately, we have jurisdiction to allow that to happen. >> just to reiterate, you do not believe in recommending a

replacement tree or shrub on the prop subject property itself and replacement of the ash tree? >> correct. there is no viable place to acquire a replacement tree and property. >> thank you. >> excuse me. given the fact that we know that you are a tree lever and the fact that you come before us asking us to take one down is pretty rare. so when i mentioned that the tree is middle-aged at 55, i'm glad to hear that 55 is not middle aged. just so you know. [laughter] >> then he would consider me a senior. in the fast growth right of 55, how much larger will the dimension of that tree get and did what. >> thank you. i can't give you specifics but i can tell you, based on the vigourous appearance of the foliage, the tree is still very young. it has a lot of growing to do. >> assess up to 150 years. >> it will not get that old but

it will grow quite a bit more over the next 30 years. unfortunately, i do not see it slowing down. >> thank you count very much. >> thank you. >> his or any public comment on this item? no public comment. okay. how many people are here for public comment, can you raise your hands, police, please. just one. okay. -- can you raise your hands, please. just one. okay. >> i live across the street. i have lived there for 30 years and i have watched the sidewalk change and be dangerous and to the one thing you couldn't really see from any of these pictures is how steep the incline is on our block and when you are walking down the street,

it is pretty scary. if it was raining and the tree -- there is a lot of winds that comes through there and the leaves fall off and it is dangerous because it is slippery and so that is one thing. and the stuff that is -- i don't even know what exactly is under which part of the sidewalk, but we have had a lot of problems. them digging up the street and having big holes. so i am kind of frightened about having these branches fall down and for me, the complaint by our neighbor who is also friends of ours, you know, her deal is that it is a visceral experience and it is kind of like, well, the

tree isn't indigenous to the city in our neighborhood, specifically the redwood tree is stunted because of how big the ash tree is and if it is something that is, i'm sorry. if it is an experience for the neighbor to have nature and all this other, you know, whatever is going on for her, i don't know. i can't get all the words out. but i think it is ridiculous that they can't take the tree out. i feel -- i have a ginkgo tree that has been across the street, on the street, you know, at my house that still doesn't grow. i would be more than happy to move the ashes there.

>> thank you. >> thank you. nice t-shirt, by the way. >> okay. we will now move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellants you have three minutes. >> thank you. i own 44 and 42 lippard avenue. i am the guy who just lost my eye on july 1st. i had it removed and i am dealing with that on a personal basis. i am just going to speak from the heart. marched over to, 1982, i moved to san francisco and i left san francisco. i'm so proud to be here and have been here for 35 years. when bill and i met at an hiv-positive meeting and we decided to buy a house together because we lived in the same apartment building for 17 years, we got together and we found this beautiful property in glen park. it was a magic moment. is one of my proud moments in my life. i am a hard worker.

we are working smiles and we work every day and we got to own property in san francisco. the first thing we saw was that tree. we love that tree. it has been a great tree and we have spent thousands of dollars to maintain that tree. i got to tell you, i can't walk past -- their cottages in front in mind is in the back and i am having trouble. i'm seriously having trouble. i have one i. i would ask everyone to cover one eye and try to live like that. i am adjusting and it is fine. i took care of my 18-year-old aunt who lives across the street i could not get her through my property. our cement is coming up this way i have feared that anyone, as you said, 55 is now middle-aged. i left that. guess what we my friends are in their sixties and then they will be in their seventies and i cannot calve them over because we cannot get them through. i beg you to let us take this tree down. we have a beautiful redwood. we will make that the start of

the block. truly. i have this fantasy of putting lights all over it this year and making it fabulous. we love our property. we love our neighbor. we have been good neighbors. my mother taught me to be a good neighbor. i am proud of the neighborhood i live in. i am proud of the people i own property with. i am proud of being a san francisco. i thank you to let us do this. i need you to help us do this. i need to live there for the rest of my life. so that is my rebuttal. thank you for hearing me. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> questions? >> he did not need to make, by the way. >> i never need the mic and if you like me to take my fake eye out i can do that as well. [laughter] >> we will pass. thank you. is there anything further? >> good evening, commissioners. i am with the bureau of urban forestry. no rebuttal. if there are logistical

questions around replacement trees, we are open to whatever your suggestions are. >> so, administrative question, if we move forward and recommend the replacement of the demise of the tree and replacement trees, would you suggest that we condition that on replacing it with two street trees if possible according to the conditions and the locations that you mentioned? >> correct. i think we could recommend 224- inch box size street trees as close to the site as possible and we will follow up with the property owner to submit planting applications which they can do to free permit applications and we will issue a permit to them to plant the trees. we will also work with the fronting property owner and can work with them on a species that they are comfortable with to try

and curry favor and make sure they would be supportive of the conditions of this permit. sometimes the removal of a big tree on a block can be the catalyst for a mini tree planting. >> do you have a question? >> this is a little bit more generic than this particular case but i have had the sense lately with some of these tree issues that you have changed the position of the department by the time the issue comes before us. and i'm happy that you are all flexible and that it benefits the appellants, but what is it about the process that doesn't allow you to do some of this investigation and determination beforehand. because this then requires a process on the part of the appellant. a cost money and it cost time. and i'm not trying to be antagonistic.