>> good evening, welcome to the february 6th, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by rick swig, anne. brad russy will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. at the controls of the board legal assistant, gary and i'm

julie rosenburg the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. we expect scott sanchez, the acting deputy zoning administrator, joseph duffy representing the department of building inspection and chris buck, urban for esthe forester. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permanent holder and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttle. people affiliated must include their comments within the period. members of the public not affiliated have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttle. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes you are asked but not required

to submit a speaker card or business card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street. it's broadcast life on sfgov and will be rebroadcast on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv.org. we will affirm those who attend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings, and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. for those people who are going to be giving testimony, do you swear affirm the testimony you

are about to give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. we have one housekeeping item. item number 8 has been drawn. this is 18.161 thomas doughty subject property at 1 at 189 maa street. we'll 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 board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calender. is there anyone here for general public comment? we'll move on to item number 2. this is the election of the officers. we are required to have annual elections of the officers at this time of year. i want to thank president fung and vice president swig for all of your help and service this past year. so, we will start with the offices of the president. are there any members of the board who would like to nominate

a colleague or themselves for the office of the president? >> i'd like to nominate frank fung. >> any other nominations? is there any public comment on that motion? seeing none. on that motion -- i should check. president fung, would you be willing to accept this position? >> you don't want to do it anymore. >> president fung: i will, thank you. on the motion to re-elect president fung for another term, president fung. >> president fung: aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> that passes. we will move on to vice president. would anyone like to nominate a colleague. >> i would like to nominate vice president swig. >> ok. vice president swig would you accept that? >> v.p. swig: sure, thank you, very much. >> is there any public comment on that motion to re-elect vice

president swig? seeing none. president fung? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> congratulations. so we will now move on to item number 3. commissioner comments and questions. any commissioner comments and questions? >> i'd like to congratulate my president and vice president for their second year. also, wish everyone a happy chinese lunar new year. year of the pig. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on item number 3? seeing none, we'll move on item number 4. the adoption of the minutes. commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes are the january 30th, 2019 board meeting. >> any corrections or addictions? >> move to adopt as submitted. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the january 30th, 2019 board

meeting minutes. on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> so the minutes are adopted. we'll now move on to item number 5. this is appeal number 18.134 mark bruno versus apartment building inspection 15 noble valley and 472 union street. protesting the issuance on september 21st, 2018 to paul of an alteration permit. renovation of an existing bath and kitchen and unit 2 on the second floor and in the studio unit on the first floor to comply with 201-84-0721. this is application 2081. note on december 5th, 2018, the board voted 4-0-1 president fung absent to continue this matter to february 6th, 2019 so that one, the board can receive a full set of complete plans from the permit holder and two, d.b.

>> j. gonzalez: i can assist a permit holder with clearing up notice of violation and the parties can submit supplemental briefs. did you have a chance to review the material for this matter? >> president fung: i did. >> so, we will move forward and we will hear first from the department of building inspections and then the planning department if they wanted to add anything and the permit holder and the appellant. each party has three minutes each. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy d.b.i. i just got a chance to go to the property today. i did a site visit. i met with the new building owner, there sketty his name was. i was interested in the number of units in the building. it was unclear with

inconsistency over the years whether it was five, six, seven, four, 12? so, the property itself is one building. it's got two street front ages on union street and it also fronts on to noble valley at the back of three units and three units. the buildings are connected to they're not actually separate buildings. it's sort of got three units stacked on one, three units on the other building and on the ground floor on the union street site, there's an area and i think that's the area that on the building permit that they got was referencing a studio unit on the first floor. that's not actually a legal studio unit. i did point that out to the owner. he was aware of that. you know, at this point, the work was started it was demolitioned on and they're in the middle of the remodel.

without recommended any action, certainly on the description of the permit, the renovation of existing bath and kitchen in unit number two is ok. the end studio and first floor to comply with notice of violation is not ok. it might be that we deny this permit and they just start again. they're easier to get. they're the kind of permits with b.d. -- let's start all over againi.

>> when this permit would be denied, and a proper set of plans come in for whatever they chose to do within the legal units of that building, i don't think it's a problem getting that permit. it's pretty easy permit. they're opening the units a little bit. they're taking out a wall between the kitchen and dinning room with structural drawings and stuff like that. i didn't see the drawings.

they weren't on site today. the studio unit would be something that would have to go through the planning department. it's a project at that point. >> a separate permit. >> on a separate permit, yeah. >> so is there any hardship created by canceling the permit? is there any hardship that would where you toccur by wiping the n tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. he could go down and file for a new permit given proper plans and proper organization? >> yes, they actually did file a couple of permits which they haven't processed yet. we don't want them to process until after this appeal. it shouldn't have happened. they wanted to -- that's exactly what they want to do. i think the intention is to pull separate permits for each unit. which makes it simpler instead of calling it unit two. there's two unit 2s.

12, 3, 1, 2, 3. they do have some news with old expired permits that we're going to have to work through and they did promise me they would do that. they did try to cancel the permit with dbi so i don't think they have any problem with the denial of the permits because i think that's the part they wanted to go anyway. they wanted to cancel this permit and start fresh. >> is there any hardship by canceling the permit created to the project sponsor? >> i didn't see one. apart from the fact the units will be vacant for longer. >> just to confirm, no revised drawings were shown to you. >> i didn't get any. >> i shoes not to have a revision and could have been accepted by this board.

>> ok. >> mr. bruno, if you say something, you need to come to the front corner an counter. >> president fung: my question to mr. duffy was there any drawings had been shown to him and he answered no. >> mr. sanchez, last time you provided comments. not tonight. we will now move onto the permit holder. permit holder's attorney. >> hi, i'm leo laraque here on behalf of the permit holder. on january 28th, 2019, the contractor did, at the suggestion of this board, file a request to cancel the permit

associated with this appeal. i was advised by ms. rosenburg this afternoon via e-mail that when the appeal was filed, the process stops and the permit cannot be canceled. that's why we're here today. mr. morgan thomas, who is the representative of the owner of the property and the -- one of the employees of mr. biskety was at the meeting with mr. duffy. a suggestion was made with regards to amending the existing permit to remove any reference to 472 union street and to amend the plans that were submitted pursuant to the original permit, which is now subject to this appeal by removing any reference to 472 and move forward with the permit application that was submitted many, many months ago.

i understand mr. swig asked the question would there be any prejudice or hardship with regards to canceling the permit now and starting with a fresh slate. essentially submitting new plans and permits. let's get this process moving. the only indication i would make and i would, at the suggestion, what we would suggest happen is we were prepared to amend the to 472 and to amend the existing plans that remove any reference to 472 union street and the plans to unit number 2 is

essentially simple remodel or an alteration with regards to a reconstruction of the bathroom and a kitchen in that unit. >> each party was given three minutes each so you won't have an opportunity, sir. mr. bruno, please approach. and you have three minutes as

well. >> thank you, mr. fung, for speaking so i could hear you. you have a beautiful, deep voice but it's hard to hear as i get older. i am here because i appealed an application which is a violation of many rights of the people who live in this building. you didn't have the advantage, commissioner fung, of being at the hearing on december 5th. in fact, mr. buscatti purchased this property at a director's hearing. mr. duffy wasn't there. three people from dbi were.

he purchased it upon the finding of the director's hearing, meaning our own inspectors that we pay for, who are objective analysis of this property to say no more work can be done on this property. until many conditions are met. so to suggest that this is just a minor issue at unit 2 or at 472 or 15 is not the case. he purchased it at a great reduction in the then asking price of the property. it's all at the board of appeal, rather the assessment and recorders office. the property was being asked 2.3 million and it went for 1.8 million the very next day to. he owns many properties in this city and to suggest that he was unaware that this baron-looking room that no one has lived in, this so-called studio, could be in fact part of an application for a refurbishing is dishonest. there's no way it could be made into anything unless you went through the proper channels to get an a.d.u.

there's many dishonest things here. to go back why we're here today, i suck as it seems mr. duffy is suggesting as well, not to worry about whether or not the appellant might suffer in some way. he has made his own bed and must now lie in it. he has approached the city and suggested that this room that has never been used by anybody, since 1911, when the building was built, could somehow be now refurbished by him, illegally, to have a seventh unit in the building. that was done not without his knowledge. there is an egregious violation here. the studio, again, commissioner. >> president fung: didn't havfuh he was so refurbish, there is no studio. there's no square footage unit. the size of the so-called studio so how many mistakes could he make? there's no location a the ground floor that he describes in his application. for all these reasons i think the board should deny the application on these grounds

alone. as we all know, the board of appeals has three options. one of them is not to just, as was suggested by the other party, the attorney for the other party, just let it go or alter or alternate the current application. it's not one of the options. the options are to deny my appeal or to deny the application or to send it back with conditions. i ask you again that it be denied for all the reasons i presented. thank you for your time. >> for the record, president fung did have an opportunity to review the plans and all the materials submitted for the earlier hearing. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president fung: i have a question further for mr. duffy.

>> just to confirm again, the configuration shown on the plan of the space that they want to renovate, is that an unoccupied space that would represent a seventh unit. >> correct, that's right. >> so it has to be an a.d.u. >> it is. >> president fung: which has to be different applications. >> it's a completely different process. that permit was -- that's why it's not -- the remodel and unit number two for a kitchen and bathroom, that would be simple enough to get. there are issues with the plans as well. i didn't get a chance to say that as well. the site plan, the flor plan of the building, they are better to start again in this case. i don't think i said, mr. bruno said i said i was unaware it was a studio and why think i said that. if i said that i didn't mean to

say that. i don't know why they show it as an exiting studio but it's not a studio yet. they can go through that process and mr. bruno can object or support it as he wishes as well. >> are you done? >> this board has another option which is a special conditions permit where we can't accept a revision and apply that to a permit. >> correct, that's right. if we have to hold the appeal, is it because the permit was issued. the existing studio. the studio did not exist. >> i'm going in that direction.

thank you. >> these people can do a lot better than this. that's what they need to do. the discussion i have with them today is that's the path they need to go. this is an older building. they want to remodel the units and bring them and modernize them and that's a good idea. we have a process for doing that. it's simple actually when you do it right, and you have respect for the people living in the building and people in the neighborhood. you get through your proper inspections and that's the indication i got from them today and it's the road and i will get on that road and other people in dbi ask as well. it's an older building. if they want to do it right, we're always there to help. >> given that situation, at the last hearing, the confusion was,

at least in my mind was rampant. given that, which you just described, and your recommendation, i would absolutely heed your recommendation to wipe the slate clean and start all over again. what was confusing, what is and give dbi to clarify exactly what so let's unit 2, let's make it clear it was ambiguous and clearly there are flaws as you identified in other stuff and clearly a permit at some point, if they chose from that direction needs to be filed. a lot of stuff needs to be done and to quote you, thank you, very much. the property owners could have done a much better job, closed quote. with that, i will agree with you and i would recommend to my

fellow commissioners that we find for the appeal anant on the grounds you stated it was improperly. can you stop hovering and sit down. can you sit down and please stop hovering, thank you, very much. we deny the -- we up hold the appeal on the grounds it was improperly issued. thank you. >> president fung: do you have a motion? >> so we have a motion from vice president swig to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis, what i understand, the plans were flawed and the studio would require an a. d.u. >> v.p. swig: that the permit was improperly issued. i think it would suffice. >> on the basis the permit was improperly issued.

>> president fung. >> president fung: aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> the appeal is granted. permit is denied. we will now move on to appeal item number 6. this is appeal number 18-164 richard hall versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. subject property is 2940 16th street. on december 7th, san francisco public works of a public works order approval of request to remove two street trees with replacement adjacent to the subject property. this is order number 200294 and we will hear from mr. hall first. you have seven minutes, sir. >> thank you.

basically, what i'm asking for you today as a minimum removal of the two trees in front of the historic red stone building these trees, we have offices in the building many, many other organizations and these trees shield us from the noise of the street in the winter. they block the wind in the summer they help cool us and as notice wit, the building is four-storeys hall. they are huge trees that are of great benefit to this building and should not be removed willie

nilly, ok. i'd also like to ask you to consider that these trees are just a small part, removal of these trees, are just a small part of sfmtas 22filmor project which they're now calling the 16th street improvement project. in order to improve our street, they're removing 61 mature trees along 16th street. i haven't gone and taken pictures of them or found them. this should be reviewed in the full context of what sfmta is doing here and as far as i'm concerned, it's just a contractor and it isn't a and

get sfmta into this room. they didn't even answer my sunshine request. basically i asked for your help. i don't know what flexibility you have but i do know that this is wrong and i also know that d.p.w. has a war on ficus trees and recently i saw that the library residents were rallying to save the same kind of trees in front of the library.

to takeaway such a valuable canopy of trees along 16th street needs to be well considered. not taking them out all at the same time. maybe five years take a few out, five years later take a few out. if many these trees can be trimmed, salvageable and safe. i just feel like i don't even understand the complete logic behind it. a, i think it's part of this diluting of the dpw deforest station project but also, i want sfmta to answer why they want all these trees removed. i know they got buses. they got buses down there right now. is this to accommodate the two-storey google devices. why are they taking all these

trees out? that is sort of it. i have three more minutes but i ask you to deny removal of these trees. and to consider what power you have to to get the full scope of these issues considered. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners, chris san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. regarding the two subject trees, they're very large and beautiful. they are absolutely large

stature ficus trees. specifically, there's two reasons why we're out there evaluating these trees. both for the filmore22 street scape improvement project but also due to the implication of proposition e which we refer to as street tree sf. this is a grid map. 261 that brought our inspectors to the site to evaluate all the trees in this grid of blocks. so, it's both. it's both us doing routine analysis of tree conditions but also about a year and a half ago, already, part of the -- when there's a street scape project, there's a number of them annually. there's ma sonic, public works, when there's going to be a lot of work in the public right-of-way, we node to evaluate the condition of the trees along that corridor so

that all these work that is taking place doesn't occur in a vacuum where we don't actually look at the trees. we wouldn't want a project to come through and then say oh well, we didn't look at the trees. why are they falling down? what's happening? so that's one of the things that occurs when there's a project. whether it's a sewer replacement or with some other agencies leading an effort. but to go back to the trees themselves. street tree sf is the implementation of proposition e. we're now staffing up and getting more equipment and our goal is to prune every street tree within a three to five year pruning cycle. part of that is to evaluate the condition of the trees. here say photo of the two subject trees. they're quite large. the larger the tree the greater

the benefit and the more beautiful and inspiring and unfortunately both ficus trees have poor structure and they meet the tree removal criteria that the trees have competing co dominant leaders acute angles of attachment and they also have included bark. there is an sfmta. they have removed 10 or so trees along 16th that we want to remove now. we don't want wait for the street scape project to occur. there are a number of trees we'll be posting for removal and there's more information about that. the estimate is that potentially 61 trees would be proposed for removal from church all the way east to mission bay on 16th. many of those are ficus trees.

but specifically, tree number one is pictured here in the right. the backside of the tree has lost a large stem and this structure with these three stems join this way is prone to fail. here is the image taken from the street showing narrow points of attachment with included bark, areas within the tree that are prone to fail. the tree, years and years and years ago was topped by produced this poo poor structure. here is a close up. this is the secondary structure. this is about 20 feet up. 25 feet up. each of these stems is almost a foot in diameter. they're really narrow point of attachment and it is a high-risk location within the tree that would fail. again, another example of weak attachment within the canopy. when we see the tree itself and its green and it's glossy and

the health, the vigor of the foley age is fine but that's not what will hold the tree up. it's the structure. there are examples of previously failures within the trees. and then again the limb on the west side has had an injury over the road. the sidewalk is pretty wide. generally, sidewalk repair will just keep repairing the sidewalk. in this case it's not a problem for us. it's relatively routine for fake uficus to damage the sidewalk. these are enormous trees. although they provide the greatest benefits, it pro sights us with thprovidesus with greatr safety. they have deep bark inclusions, when we see trees fail over and over again in the same locations we have a responsibility unfortunately to keep the public

safe. here is a close up of that poor structure. this is a view of the front of the trunk from the street. again, looking up into the canopy as high as you can access visually there are other issues with the trees. they were topped many, many years ago and the branches that have regrown one of them failed. the image on the right shows these two essentially you had of a stub at one point and it sprouted back three branches. these branches are 30 feet tall. so the way we identify trees for removal is we really go over the structure of the tree. when i see a big can pee, i have no idea that you have to get under the hood and look at how those individuals branches connect to each other. regarding replacement trees, tree number two closest to the corner is very close to a street light, just nine feet away from

the street light. the species this large would require at least 21 feet. and it's wedged between the tree and the right and a tree out of view on the left. this is a site where we would remove this tree without replacement. we have a number of guidelines outlined in our director's order that regulates the planting and maintenance and removal of street trees so we have specific clearances we need from street lights. the only real concession, it's not a concession. i can offer this evening is instead of removing both trees in plant it with two trees, there is room to plant an additional three trees. so removal of two with replacement of three as shown. again the tree close to the street light cannot be replanted. the other tree can be replanted and there's room for two additional trees. so we ask you to up hold the approval to remove both trees with replacement of a total of

three trees. thank you. >> questions? >> what size tree are you talking about as a replacement and what species? >> the species is not set yet. so because of the street scape project, i've e-mailed our public works contact. so, i don't know the replacement species as of today and i apologize for that. we certainly would keep with the species that are settled upon by the community and that public outreach process. the size that we're planning to replace would be 24-inch box. it's possible that street scape, sometimes they plant 36 box size trees for the project and that is something i will double check. at the moment, it would be 24-inch box size trees that would be a large size tree at maturity. >> i have a question, it looked, from the picture that you put

up, that there were no trees on the other side of the street. >> correct. there are no trees across the street. there is a street scape plan to plan a lot more trees. it's not -- i'm not a project representative for that and i don't want to give you a big song and dance and glossy photos but there's going to be a lot of new trees planted. we have to check for underground basements and things like that. there's certainly a potential to get a lot more trees in the area. >> i have a question. i mean, i don't envy your job because i know what a tree lover you are. in row sen recent cases we've hd appeals coming fourth regarding mass reduction of ficus trees. we just recently had one for 19 trees. it was mentioned at that hearing, had you been on the

other side, we would ask why we don't want these trees to go away. but here, now, besides these three, you are mentioning that there's a potential of 61 trees being removed from our city. and i believe that last year our can pee is one of the lowest out of any metropolitan city. when you wholesale bulk remove that amount of foal age? >> we have a low canopy cover for sure. we didn't have a native forest. we're at a disadvantage. a lot of the cities in the west don't have a native forest the way that chicago -- the trees just pop up out of the ground. there's native trees stock that naturally trees in those areas. we started from an urban environment. there's good and bad, right. these trees haven't been maintained regularly over the years. just like a lot of our trees and

we the library they persuade the removal of the 19 trees. we didn't initiate that removal. but the street scape project is bringing us to the 16th street and we've got to look at the trees on that corridor. just like van ness. if there's a lot of activity and a lot of work, are the trees in good enough condition to withstand all that. it gives us an opportunity to remove trees that are very poor structure and replace them. in this case, the street scape would fund the replacement trees and we currently don't have funding to plant replacement trees. so, in a roundabout away of trying to answer that, do we

have an urban forest plan? we've identified ficus trees for removal over a number of years. it feels like lately we've had a bigger bump in that and octavia is one that will come up 24th street in the mission. it will be -- we'll be here a lot and it's going to be difficult. >> taking from your own book and to put you on the spot, if we're seeing a lot more of these trees removals, i want to have a little more information. taking one from your book, is that how long is it going to take our con owe pee to ge canoo help our environment. >> absolutely. >> just one thing to add to that is that for sure, i mentioned at a previously hearing we have a full-time public information officer now and we are -- where we initiate a lot of ficus tree

removals, we will schedule a public meeting. it's a common courtesy to start that process with as much information as possible. >> roughly how old are these and what would their expected life expectancy be? >> sure. you know how much i a i am challenged by age. these trees, they could be 35, 45-years-old. a lot of ficus were planted in the early '70s. it could be late '60s. the urban environment say moving target. big cyprus tree in the middle of the park has a better chance. i would say life expectancy moving forward on these is -- we're impressed they haven't failed, right. that's our takeaway as well. we're evaluating these trees for the first time ever. and a look at the problems it's our takeaway. so i couldn't give you how much

more they have left. we wouldn't want to risk that. >> i'm just -- i still remember 75 howard when we took out those ficus on that block. >> president fung: who is funding 16 street scape plan? i believe mta funds the street scape plan or they're the project lead. we have public works, landscape works and project managers that work with them so they know those answers. but this is a project that's being led by the mta. again, in parallel with that is our implementation of street tree sf so we've been looking at these trees for a while as our own bureau with what are we going to do with these trees? so, i would say that both, we've been dealing with both projects

simultaneously and there's internally been a little bit of, who wants to be the lead on this tree removal. >> president fung: so, if they're funding it then they would be responsible for the replacement? >> in this particular case, we're going to initiate the removal of these two trees separate from the project. the public works would cover the removal cost. and we're hoping to then ask them for the funds to plant replacement trees. >> but is your review part of a regular review or based on a request from m.t.a.? >> so, both are occurring. we reviewed it as part of the project and after that we also had a routine inspection.

we looked at these trees a year and a half ago. proposed to move along the entire corridor and we said ok, this is what is occurring out here we're looking at maybe 61 trees. that process takes a long time. things sit. there's a number of community meetings that occur on other parts of the project. but during all that time, it brought our team out for routine inspection so these two trees, there's a few trees on 16th where we're not waiting for the street scape project to move forward, we're just initiating the removal on our own because we don't want to wait. >> since you are not certain about the source of funding for the replacement trees, does that jeopardize them being replaced as soon as possible? >> no. we would prioritize the replacement of the trees in the location. we have limited funding for

planting. where we have funding from another course we would certainly tap into that. but 16th street trees of this size, we heard from the community. i wondered what goes in there. now i found out. it was a very loud and unanimous and about the loss of the con owe pee. we're going to make sure the trees are replanted. it's three trees adjacent to the building. >> rough timetable? if you were able to cult these down next monday, how soon after would the replacement be? >> our urban forestry ordinance the code allows us six months. we would do that in a much shorter turn around time. i've been saying three months. i feel like it gives us a little bit of wiggle room. it's challenging any time you roll out big equipment on 16th street.

>> thank you to commissioner lazarus for setting me up for a further question. you know, i hate to break it to you but dpw has a lousy reputation according to testimony at the very least we heard two weeks ago on replacing trees and there was testimony two weeks ago that i can't remember the location but the same and i'm not doubting your intent. i'm not doubting your words that they would be replaced in six months. and, also, what is confusing for me is that you just double spoke on me.

did you say your funding is coming from m.t.a.? >> funding to remove the trees would not come from the m.t.a. for these two trees? >> but you then said we have no money to replant trees? we have no funds to replant trees. i heard you say that. >> correct. so it is public record and we totally agree. it's a martha raddatz o public . it's amazing one positive thing that happened on that date two years ago. it went threw with no money for new trees. i assumed it was going to include replacement trees and we wanted the public to know we're committed to maintaining existing trees. it's not a matter of will right now. we've put in a number of grants for a million dollars here and a million dollars there to get the money for planting. the planting will come. we don't have funding currently.

>> did you hear that i was going to win the lottery next week? i heard a rumor. >> the feedback is, we're aware of the problem of the replacements and i have said to our team, we're implementing proposition a. we knew we were going to come across removals. it's not a good time to not have the funding to plant replacement trees. to me it feels like there's so many other issues to focus on than the replacement. that's should be the easy part. i take your feedback and that's a big problem we're trying to workout. >> here it goes, so i have a question for you. so, we believe you. all right. and i'm not saying that i believe you, but we believe the structure of these trees is bad and we believe that these pose a danger and we believe that as

professionals, your guidance is correct. we deny the appeal and we believe you that you are going to up holhold the law and replat the trees in six months. and then six months goes by and we drive by that street and it's as naked as the day is long. how do trust d.p.w.? how do we hold d.p.w. accountable because this is judicial body, as you know. how do we hold d.p.w. accountable for keeping the truth? and replanting. without proof today, because you are telling me that you have no money. >> sure. it's a great question. so 16th street -- >> it's a concerning question. >> it's a major transit

corridor. we're not going to allow site conditions to be out there where people will be tripping. we just can't do that. it's going to mean making decisions about other sites. there may be sites in other parts of the city that are quiet and they're not at the corner of 16th and mission. so we're going to prioritize replacements as necessary. and we are just being honest about the funding. i do want to clarify, it's not the will, it's just the money is not there. >> i understand. i totally understand. >> the other question leading to that is, what seems to be a pattern of behavior is we're going to do this. we promise you that. we know you are upset constituency who is protesting. we understand the upset neighborhood about the

deforestation but we promise we'll get these trees in in six months and it's just a well-intended bald face law. why should we approve -- i'm not doubting that what you are saying and i'm not calling you a liar, all right. why should we know a pattern of behavior that hasn't reached fruition of replanting and tied into that, is there a way which you can mitigate the situation. that is to do a significant pruning or otherwise of the trees in the meantime and then when you have funding, pull the trees and know that you are going to replace them with 24 or 36-inch boxes? >> so, regarding the -- there

have been recent cases. there was one 1801filmor removal of trees. there were two that weren't replanted yet. we committed to replanting those trees in a short-turned time. we are living up to the obligations. there's a lot of cases that don't make it to board of appeals. on church street, the middle school there, we avoided board of appeals because we committed to the community to plant replacements within three months or less. we worked with the supervisors' office and we made that happen. there's a lot of success stories that, unfortunately, aren't brought up before you. we are planting replacement trees. are we doing all of them? no. and when we remove trees and it's high-profile, murphy's law, do we have some replacement tree issues out there?

yep. public works would never lie. >> v.p. swig: i'm not saying that you are lying. you are unfortunate victims of bureaucracy and wishful thinking. >> we've never come at any of our hearings to say whether a public works hearing or board of appeals to say we're going to do this and not deliver on that. a lot of the trees that people are complaining about are trees that never part of a hearing and so i think going back, regarding mitigation, it would certainly make things a lot easier if we can plant replacement trees. we do have funding. i mean i don't want to go into specifics. we have funding to plant some replacement trees. where we're getting hammered by the public is well, you haven't replanted all of them. certainly anything that comes to the board avenue peels will be a priority. the question is how do we really

know? we don't want to hear back that these don't get replanted. we're going to prioritize cases that have come both at a public works hearing and board of appeals. so that's what we're going to do. >> v.p. swig: final question, i hate to do this to you, but there's a bun of of people in this room who are upset at the situation so i'm trying to figure out a way to send them off pissed off at least with some hope. if in deed we go in that direction. what surety, how can you return to the people in the back of the room and what surety can you give them that if we find in favor of your recommendation, what surety can you give them that in fact that you are not

blowing smoke, innocently. and they will have tree replacement this is a maximum of six months? >> sure. the first thing i will do is confirm with the street scape team if we can use funds for those planned replacements for these trees. if they say no, then we're going to find the money and do it. or ordinance requires replacement trees be planted within six months of removal. if we hold a property owner to that we need to up hold and follow it ourselves. i think the greatest reassurance i can provide to the public and to you as a commission, is how much we really don't want to come back and have the lack of replacement be any part of the narrative. it really is that simple. i mean, it just would be self-sabotaging of the department if that's what it is. >> v.p. swig: do you think it would be a good idea for us to kick the can a little bit and postpone a finding on this to

request that you come back here with paperwork that says, we got the money and we're going to do it? >> we can make -- we can plant, replace the trees on 16th street at this location. we absolutely can. we have the funding to do that. we'll do it within six months. we're fully committed to that. >> president fung: or is there another option. >> v.p. swig: you know where i'm going with this. >> we still have public comment. >> v.p. swig: yeah, i understand. thank you, sir. i appreciate it. >> is there any public comment on this item? if you are here for public comment, i would appreciate it if you lineup against the wall or move forward so we can move the process along. please make sure, after you are done speaking, to give gary a speaker card.

thank you. [ please stand by ]