but public safety has to always welcome to the san francisco ys board of appeals president swig will be joined by vice president lopez. tras vinasm lemberg and eppler. also present is jen huber who will give needed legal advice. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments that will present before the board this evening.

tina tammy the za representing planning. rebecca, preservation planner with planning. matthew green. deputy director inspection service. and chris buck urban forester with public works. board requests you turn off all phone and electronics so they'll will not disturb. no sooet eating or drink. board rules of presentation appellates, permit hold and respondents begin 7 minutes to present and 3 rebuttal. people affiliated must include comment in thes 7-3 minute bunkhamed. members of public not with party vs 3 millions to address the board in rebuttal. for case heard the parties are upon given 3 minutes with no rebuttal.

you will get 30 seconds before your time sus. 4 votes are needed to grant an appeal or determination. if you have questions e mill the staff at board of appeals sfgov.org. public access and participation are paramount importance. sfgovtv streaming live and the ability to receive public comment for each item. sfgovtv is providing closed captioning. to watch the hearing on tv go to sfgov.org channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream at sfgov.org/boa. public comment can be provide in the 3 ways. in personings via zoom g. to the website and click on hearings and the zoom link. biupon phone. call 669-900-6823 and enter id

access code: 866 1423 5574. and again sfgovtv is streaming the instructions across the bottom of the screen if you are watching. to block your number when call nothing dial star 87 then the phone number. listen for the item to be called and dial star 9 equal to raising your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turn. may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you will have 3 minutes and legal assistant will give a 30 second warning before your time is up there is a delay with live and what is broadcast on tv and the internet. therefore t important that people call nothing reduce or turn off volumeos tv's otherwise well is interference with the meeting. if the participates on zoom need disability accommendation or technical assist analysis you can question in chat to the board's legal assistant or abe mail to board of appeals at

sfgov.org the chat cannot be used for comment or opinions. we will take public comment first from those physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intends to testify am any member of the public may speak without taking the oath. if you intends to testify tonight and wish to have your evidence have weight. raise your right hand and say, i do. do you swear or affirm the testimony will be the truth and nothing did you tell truth? if you are not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. item 1 general public comment. an opportunity for anyone hold like to speak within the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. and i see someone here in the room. welcome you have 3 minutes. >> president. commissioners. i was here a month ago and -- when i was upon lib to what was

going oi thought it might be a benefit if you guys could do something to help the people who live next door to the people during the construction projects. i had 3 years of construction one neighbor started when they were if any the neighbor on the other side started and the affordable housing started behind me after that week up every morning at 6:45 with hammers and saws and jack hammers and stuff going on. it was unbirable and when they could do it, 365 days a year i never got a break. coming on weekends and staying until 8 o'clock sometimes and it was hor bible. there were things that could have been don make it better for me and my other neighbors. if they had notified us in advance, hey. a month before, take feet nose the room of our house the outside and my moulding is busts the outside the stucky broken up. the jackhammering if they can do

the concrete saws they took out an area half the house on both sides and damaged my house a lot. i offered i said you guys well is only a piece of sheet rock between us could you put in insulation i went and bought insulationil install it and put up plywood have you no idea what is like to live next to at this time des boles are 50 in the city. and this is not as loud as it was i would be trying to work from home my boss like are you in a construction sitism am. and during covid could not leave i was stuck with this all day long for 3 years. so there is basic things they can do to make it better for everybody. like shoer up the wall fundament

need new wiring rewire it, insulation and the sheet rock up or a temporary plywood the contractors could move that to other cites they needed would not be wasted product. anything you can do because i almost snapped like 3 years was too much. so. and i the not talk to my neighbors they didn't want to do anything to make my life better. >> thank you. >> thank you. i see someone on zoom withhold like to comment. number end nothing 5936. go ahead. this is general public comment. >> >> i'm with go ahead. >> yes. >> eileen with speak. yesterday at 5:06 p.m. received an e mail from the za regarding appeal 23035.

following are exerts i'm write to ask if you would be open to rescheduling this appeal from 913 hear to another date in october or november? we are having conversations with the cam cal coastal commission and like to make sure we had time to fully cord nay. >> mrs. >> i'm sorry to interrupt thank you matter is pending and if there is a rescheduling despeculate it is by president swig it is the not appropriate to give comment on that. okay >> thank you. >> is there other general public comment? on zoom or in person? i don't see any. >> madam, would you please advice the previous speaker as save her toil and trouble explaining the process how to get in touch with you and make the request formally. >> yes.

i did by e mail the za is requesting a matter reschedule. i requested that the, parties provide one page statement if they oppose and i'm waiting to get that from her tomorrow by 12 noon. >> communication recovered and you and i will talk. >> yes >> thank you >> thank you. >> thank you. i don't see any further public comment. general public comment we move to item 2. commissioner comments and questions? commissioners, anything today? thank you. we are move to item 3 the adoption of the minutes. commissioners before you publish possible adoption minutes of august 23 meet and prior commissioner lemberg and commissioner trasvina reached out to me with a correction on page 5ment the priesting was adjourned by vice president

lopez not president swig. >> and i like to thank the other members for putting up with my absence on that day. >> thank you very much. motion to approve the minutes. i move >> thank you. >> on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> president swig. >> aye the minutes are adopted as amended. we are move to item number 4a, b and c and d with appeal numbers 23-020, 21, 22 and 23. dave aid osgood and building of inspection 101 spaers i read the captions to recount -- heard last on july 12 and upon motion by commissioner tras vin at board voted 4-0, 1 vice

president abstoents continue to september 6 to provide supplemental brees the planning department approving the permits including determinations made and whether the planning department could in the future provide written finds beings of a determination undz planning code 1006.6 and resource implications for the department. and twot plaintiff's exhibit and conformity of the permits with article 11 and whether the issuance of them comply with the 2018 legislation. further, yes. this motion was made on the basis of the need have decorate information to make a good decision and as a matter vice president lopez du watch the video and review the materials for the hearing on july 12? >> i did and ready to proceed. >> party vs 3 minutes to address the board i understand they come to an agreement. we'll hear from the appellate first am welcome, mr. osgood.

>> thank you. hi. everyone. and pleased to say that we have an agreement with the permit holders the 4 permits appealed will be cancelled by the permit holder. until after this to happen the board can continue the appeals to a future date. perhaps in october. which is fine with us. and unsuspend the permits for the purpose of cancellation. once cancelled the board office dismiss the appeals please let me know if you have questions. and as always, i want to thank board staff for their assist analysis. also to supervisor supervisor peskin for his help.

and to those who -- the 20 people who wrote in on this matter. in support of the appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, i am very pleaseed hear that the partyings have come to an agreement of i wanted ask what the agreement is. just not that it matters i'm curious. right. it is a cancel it completely? i assume there is something. no. >> all right. >> seeing nods of the head. great. you may not need to answer the question, then. we will hear from the permit holder. tara sullivan here on behalf hudson pacific the permit holders of the permitos appeal. i am upon prepared answer quotes

broef on august 24 regarding your questions as mr. osgood said we have come to an agreement hudson properties has no intention of following through with the 4 permits they would like to cancel them. they are under suspension through jurisdiction of the board by appeal. wield request that you continue this matter so that the permits can be unsuspended so hudson can cancel them with dbi. submit required information to mrs. rosenburg properties you know in being a good community partner decided the signs are not worth pursuing but they don't intends to pursue them right now. thank you >> thank you. >> the planning department. nothing from planning? the building department? okay. is there public comment on this item. raise your hand.

anyone in i don't see combvenl nobody on zoom. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i do have a motion to clarify the date and how much time you need to cancel. continue to october 11 or october 25th. do that the call of the chair. why not a second time call the chair. >> um -- may be 5 weeks should not take too long getting the record to then take it to dbi and process everything. >> okay. october 11 is shy of 5 weeks. perfect. >> thank you. >> anybody have a motion? i move to continue the matters 4a-d to october 11th and unsusspends the 4 permits that under lie the 4 appeals. the purpose of cancellation. >> based on agreement of the

parties. and once the permits are kaenlsed they'll be dismissed. >> once the permits are cancelled they'll the appeals will be dismissed. >> thank you. >> on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> president swig >> aye that motion carries and appeals are continued to october 11. thank you. we are moving on to item 5. this is appeal 23-031 dealt yea boller. 1345 elis appealing issuance on june 26, 23 to saint francis square of a public work's order remove 10 significant trees with replacement of 4.

in is order 208224 on august second on 23 by commissioner lemberg the board voted continue this to september 6 the appellate asked the continuance and other parties agreed. the appellate first, and i believe she is on zoom but somebody was going to present on her behalf? is mrs. asbury here to present for her? mrs. boller. do you. to go ahead yes. can you hear me. >> welcome you have 7 minutes are you presenting your case or somebody else? i believe i am. and please, go ahead you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. do you hear that phone ringing? >> we don't hear a phone ring.

i have come to ask to you consider the need to keep the upon 15 trees lining the southern border of saint francis square. besides their beauty, hello? we can hear you. i hear something in the background. i it is the phone ring and iing can't finds it. >> i don't hear a phone ringing your time has been paused. you can go ahead we can hear you. >> okay. besides their beauty chshgs is awesome, the trees provide healthy air, serve as a winds break as refuge for many birds. . and they help each other maintain themselves. they are needed to continue the

protect the health of the residents of the neighborhood and in observation of the desire of the of residents of the neighborhood. all you need to do is go there during rush hour. and see the vehicles lined up all the way to haight street. waiting at each corner. from which the trees are helping to clear the air. they should stay standing -- in order to protect the health of the residents and the civic rights of the neighbors. i have witnessed the removal of trees 2 times. it it is a noisy process. with a whining saw severing

limbs up in the tree. at the hands of a worker. and sounds of the large upon grinder on the street into which the severed limbs are fed and grounds up. eventually work begins on the trunk of the tree. cut in lengths until it gets down to the grounds level stump. then pounded down in the grounds with a pounding machine. meanwhile, a large truck come up to the side of the site and the long logs are swung up over it and dropped into it. by a mechanical arm operated by another worker. seated at the control. a couple of workers in the street have meanwhile sweeping update leaves and branchs that have fallen to the street.

and feeding them into the back end of the truck. that's in addition to having fed them into the grinding machine. needless to say, i'm saying it anyway, that it is not a sight i would like to see repeated at the hands of saint francis square inc. i can't imagine what it would be like to witness these very last upon tall popular trees sawed, ground and taken in pieces from where they have been standing since before i lived as a neighbor to saint francis square. saints francis square inc. waseate created boifrt redevelopment of the fillmore

district. union made an arrangement with the city to create a cooperative community on the north by geary boulevard. on the south by elis street. on the east by laguna street and on the west by webster street. all the residents in the area were displaced as their buildings were demolished and saint francis square inc. was created. the popular trees appear on the architect's drawings. the showed the layout of entire square as it was planned. along the southern edge of the square on elis street, next to the under ground garage; was the surface parking lot above. upon stands the row of 15 popular trees with a long strip of grass running between them

and the sidewalk. that makes these trees considered as what are called significant trees because they belong in front and not to the city. the upon upon present authorities of the square proposed kuth down these trees. i want to suggest that they contact all the present ordinance residing in the square how they feel about losing the trees. this survey was done a number of years ago regarding other trees in the square. and as many signed the petition the trees remained standing. i would like to ask that the process be philidelphia now asking the residents whether they want the trees to stay or go. as for occurrence about damage

from the falling limb, i suggest anyone who fierce the fallen branch give us their parking privilege and park in the street. or perhaps arrange insurance coverage for damage from falling branches. since the square was created the residence didn't of the fillmore it was desirable to respect the feelings of the neighborhood residents. as well as the owners of the square. and so i'm asking this board to rule with the trees remain standing so ordinance at the square be surveyed how they feel

about keeping or getting rid of some or all of the trees. i suggest that the surrounding neighborhood to ask this in their interests in vouch history of displace am of residentses and harassment and businesses in this area. saint francis. >> that's time >> thank you. >> thank you youville more time in rebuttal. >> thank you. i don't see questions we will move on to the saint francis square cooperative. is something here? come up. keep have letters we would like to pass out. this is a -- they are asking if you will accept.

i'm cone ford on the board of saint francis square and lived there for 40 years. >> shall i continue? sure. >> so, i want to say briefly we don't have alost time 3 important things. one is saint francis square is a 60 yearo condo co-op. that has been there and are all environmentally active and love our will tree this breaks our heart to bring down the tent compromise 10 trees on elis. we planted them 50 years ago we planted them too close and planted them notoriety sidewalk. they the roots are coming up and they don't have enough places to breathe. they are tall. they half them electric like they are dying or dulled see

pictures of them from the dpw. we are squared of them we have baker center that is across the street that if the winds took a wrong turn can blow and if people were take kids to school could be hurt. we have a skilled nursing home next door to the day care center that has 50-75 residential senior there is and families are there continuous low and have 300 units in the square about 6 huh people live there we are am dem creditically run. have committees that make recommendations. the recommendations come to the board which i'm the vice president. and we make the decision for all of us. all of this issues of trees and arborists painful and has been long and people have been on all sides of it. but now we are all concerned. we had one tree have a big,

large branch fall, but it did not hurt anybody but destroyed a car in the night left year you remember the big winds in december, 45 miles per hour. people are saying we will never have another again this is the rare and unusual thing we than suspect not true. look at the climate crisis with the fires. and the water. we are squared to live there we are starting to recommend our residentos windy dayos rainy days don't walk on the sidewalk there. we want to and will replace the trees. it is our mission. we have picked out a tree. upon that we. top put in its place it is the brisbane box. gross quickly a 50 feet tall tree they will be 4 to replace the 10. so they will have room to grow and thrive. we have another area on laguna street this needs a couple trees and plant a couple there we have

to decide where the last 4 are going. we will do. we are democratically elected environmental group and we really want those trees the last one i want to say is this is the financial burden for us, truly. our co-op has financial burdens and we are now in the part of dog a restructuring of the infrastructure. this will cost money. weir ready to put it aside and take care of this for our residents. our neighbors. on both sides and our square. i like to introduce linda walsh a member of commit and he was share a few thoughts. >> i'm linda and a member of the living at the co-op for 14 years. and i, too one of many people who did not want to have the trees removed but after seeing the reports in 2021 about the condition there with an arborist and the more recent one by the

department of bowero of urban forestry showing the rot and decay and the poor continue. originally in 2021, i noticed out of the 15 tree there is are categories rating to 1 huh community and all were close to 50. and which is close to the poor can having 30 to 49 that to me was significant when any neighbor say they why are we cutting down the trees. i would explain and show the report and we all want top keep them that's why we will replace them of so.

for safety occurrence, we are pursuing the idea of having the trees removed. you have 2 minutes left. so, yea. we will work on getting them replaces and besides there. >> hello. hi. i'm loraine. i live in saint francis square. am i vehicle there for 24 years. and i have seen trees. decay in the that time of the trees face my balcone. i see them every day. i seen them sway with the winds. i seen them irrelevant movement

i seen branchs break and i discovered them when that big branch did fall on the park structure and block people in on one side and emergency vehicles not able to get in because of the long tree branch. i am one of the people this loves the trees. i'm not one of the people that wants them to go either. different climates we had summer broughts and had too much rain. all of that weakens the roots of the trees. they are now swaying unbalanced they lost limbs because of winds. if you see the trees from the side of the elis street garage you will see that the trees are slightly you know off center. that makes them very much

vulnerable to big winds this come through that can fall and the know branches can fall. kill someone and there are dried branches. >> so. they become i fire hazzard as well. any time they break during the next few months if you seen that the almanac saying we will have a big rainstorms this season. we should be appropriated for that so we want to be prepared and saint francis squarements to be practical and help get the trees cut down this we need to take down naare decaying and. thank you that's time. >> thank you. >> ma'am can you fill out a speaker card i did not hear your name so it is accurate for the minutes. >> i heard your name. linda walsh >> loraine luna. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasvina.

. i'm wondering why we don't have any brief from you. on this matter. we have documentation from the city and their report. >> according to what the staff provide lead is nothing provided. and this came up earlier in the year. we work in committees and did this and did in the realize the procedure and thought the letter would be sufficient >> can you -- given the procedural problem in this, including from the city where there is allegation that the

street was miss identified. can you describe the role that mrs. boller and the members have this don't upon agree with this view in what part of the process did they have. they -- they are not a part they are a part of your neighborhood. not a part of our saint francis square or day care center we were representing. so they we -- we -- that's all i can say. so. >> they have the role of voicing their minds, too. >> has your group reached out to discuss it? i thought you had mentioned that this had been a long discussion. >> with our 6 huh members they

never approached us and came to tell us there was not communication with the 2 groups. nobody. >> you have been aware of their opposition for awhile? and nobody from your >> we were aware at the appeal that happened in may or june. >> nobody has reached out to them upon with any to address occurrence. >> this process and the compromise of instead of all 15 the left meeting presented 10 be removed. >> may be i can ask mrs. rosenburg what are we vote to voting an appeal on the 15. is there an agreement for 10 and 5? >> there is an agreement. what the order says the order allows them to remove look at the agenda to remove 10 significant trees on private property with replacement of 4

and one street tree with replace am uldz be determining whether this order if you want to up thoeld or modify it or over turn it. >> so the order is 11 trees? no the order says the hearing officer in the order allowed for they were going to i guess remove 15 trees and the hearing officer the end of the hearing allowed them on remove 10. only. i don't know if that was an agreement thats a compromise we reached. >> may be the department can address how they arrived at 10 from 15. i don't see that. i'm not concerned about that what has arrived. basically it states in the agenda and in. the recommendation last paragraph of the order. is removal 10 significant trees

to be replaced with 4 and removal one street tree with replacement t. is 11. >> correct. 10 and one street tree. >> and the street tree is dead and dying they are not objecting to that. because it needs to go. so it is the 15 popular trees they are object to us bringing down. they are -- you are not intending don't have authority to bring down 15. anymore you have thort remove 10 >> we agreed with the compromise in may and replace 4? and place in our specification we will replace 10 trees but 4 are part of that compromise that will go right in the same place where the popular trees are now and fast growing and tall and

pretty. >> when you describe it a compromise, it was originally our position we hired arborists last year to bring all of the them down. we were afraid we had several big tree in co-op fall close to people are staying >> compromise you don't mean with the other side you say you reduced the number you are that was recommended by the city. >> in the report. yea >> recommended by the city we accepted this, yes >> you are compromise with you and the city rather than you and the, thank you very much. that's correct. >> thank you a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you i have additional questions for you. number one, in your letter brief you submitted today we did not have the privilege of seeing

before today, you say you are planning to replace other trees but my question is -- why are those other replace am trees not included in your plan? that you submitted to the city? which we have not seen, by the way. >> there is a compromise of reducing from 15 to 10 presented to us and accepted it. since then our committees in the co-op working and have decided that to asked board to replace all 10 of them. and that's when we are working on now. and we will that is the promise we are giving to the community. >> okay but not submitted to the city? no because we are willing to whatever the city has issued their order we are acknowledging that for sure and replacing the 4 that is recommend. we are doing that but going botch that is our point.

>> thank you. and >> you are willing to do at least 10 replace ams i'm looking at the photos, it looks like there is concrete squares replace with 4 would leave 6 empty. no the squares that are there -- are not contained the popular trees are not in them they are behind those. >> right. there is not individual at the curb there are street wells tree wells but after the sidewalk between the garage building and the sidewalk. i see it now is grass. does this work as a camera. can i just. over head, please. upon one of the trees that would be kept but this is the the report that chris are you showing these photos.

he will show them. each one has the run down we looked at with. >> speak into the microphone. each one of these trees has a detailed report about the condition and pictures. about why they will be replaced. and he took us on a tour showing us exactly the i forget terminology. decayed pockets. >> yea. going by this, there is some that to keep and others to replace. they will be better what he shows you. so. and00 autothing is that -- the 4 that we are talking about replacing are in the exact same property area. the other ones would be replaced or -- put around the whole co-op. one on laguna. >> not 10 replace ams within the spots. no elsewhere in the complex.

>> we learn friday those trees not to plant them so close together. >> question from vice president lopez? >> thank you for your testimony. just to a question with respect to the letter you shared this with the appellate when you shared with us? >> we did not. >> okay. >> i guess. >> they were not familiar. >> point of information how can we make sure the appellate gets this? >> we could e mail it to her. but it is not -- unfortunately they did not submit the brief by the deadline and should not accept third degree now it islet and the appellate has not seen it. so -- can we at least. can we have them e mail nought and forward to. can you e mail the letter now and e mail it to the appellate? and also chris, you have this.

gi don't have the cape ability. can you e mail it now to the appellate? we don't have the technology. >> okay to do that dochlt it when we get home and we don't. >> can we display it on the over head. >> sure. >> and we can scan it and e mail it to her. >> i would advise the board not to rely on the letters and appellate did not have the opportunity to review temperature what i would suggest is that the parties make sure to put their argument in the record, which you know it sounds like have you done in makingior position. you know today. so. that would be the best way to ensure or record is clear that you oralally state important points from the letter that you would like the board to consider. >> we feel like we did. >> okay. >> may be we should reject the

letter and make it clearwater commission will not make decision based on the letter. >> that's fine with me. sorry. >> okay. become over zealous in my service attitude. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> i am uncomfortable to prosecute seed nothing this matter. we got nothing from the appellate. we have nothing from the san francisco square people, nothing from the city. we have a letter that would hopefully resolve the situation when the time come i move we continue to work this out. >> okay. commissioner lemberg >> i we would not be able to accept additional briefing and they can. >> i don't think we should in terms of fairness the brief from the department was late we had to reject will sdpt

determination holder did not submit one until today. that is even allowing that in is unfair. >> yea. so we have no jumping the gun on this discussion. i might add. >> make a decision based on their testimony >> we can make a decision based on their will testimony. or after hearing rebuttal and hearing from the buff. we can decide to take the action that is alternateively being suggested. which is to continue it. >> i guess we want to hear from the department but clarify for what end for the continuance if we will not allow additional briefing for the parties to work on this a resolution? or --. the continuance is based on the ability to ensure that both parties have the same information and base testimony

and getting a fair hearing from the board. that would be it. we are rejecting the submission today. but heard the submission and some of the submission i have not read this thing. as testifies handed me 45 seconds ago. we are hearing testimony. and if the testimony covers the letter we are not relying on the letter we are relying on the testimony and that's when we do here. the disability for all of us is that buff did not get the material in on time. the permit hold defer not get material in on time. >> you would be continuing it. as a disadvantage to both. everyone have an opportunity to hear the information come become and have 3 minutes each to address or what have you? >> and we will decide whether the commission thinks there has been an injustice by not hearing

every morsel. >> that makes. >> submitting just -- creates redundancy to when is the point. >> makes sense. >> okay. president swig do you want to allow her. >> she we have rebuttal. >> you have time in rebuttal we'll hear from the department now. thank you. >> good evening chris buck with san francisco public works. pull up a power point in a moment. without a doubt this discussion under scores the importance of all parties to submit briefs. sometimes i think it may be basic but when we commit a brief on behalf of the department, we do sort of recap all the moving part its is there in front of you.

and you get from the respondent as well and it is a large property with a lot of trees and some are off the public right-of-way. i'm understanding the importance of submit thanksgiving brief while i experience the dialogue. il pull up the power point now. that is before you the considering of removing 10 sipping cant treeos private property. significant trees are a part of our ordinance that was create in the two 006 so trees benefiting the public right-of-way or the

experience of it are protected as if they are street trees that is as far as the city's been bold enough to venture managing trees on private property. if the trees are 10 feet of right-of-way and meets a size. it shall have protections as a street light free the size are easy to meet. height, greater then and there 20 feet. diameter greater than 12 inches, 4 and a half feet above grade and canopy great than 15 feet wide n. this case the row of trees lombardi populars from lombard, italy questions of law fies significant what is interesting is public works planted out planting cites along both flont ajs of the property. i don't know if i said this before we don't have missing management basins on elis or laguna the trees other

maintenance responsibility. 10 populars. of the property owner. regarding i want to clear up our board of appeal when is we talk about a compromise between both parties. hat applicant means is this they applied to remove all 15. public works staff review third degree application. we found 5 were health and he sustainable. denied the request to remove all 15. so we denied the request to remove 5 and approved the removal of 10 they appeald that initial low and had a public works hearing all 15 plus the street tree was under considering. following the public works hearing and at the hearing, the applicant conceded or agreed or compromised with not appealing those 5 additional trees.

that said, since the appeal from ms. boller there has been no conversation with the appellate. about any further compromisism want to clear up that order of those events and i believe that the applicant you know believe they compromised in good faith with public work in general. what i want to do is review the trees lombardi populars are tall and fast growing and addage that live fast. die young this is an example of that. they do grow quickly. but they also are short lived the wood itself is not good at compartmentalizing decay. when they begin decaying it spread more quickly. that is in guide book look up. like we think walnut or other

woods is a hardwood. popular is more are pulpish. that is a general backgrounds about the species the 5 denied the first 3 in the row. we did not see decay present. we thought we could work with the treeseen though they are impacting the property. the first 3 trees are once this were in good enough condition it remain inform general we try to maintain that trees health and he sustainable the mature trees should remain. it is a really beautiful, long row of trees i absolutely agree with ms. boller on that front. the first 3 are in good enough condition to remain. as we fet to the next set beginning with tree 4 we see

decline. and there are pockets of decay present throughout the lower trunks and stems. and i will run out of time i will move through some of these photos quickly but we do evaluate trees as a reminder on a tree by tree basis not roll and up say this is a big beautiful row i'm going to deny this. we have to evaluate each individually to look at its own merits. trees this photos taken a year ago and showing decline in the canopy. from the perspect you have of public works and urban forestry. we neil this is a reasonable am request. the trees are beginning to decline. that the species is fast growing. they are planted very close together and very close to the foundation of the parking structure. i then and there structure is not necessarily were vicktoryians likely there before

redevelopment but -- it is the structure on the property i'm sure the applicant wishes to avoid damage on from the expanding root system. i wanted get to the replacement tree plan of the reason why more replacements are not required is that there is no room to plant the required replacements. we have street trees. where we they proposeed plant the replace ams is in between the spacing of the existing trees. so. there is room for 3 trees spaced between the twisting street trees and room to plant additional tree around the corn or laguna and met on site since the appeal was foiled to kong firm what can be upon plantd and be considered significant; in

the future. time's up >> thank you >> we have a question from president swig. >> i'm having a math problem. so we start with 15 trees. >> correct. >> and you wanted all 15 trees to disappear? the applicant saints francis. they wanted the 15 gone. >> the compromise was to -- to -- remove -- trying get path rival the compromise leaves 11 trees somewhere. in a combination of remaining tree sns and trees to be planted

p. right? the they are seek removal of 10 tree in that row plus one street tree around the corner. >> so 10 tree in that row will go away. leaving -- leaving 5 there. plus the one. those 10 trees will be replace said k with trees between the existing trees that get to stay. and at places to be determined later. you get back to -- 11. correct 4 of the replacement trees can be plant in the that spacing in this setback area. that will qualify future significant trees again to rereach that protected

jurisdiction. the additional trees is specialing they are coming now to say. we understand the spirit of the ordinance. we want to make it 1 for one thoe 6 will not be in your future jurisdiction. we wish to plant them throughout their private property. >> right. >> that's the math or around that. >> reason that the the 4 trees will remain from the how many trees remaining. 5 will remain. and -- therefore 11 will go? >> and the upon deficiency between the 5 and 11 be picked up, otherwise the reason that the the -- all but 5 removed are for safety and security reasons that is deterioration at the

trunks or in alcohol result in a danger a hazzard to the community. is that was that true. >> correct. that's a fair recap. and thesor private property in the san francisco city property. why correct. >> okay. this is like somebody coming if my yard and saying that you have significant trees and but they are causing harm because they could fall and hit member in the head and cause some harm. so we want them down that is the spirit of why these are being taken down? >> correct. public safety very straightforward property management. no construction. activity. a bit of a rare occasion for us to talk about simple basic property management. >> i wanted to summarize. this is a problem you don't give

briefing in advance you don't goat study and ask dumb questions. okay, thank you. >> thank you. why commissioner lemberg >> thank you. . first. why. did the city not require one to one replacement like you normally tree removal case >> it is just simple space of it. the current row of trees is planted than i are planted close together and some place 6 to 9 feet apart. so --. sorry. i understands why they are not planted replant instead same location. but should the best my understanding repleasanting plans involve if they cannot be replanted in the same location they have to be planted somewhere else or they donate money to the city to plant them

energy neighborhoods. why was that not taken in consideration? sure. the frontages have existing street trees planted and maintained by the city. they're established. they i guess this we go that route wht there is development. healthy trees are being removed and due to development and construction, throughout benefit of that property owner they need and skooek seek removal ask replace am of trees dot assess the value. appraise the value of the trees and try to require trunk replace am. they had a row of very large trees and so we were able to require that they replace elsewhere in the community. the significant trees are not on the public right-of-way.

so requiring a replace am. that is the street tree in public right-of-way not adjacent to the property does become a problem from jurisdiction perspective they need to walk down the street and water a street tree in front of someone else's property if they were construction related we would talk about how to make that happen. but in this case, its -- you know. the they are not trying to get away with a public good. they are trying to maintain their upon prosecute. what we so, it is about what there is room for if there were 15 beams in a row but there is space for x amount you need x amount to holdup what you are working on. you upon don't line it up temperature would be easy enough to not have to sflan and say line them back up againful we

would not be practicing science or horticulture we will practice something else. i don't know what it would be called. so it is about we can only require that there is space for to be future significant trees as replacements. we would get fees and more value if construction related. you know, i did caution the applicant i said a nice gesture a couple months ago planting additional but not future significant or protected trees. >> why does it make a difference there is no construction at this property. that seems like a red herring to me. >> so as the property owner you pleasant upon trees maintain them for 4 years through note fault of your own they need to

be replaced are we requiring a property owner to replace 50 trees in the community to combhup that biomass replacement? of i don't believe they are >> yet. >> okay. >> from upon previous manslaughter applications decay is not reason enough to remove a tree. why do -- or i will ask first, if these if the permit if the applicanted had not applied remove these trees would the trees be slated by city to be

removed anyway? >> the easy out is to say, that they are not in our jurisdiction. they are on private property. we have not had any contact with the trees. were so far it is a completely different situation all together. that said, if they were in the public right-of-way someone called and said these trees are out there what do you believe? we have the history of alost branch failures i do believe this is why we met with the applicant prior to the appeal. but there is enough decay present. there is enough decline in the canom and he enough signs of branch failures that is where if we submitted a brief we could provide photos where branchs broke off in the past am i do believe if public works were asked as you are asking me now

that removal the 15 trees at this point is a reasonable approach to managing the treeseen though they are scomplarj majestic. we than this upon fast growing short livid species and sitting in a pattern terror us. so we would be comfortable with recommending 10 for removal. >> i hear you say it is a reasonable aisle dot tries need to be removed or just you know will what is suggested and the department is you know -- saying, okay? >> no. so we evaluate the trees individual loam received this application i look back at the time stamp late 2001. it is a large site with a lot of trees. took awhile to get out there due to staffing issues and last

winter storms. but its -- i would say the reasonable removals. it is -- when are we waiting for a property owner to method tree sns do they have to be a hazzard? it it is easy when the trees are dead. people protest removal of dead trees, that's fine. i don't know else we the wait for they reached the ends of typical productive year to years where you can with certainty state on the record that these are relatively health and he sustainable. we can't say that about these 10 trees are they immediate hazzard now. no. but i think there are mires and it is a reasonable approach to manage this property. >> one final question a bigger picture question.

in the scope of specifically significant treeos private property. what in your view is the purpose of making property ordinance apply for permits to remove or modify those trees. >> sure, thank you. it is to recognize that trees that are on private property notoriety public right-of-way are benefiting all of us that the trees have value in the community. and to the neighborhood. so -- the significant tree and criteria, has a preamble on highlights that mature trees are an asset stot public right-of-way. that's the rule. idea is for there to be a reasonable discourse. there are times when some need to be removed. does not mean all protected or denied but they have a layer and

in this case several the staff level and board of appeals, a robust level review so the public has assurance that these are being maintained you know from the public good. san francisco is the wild west with tree in private property to get jurisdiction over 10 feet of private flap benefits the public. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. i you used a company phrases i want to follow up on. one is robust level review and the other is reasonable discourse. i want to commends my colleagues for trying to make that happen in this case. so can you tell me why the city did not submit anything on this

case to us? >> sure. commissioner, i was about 30 minutes 35 minutes late submitting my brief. so that is my fault and then public works did we had of course no objections to the continuance to rehear the reschedule the case at the request of the appellate. my understanding is i would not be able to provide a brief at that point in time. but i could have asked to i don't believe that resets the >> no, it doesn't. >> yea. >> so because you were 35 minutes late back in august, we are depride of your views and department views today? >> i did submit the brief to the appellate. and you know i feel like that whether or not i can be used to the benefit of the board of appeals it was provided to the

appellate. so. i do apologize for that. those are rowels. the public can comment but the agency cannot. and -- that's something on us perhaps. the appellates raised an issue about appropriate notice for the proceeding i saw in your power point you referenced the tree 1555 laguna talking about elis street. can you clear up what they are all one area with 2 addresses? or something was missed identified? >> thank you. commissioner. if i can go to the power point slide. thank you. so. just to clear up some of that when we received the application from the applicant.

where things went south the address on the application this is just right from the screen from the permit. the contract on behalf of the property owner submitted the application 1345 elis street. there is a school on this block and the other main property suspect this parking garage with no visible signage. so i want to assure actual is not like there were 15 addresses and someone should have spotted that. we should have spotd that we pull up map will view and double check. typically we catch a typo like that. when we posted notices on the trees. it was referenced 1345 eland is should have been even side of the 1300 block elis. and i did anticipate i did review the brief. and in our original 30-day notice u when

all 15 trees were being considered. the address was shown as thus one quick lane. 1355 laguna street tree number 2. it had the 11 trees plus the woornld the corner and below that under other, very small, 1345 elis. the 1345 elis incorrect address gets to that block. we have the permit number referenced 2 lines above that. 789225. we did go in depth in the public works resulting decision. and this gets reviewed boy a director and signed off. but we went in the details. of in the public works recommendation. about catching that. brought to our attention and -- we addressd that at the public works hearing. i did notice that our hearing at public works we did correct the

addresses for our presentation. back several months ago when we had the hearing. here you see 1320 elpremesis where the trees are. the fictitious address but that is where 131220 elis would be and then 55 lagown at street tree around corner. i did try to cover it i know that board of appeals you know the many things you do is to review whether permit issued in error and make surety due process was philidelphia. public works acknowledged the error. address today in public works resulting decision. and also address today evening. i didn't get to it but it had it prepare third degree evening to answer to that. i note that mrs. boller she was

passionate in written submittal on time. did not speak this evening about feeling wrong in the any way about our process i want to points that out. >> okay. can so, there is a -- discrepancy of addresses on the notices. where did the notices what is the requirement to post the notice? on the actual trees? >> the urban ordinance code requires we post them on the trees and on local corners so utility poles. we also post this on our website. i will say if there has been an error you know human error like this if we have dub the public has been misaprized of rights or any rights, we start it over.

>> why not. so we typically start a process over if we feel. we are getting a bunch phone calls people are confused. we did not get that. we did receive public comment from skroekal tree advocates to points there is an error in the addresses. but there is will still an initial other addresses on the same posting there. with the trees the subject of this hearing do than i have notices attached to them? >> for tonight's hearing we are not required to post. physically for board of appeals for the public works hearing and the original 30-day notice all the correct trees were posted. >> okay. >> i realize you don't post for our hearings. the where there had a discrepancy the actual trees had

the correct trees had bright oranges notices for 30 days. and then for another 10-12 days leading up to the public works hearing a couple months later. multiple visible posting. >> thank you. >> commissioner trs vina i would like to say the board office is required under the law to provide notice to neighbors within 300 or 150 feet. >> 150 feet of the location and we go based on the address on the order. and so if then 45 elis is not correct we sent them out of this hearing with this address. in fairness, people may not have notice of the hearing because it is actually is not the trees are not at 1345 elis they are across the street. so.

that make this is process flued. >> 150 feet radius from the subject property. right if someone receive third degree than i say i'm fine with those removed not is on theeen side of the streetism think our notice is flawed now that we learn third degree their notice was flawed. apologize for in the bringing that to your attention. >> yea. >> so. we are now i don't see questions moving to public comment. and is there anyone in the room hold like top comment? mr. carbons you stated? in you could come up that would be great.

i had written comments to present if the hearing were it prosecute seed as if the saint francis square people submitted a brief. right now i would give away my upon hand. i don't have anything to say i can assure the i'm an expert at drawing maps. i got that whole block if you have questions you can get a hold of middle east. but i want to point out that

bureau of urban forestry has poor record of finding out where trees are located. what the pointses are. the dpw data base has every tree down like a specific point on the planet. 73 respondent half million to provide that data. if that is general information can you use if you like. >> thank you. is there further public ment in the hearing room? we will move to zoom and courtney height, go ahead.

have you 3 minutes. thank you. can you hear me. >> good. um i'm courtney height i live in saint francis square cooperative i'm an environmentalist. and a mother and left year during the month of rain discussed the san francisco experience i was walking with my 2 year old through my complex and heard a loud sound and locked. a huge branch fell right where my child had been. i was terfoil today broke a light post and in that same storm a giant try fell on rosa parks elementary school, couple hundred feet from my house and around the corner where the trees are. luckily it did not hurt anybody.

you in my street go to the preschool across the street from the trees. every day we walk by. families and neighbors upon friends we need to remove the trees the director of the elementary school signed the letter supporting it as did the cents ral garden rehab center. the parents are concerned. we are not asking to remove a forest of old growth trees.

>> elis street where the 15 popular trees are dead end street.

and who ask walking down a dead end street. really go to the end it is the school. there is nothing there. people started walking by the street they are not walking by they are going the street! and next again. am i testimony i gave to in the timely manner to board of appeals shows the map of this neighborhood. and chose information about this location. and more information on the post the first time and also like in the area on the website. when they say they correct today they didn't correct t. they give a decision after the fact and i was chastised by hearing officer. during this hear with dpw.

this is a bad press by dpw. hearing they had and i suggest this be continued as president swig suggests buzz the parties are not meeting of the mind and also it is a flawed process. when you only [inaudible]. that the neighbors were not included in tonight's hearing. thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there further public comment. raise your manldz if you are on zoom. micheal nulty go ahead. this is michael nulty.

there are a number of issues. my suggestion is the continuance. and -- i will go further as. and that would leave me further to deny the process. thank you. >> thank you. we will is there further public comment. raise your hand. who are you. meghan. fuller. go ahead. >> i will share my screen. and a video.

the beautiful mascots of san francisco the parakeets that notice and speak and hang out in the trees. i'm going to address what was revealed. and that is 2 concerns with the saint francis emergency >> 11 trees. first an issue with process we heard all right was not properly submitted and files and submitting after the fact violate appeal's policy. removal notice and process flawd and misleading it started on elis and a block away giving inaccurate information to niches and the public that is in the

being able to speak up. further we are told there was compromise to destroy 11 inside of 10. to note discussion of compromise did not reflect communication with the other neighbors or appellate. second low, and this is most important. there is high rate over dramatic represent anticipation of the trees pose. one branch fell this is document. it is unfair to destroy 11 significant 10 significant trees and another because of an being overnight past decade. and this fear of future branchs. just noted, this is a dead end street with little foot traffic. decrease the risk. [inaudible]. there sell no immediate darrening. i have witnessed the trees. the sidewalk does not affect it

except in river case saint francis report of december 2021 predicted catastrophic results during the pirnt storms that prediction did not come to pass overnight left year and a half. save the one branch. trees survived 80 miles per hour winds and took down 600 others in san francisco. than i said that 10 of the 15 trees rate 50 or above. meaning pheromone it better condition. and we did speak with another arborist recommended the trees be trimmed. 30 seconds. >> not destroyed. i'm advocating a continuance and consideration of trimming rather than destroying the trees and helping with maintenance of the beautiful legacy in san francisco. >> thank you. why thank you. is there further comment on this

matter. raise your hand. >> you are representing the appellate or determination holdser you can't provide public comment. no. i don't see further public comment. we are moving on to rebuttal and hear from mrs. boller have you 3 minutes. >> are you there? >> yes, can you hear me >> good. >> my brain is full of a lot of words. i would suggest this trees be -- treated individually.

and kept selectively. facing the time between any removals. so as to not harm the remaining trees. they you know their rootings are interconnect out of site. significantly. they produce antibiotics for each other and weird things. i would like to also say that when i was shocked see the notices on all of those trees lined up, i -- was very careful to check it all out.

the address given on for the street tree. - me going up and down the street asking there were two addresses on the other saturday of the street. i asked those place. and i never did realize the tree was up around the corn. a whole block up the corner on laguna street. i upon don't see yet responsibles of other people would not be similar. they would not have been noticed on that tree and furthermore when i did go up there there was a notice posted on a street pole but no notice on that tree. i believe in the time limits so the necessary posting.

30 seconds i appreciate the care begin to this and would hope that the trees would be treated with the care that they should and not be destroyed because of unwarranted fear. thank you. time of >> okay. thank you. now saint francis cooperative you have 3 minutes. >> yes. this is -- in response to michael nulty i live on i thinka lane ends at the base of elis in the cull du sack, that area is

used by school kids going in rosa parks walk. by residents going to visit families over at the garden -- senior center. sacred heart kids go there it get to star bucks every day it is used by foot traffic. i w for sabts sfrans francis square. there are 2 sheds the end of elis. i work in the sheds every day. i don't want i branch that come from the trees under it to hit that shed if it does i'm done. so i have seen trees more than one branch has fallen many have fallen. if it is the 10 foot little swatch could kill member or maim them. elis is used by a lot of people,

children a lot of elderly walk that way and it is a very vibrant area used all the time. so i'm not looking forward to this season of rain that will come. and rewill need to address the trees in the situation. thank you. >> okay. >> i want to first apologize i was not we were not trying to downgrade the process. we were not trying to um e eliminate the process or respect the process. we didn't know what the process was. to be honest. and i wanted to on behalf saint francis square to apol yiez for that. i just want to reiterate that through this process, our main goal is to keep people safe. and -- people don't feel safe.

you heard from courtney the kids there don't feel safe sometimes the seniors at cents ral gardens. don't feel temperature is not a big walk through place like geary but there are a lot of kids and residents who drive through there. so, we are urging you to consider our plea of allowing you to remove the trees and replace them. replace them with trees that are going to be beautiful and fast of growing. thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the department. >> good evening. chris buck with public works. i wanted to reiterate and apologize to the board for public works you know addressing the address issue of not considering board appeal in your notification process that is just embarrassing all around.

that combined with not submitting a broef on time does not give you the opportunity to understand limited partner in advance the number of moving pieces i see how that plays out and it is important to reminder for our team to be aware of. yea. the address issue is something that i never want to belittle someone's access to information. i'm a public educator and the idea is to manage trees without personal benefit but to try to maintain them on behalf of the public. so i'm curious to see how we proceed if we are off with the address for notification to the board appeals mailing. that's it i listen exclude heard commentses and appreciate the feedback. >> thank you. >> commissioner lemberg and president swig. >> one simple question if we were to guarantee the appeal tonight, is there anything that would stop saint francis from

reapply to remove the trees? >> i believe when believe works denies a permit there is a one year >> would be differents. applying for a different address the correct address the previous application was for across the street. >> they would be applying with a different address. . >> yea. it is the same trees. i understands your point mrs. rosenberg is there anything procedural within the permitting press that would prevent them from immediately reapplying? public works i believe which says we deniage application, we require the applicant wait i believe a year. in this jue would not be denying

we would. right >> so. that's there is nothing thalgd prevent us from beginning the process anew. >> great. thank you. >> president swig. simple question what is the issue around trimming the trees or not. >> thank you, commissioner, public works always krrz routine maintenance. as the first option for maintaining existing street trees i assure and you public that pruning has been krrdz everconsidered and the 5 trees that would remain is pruning. so we have considered that option.

>> there is the -- 64 or 200 individual owner addresses. and -- but we would certainly make sure that the legal address is used. and then typically when we do on a posting notice is we have a legal address referenced and say, trees fronting this side street. back of sidewalk. we are trying to get people to the trees we want people to understand where they are. >> thank you.

>> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> let me jump in, folks. first of all. including my screw up of accepting now pulling the document back this is a has been a screw up. and -- is upsetting. i don't fault at all the folks from saint francis for not i understand that the folks from saint francis we talked many times. public are novices they are not in this case not represented by council who is savvy and know the process. the saints francis folks are acting like the public.

who are not where there is no billboard if you want to file an appeal here is the process you go through. so -- you want to go through this process of board of appeal this is is the steps. you have to research and have savvy. i always forgift public in this case. buff not so fast. chris, reprimand, reprimand. thank you for your apology. and not accepted. it is embarrassing. i feel that buff has wasted my time tonight and the time of the commissioners and wasted the time of the appellate and wasted the time of the permit holder and everybody else. reprimand, reprimand. the wrong address, sloppy.

the lack of getting a file nothing on time. how long have you worked there, right? how long buff existedil not pick you on, sloppy, reprimand, reprimand. okay. what does this set us with up bezooeds wasting time, the public's time. confusing the appellate and confusing saints francis? and you know it is a disaster. i think so. what do we have? we have manifest injustice on everybody's part. because nobody got the straight story. notice has not been properly completed. nothing has been done right. so we stop there.

>> and the information has been inaccurate. the public has not been properly informed. and the public has been policed at risk because this is the public safety issue, folks. you know all the talk about well, are we doing 10 or 15 trees. bottom line sugot some dead tree there is and at risk tree list and probably advisable to do something before somebody gets hit in the head with a branch. it is a public safety issue. very upsetting. i think this the only way to deal with is to start all over again. and that we do this hearing again. and that we have a document which we have in the acceptd that submitted in a proper fashion. circulated appropriate low. as designated by the executive

director and the proper notice to the public related a hearing on this subject be done with the proper address to the proper people. communication to quote pie fellow commissioner trasvina, communication, communication, communication. and so -- motion to add this hearing at a later date is first and foremost on my minds but not do it really looks like a rehearing. because it has been so screwed up. it really upsets me. weave should not be subject. mr. buck, reprimand, reprimand. commissioners. i think my point is clear i like to see this done almost upon de novo. we heard stuff but wash our minds and hear this all over again.

don't want to limit people to you know am a rehearing request of 3 minutes i think we should hear the testimony again. we will be wasting some of our time it is 6 minutes long. kwlae but it is fair. should proper notice given to the public. yes. because it is fair. and that's i think we should cast this one to the winds and rehear this case. as soon as public we are facing a safety issue because if this does not happen before the winds start again in the winter time, we are place being the opinion at risk. so. that's my point of view anybody want to go in a different direction. >> i do president swig. i agree that the proper remedy is to start over i agree about everything else. i believe tht only correct

outcome stone grant the appeal in full and have saint francis start the process over again. i think that i caught 5 separate issues tonight each which inspect low could be a reason to grant this appeal. and i think that them combined is more then and there enough to grant the appeal. the 5 issues, number one, the notice issue for the initial dpw order. which the hearing officer found a harmless error but being the dpw officer did not include information other than harmless error, we are not begin information nor will have information in the future to had change that opinion. but i don't think it is harmless error. and heard from mrs. rosenburg this result in the the

niche's not receiving proper notification. number 2, is the -- the notice issue hearing i would police officer opinion on whether this is a brown act violation this is even solvable. i'm not sure it is. that one upon and the number 3 which is the permit holder submission of brief at the hearing which was inappropriate and i thbl may potential low be a brown act violation. number 4 is i'm not convince friday the testimony we heard here that the trees need to be removed. i we heard that one mrarj branch fell this happened on every street in san francisco in december and january. every street had tree branches falling that does not convince me these trees need to be removed that one branch fell in the 3 weeks of thunderstorms we had. and number 5 is i don't feel

like the permit holder rational is good to remove the trees other either. i similar reasons but think separate and i will three in the environmental occurrence brought up. and i thank you all of those things mean this was an unfair hearing and don't think that continuing this hearing and redoing it as president swig suggested is even viable but no less i do continuing is a good idea. i don't think we have the ability to make this a fair hear negligent future by and president swig said scrubbing our minds we heard all this testimony tonight. we received broefing this is were briefing submitted on a schedule. several months ago. and and most important low i don't think that the dpw notice

is solvable at all. by this body. exit think this alone is enough to over turn this the permit. so that's my opinion i obviously have a strong opinion on this one i will vote to grants the appeal tonight. >> sell this a motion? >> sure i would like to hear from fellow commissioners after my fellow commissioners speak. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, president swig and i will try to invoke reach for the wisdom and kindness of saint francis. to try to be evereithered bring the 2 views together or attempt to find a solution that will provide the parties and the public and the city agency buff the opportunity to resolve this and help us.

where are all grasping for information to make informed decision and have not been well served through that and i include while i have no, no, i agree with president swig about the when we expect from the public. mrs. boller got a broef in and found out the rules were. i have no disrespect or anything negative to say about the 3 fine representatives of saint francis come before us and attemptsed answer our am questions and attempted present case. but seems if a homeowner's association or co-op there must be staff and insurance involved and able to have access to were some legal rep centation in order or someone who can analyze city rules. and present a broef for the case this you made.

you attempted make a kachls but only an attempt that is in the based on anything we have is difficult to "questions and discern the information what concerns me the most is whether the correct members of the public had access to the process dating back to the start with incorrect address. i'm heartened by buff's testimony the correct trees were identifyd and had notifies upon them. but saying it is on the website or someone can check out the permit number or application, that's not the reality of the public. of san francisco. i think this is difficult for us to winds back to the board appeals and have the brief and it is public testimony. i think we have to winds this

back further. to the start and -- would have the benefit of we have the thing of -- of -- scientific authority the arborist we will have a storm in january and lose trees. would top get updated status of the trees. if we are continue thanksgiving or upon sends this back. of coming to prevent saint francis square to community directly. for this to be resolveod your own we will not hesitate to make a decision but we want to make

an informed decision. i would say to agree with commissioner lemberg that simple low starting at the board of appeals stage is not enough. and this process needs to start from the begin width correct addresses, notices and more communication between all the people who are involved. and yes, safety is important we need to get this resolved quick low as possible. the process the right people need to be at the table for an furthermored decision and commune decision to be made. commissioner eppler. >> thank you. i'm going to do this with all possible due respect to my fellow commissioners up here. because i have a different perspective here. because i think about the

substance of what happened and the affect of what happened. and the notices with incorrect address were placed on trees that would be removed and somehow the public got us in this position now where we have gone through a dpw hearing, appeal and this hearing. while there may have been a typo across the street. not far just literally across the street. at an address that does not exist. where the correct address would also because it is park structure that does in the exist. process got us here anyway. i'm trying to see what the prejudice was as a result of that. the process has moved forward. when it come to the briefing, our guidance the appellate is making the case.

we like to get information the department some submit information because there are experts. permit holdser we had this happen before. we can take testimony in the course of our hearing and give this weight. great we get hade but i think last meeting we talked about how we should not have high priced attorneys to be able to aveil ourselves of the appeal process this guess to the defense an appeal and i than there is some of us not as high price attorneys but that is still a price. i note that the phrase, saint francis, these are the residents that are operating in the co-op not large entity. and we are talk being about money that they are putting out in order to take care of the tree issue. and this is monthethey would

have to pend to take care of that. and that tree issue is a bit different than the one we dweel. we are usually dealing with trees on the public right-of-way we will have in this case are significant trees in a private space. and whether or not a remodel a question of motive as to yet trees are asked to be removed in this circumstance it is a safety issue. and the risk is when is the risk of this tree fall something they med a mistake they went out and asked an arborist the risk and the arborist said i think we should remove all the trees some of fair trees some are poor i think we should remove them all. now on notice they have trees that could will fail and when those trees fail and someone sues them now the state said

someone sues the city there is notice we have a hazzard. the people have to deal with and with the potential ramifications and costs. and so. i look at this -- they went through the process. buff said, no you don't have to remove 15 tries can you remove the 10 trees. thatingly be safe we of theed city who make this is sdpigz because they are significant and want to go through this process the one thing the 1 thing that gives me pause is that this screw up got you to a place the wrong notice was begin out for this will hearing. i can't look 2 hearings from now whether or not that had after asciis. i will points out across the street i don't know how the

address work i'm going to assume there has been. so, i go back to the idea of how can we renotice this hearing appropriate low. and have this take place because i don't think that the typo or mistake caused prejudice of going back to the beginning is -- i do think that we have gone through an appropriate process and like to handle this correctly and i shutter tong we might decide to go through this so all the steps go through again. we have the same place. in combshgs, amount of time and this risk that has been identified you know their knee

hurt and said something wrong with your knee. expert said yes and the city said yes. yes. i don't want you to get back here to do this again in 3 months or 4 or 5 months the process takes to go through the rehearing that the happen at dpw and for you to have that risk sit there for the people that have trees on private property. was a public can't see we have an order i requested to seek at this time i see commissioner lopez has not spoke i like to flip flop with the commissioners permission and give commissioner lopez the opportunity to peek and i will follow him. >> thank you. i see this more in line with -- the views that commissioner eppler expressed.

the permit holder did not do everything right but it does in the money they did not do nothing right. remediation that buff with respect putting the nis on the trees that's a remediation we have seen before i think it is a not unheard of uncommon issue. trees don't have addresses. spoeshg from the public noted they do have coordinates but not addresses. this happened before. i will let president swig keep me honest. i recall that passes must in prior cases they have been some

errors in terms of designating the proper address for tree removals. that solves the problem of the address misclassification for the dpw hearings. now, the issues that we are learning about tonight, with respect to the letter from the permit holder. you know that's why i read this earlier in the this -- session. and i don't think the [inaudible] should reopen briefing for the city or the permit holders. i do think that the appellate deserves the ability to review the materials in the same way we had a chance to which i will speak for myself i scanned the document. and i don't think it is right to say we are moving on.

and priests wash that and so what i ask if we do go down the path of hear thanksgiving matter again, that the permit holder be asked to submit that document to the bla to make surety appellate receives that and have a chance to respond to those points in future hearing. and i guess the other issue that i feel needs to be corrected is the correct dress for the bla hearing. we don't put notices on affected trees. that is one this would not be remediate instead same way as a dpw hearing.

that's the second point that -- i feeled need to be corrected. before having you know the hearing be fullyvillid. yes that's it for me. >> so. thank you for your comments and your passion. along with my passion. on this subject. commissioner lemberg i agree except for the part of denying the appeal. and that's the issue. i agree comand -- commissioner trasvina i left it out of my tribe the communication with the parties never happened. and that's something this should happen. because they might get together over coffee and figure it out.

before demy and upholding the appeal i would rather we have a continuance to enable that dialogue for that communication. private property makes a difference and the pointses you make i agree with and would support not throwing the baby out with the bath water and upholding the appeal. and commissioner lopez -- i think i'm affirming everything you just said. and so i think i believe -- that if i believe if we continue the public safety and public safety, aside from screwed up notice situation. there was no brief published by

the bump public safety, overrules everything in my book. if we deny the appeal uphold the appeal and god forbid in november an early storm and one of these trees in poor continue cited by the arborist cracks and hits a 3 year old i don't want that on my conscious. and i than we can take care of that by having a continuance in efficient fashion. and remediate. we can do proper noticing the circulation of information requested spun of mission by this body. and we and pick want pieces that have been created by mistakes

that remember that were made. so -- i agree with you commissioner lemberg. i'm i upon don't want to go through i don't want public safety i don't want the public is put at risk because we are going through a press that was created by negligence. and that's not negligence for 3 year olds -- potentially by a falling branch. i can't sit with that. i would support a continuance. with terms and conditions that the information that was presented to us earlier provided all and go along with continuance that requested and required remediation on all the

things that did not happen in the first place. and i would request continuance with the advisory the parties communicate and try to reach andzing. if they don't that's why we are here. that's where i am at this point. and i agree with you commissioner lemberg. but we come at it a different way. everything you said was i don't have a problem except the last part. with that, now i will let you talk to me. >> thank you. i have one comment and 2 questions a contradiction in something vice president lopez said which was not reopening briefing but also aloug the permit holdtory submit the brief and a loug the other parties to read t. which to me is direct contradiction i don't think we can do both. at the same time.

my 2 questions i half asked earlier i will ask again now. because i have been paying attention and seeing whisper to each other. number one is do you have an opinion on whether, i want to say this with the prem than is if we have committed -- i know the brown act well. if we commit a brown acts violation the entire hearing can be thrown out in court. that's a fact. so my question is do you have an opinion on whether the thing this is we talked about institute reversal brown act violations and in the alternative, is it feasible to do what president swig is suggesting? >> so. i will speak i don't want to speak hype thetically whether a

brown act i have lagsz i will speak to the commission is considering whether it should eithered continue this matter for the board of appeals to provide proper notice and have another hearing or to rewinds this to the d. public works. with respect to the first option, i don't think tlldz be brown act violation this board would be providing proper notice. of a tree removal. with respect to the dpw process, i think that it is likely not ultimately prejudicial in any way if this board if as mr. buff testified notice was provided on the trees. and if this board provides proper notice to all parties and per of the reason for this this board has the ability to consider a matter de novo this

board is in the bounds by information was before dpw. this board can consider information, objections, from anyone who come. this is an important factor to consider. and i think that it means that there would not be will ultimately prejudicialeen assume thering was some issue with the dpw hearing assuming i'm not concluding that. if this board's notice is proper i think that gives all interest importance the opportunity to come before this board and make their objections and arguments about the street tree removal. the last comment is i don't think there is any legal impedament allowing the appears to provide briefs. it is a benefit to have a written position from the

department in veterans of the hearing. it is is helpful to me. and i would note that i don't think there is legal impetament to allowing a brief if this board concludes that would be helpful. >> thank you. and tom add-on to that, if per of the continuance order or requirement this we request refreshed briefs from all parties, then that is a term and common going with continuance, a fair hearing can be held. >>. s i thank you is within the board's authority to ask for timely briefs. anything else. commissioner? >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. president swig and thank you the city attorney for your guidance

on the matters apatrol of the city attorney's office. represents the city on tree case in golden gate park. the only way you with prevent a tree from falling not to plant it. we are behind in terms of mranth trees and the buff staff are out there. we had a hearing in january the buff staff was out there trying to save trees and they do that well and i want to commend them. i want to say that i was the first to say everybody who come before us are people of good will. thank goodness for mrs. boller filing the brief. otherwise, we would have had the defects that have existed in the process. so, i do think that it is very important we get as much information as reason and

possible. i would upon strongly support the notion and the motion that on a continuance we receive briefs from all parties. including the city. if this requires a waiver of existing rule we can add that but otherwise, i think it is important. and i do also believe -- if the good people of upon saint francis square could talk to mrs. bol and vice versa they may have a better understanding what is happening with the trees. what the need is and possible low come up with an an outcome this when than i come become say we talk exclude we think this solution is reasonable. >> add a third member to that

what would be a trio that is a represent from buff. they have private discussions, that buff could be there to assure them when they are discussing is the right direction and legal >> yes. >> agreed. yes. >> commissioner lopez. >> thank you. i did want to echo something that commissioner travel vina said in thanking mrs. boller. you can see from -- the number of times we gone around the horn up here and the issues. with them hearing. you know i donning it is dmendzable with somebody without legal representation that -- you did what was required.

and your testimony this evening was also appreciated. if we do go down the continuance path, i want to to echo that request and suggestion that -- the parties community of in good faith and what i did want to clarify to commissioner lemberg's point earlier with respect to inconsistencies in not reopening briefing and having the permit holder share their briefings. the context there is we had situations before where we say,

you miss aid deadline. shame on you and that's a handicap have you to bear. that you go up against a briefed party. without the benefit of getting the opportunity to submit briefings in the future hearing. that's the thought there. i'm not necessarily a stick ler near position. and i do think that everybody might benefit here from reopening briefings but explaining the thinking is with the prior position of the board in the situations. with that in minds, if we follow that too strict low and did not allow the permit holder or require them to share their letter.

the appellate is prejudiced they other only person in the process who has not seen letter. if we stick boy that policy it is important for the feel not be prejudice and punished for getting her stuff in on time and able to see what the permit holder submitted to us this evening. more experienced the same if we stick boy that you missed aid dead line too bad for you pop3 i think that the appellate should have the benefit able to see what was in there.

commissioner lemberg. i left people think i'm unmovable object >> i pleasant for the continuance. . i my mind was changed in deliberations and after what what was said i do think that i think the tipping point for me was the fact a continuance alaws the pers to collaborateerate. which i think is -- a benefit in this case. i want to respond to what vice president lopez said briefly, in that i doment to be we're and he or aware of the fact that we have been strict about that rule. allow a typeset sxans do this

again. i think causes more problems than this solves i would support it in this case. i promise i would invite to you put forth your motion you are not put forth your motion? okay with your permission may i suggest an alternative motion? >> yes. >> okay. >> i would like a motion to have a continuance on this item. to a date convenient to all parties. and -- for the -- on based on all the flaws that -- commissioner lemberg listed. because i do agree. and -- as part of that motion, that we require all of the

parties to provide refreshed briefs. in a timely fashion. so this there is a fair and even playing field for all parties to hear the information. and review the information and discuss that information. i would also as a part of this continuance request that a renoticing of the neighborhood with great care. utilizing the proper address as best described if you over describe it so we are clear thatdz neighborhood is informed and there is full transparency. i would also request, although we can't require. that all 3 parties that would be the will appellate. the permit hold and buff make

every attempt not in a triangle fashion a trio in one room or one phone or one zoom, consulttive jointly to reach some and terrible low collaborative -- direction. that means you don't have to agree but will you make every effort to have communication to reach go in a direction that may be resolvable by this body. so. that's what i would add to that. comment is rotes not make this exception a rule and i agree with that. because you heard me talk about

exceptions and rus and press didn't. i would -- ask the board appeals leadershipful that's to be circumspect about best efforts to a great peeves advice commissioner lemberg. if you know that upon some of our professional attorneys probably will not going to miss their dead lines there may be less experienced members of public had need a little tlc or guidance and this is in the a reprimand this is i great suggestion by commissioner lemberg to just if you see it use your heart and gut:if if you

don't see this manage in to give them a nudge. and add sunrise them. i think this is. yea. most wait not guilty left minute of the it does in the come in too late to nudge them. i understand. a very gentle nudge. jue know on my part to get to you nudge them and sometimes you know can you read the you can read the tea leaves and you can't. i understand. give i riminder or. >> yes, why not. makes sense. >> doesn't hurt. anybody have anything to add. to motion to continue with the list of opportunity? >> i want to inquire whether your extension of grace on the deadline also applies to the

city agencies? >> buff can submit a broef >> absolutely. >> all parties should submit i bref in a time lie fashion for the continuance. the future nudgers. and i think my use was word rep monday will sink in to dpw to pay more attention to dead lines. anybodiel, commissioner lopez? >> yes. thank you mented add my thinking on the exception and why i consider it narrow exception is because it has a fact pat everyone this i have in the seen here in the left couple years which is a party showing up sharing the letter in person but in the the

recall party remote and with i physical letter this can't be quick low irk milled to the other per. i do think that you >> we are not completely sacrificing the default rule. i think the facts and s here remember unique in which would lead to this a rare and narrow exception. >> thank you and i jumped the gun without asking permission from the executive director and the city attorney to accept the. document and somebody caught tinever had you were fast you read fast i did in the look at it. didn't have time. i will take responsibility for accept thanksgiving too quickly. >> i should have warned you. >> i should have warned you. >> i'm too fast i jumped on it. >> my fault. combebls anybody else we will

need more information when date do we want to continue this to? what dates available and when dates buff has to show up. we could do it early as september 27th. but this might be too soon? october 11. october 25. >> i think september 27 is fine. begin that we have a letter first we had testimony and submission by the appellate. second, have a letter this i said i have not read yet from the permit holder. sdham not present a manifest injustice.

okay. and then of next i would like the specific dress we're sends thanksgiving tochlt that for the record? work with the parties tomorrow? i mean. for the record y. make it september 20th. >> pardon. >> the parties all available september 27th? are you available september 27th? am i unmuted. >> yes are you available to come become to search 27th. >> yes, >> thank you. >> okay. and. the briefs due the thursday

prior to the hearing. the 21st? by 4. . 30 p.m. why and we are restarting 12 pages among the commons. >> okay and regular time and the regular process because. level the playing field. providing proper notice and restarting press point of view allowing briefs to come in. okay. that sounds good is this your motion. >> that would be my motion with that list of stuff. and about the addresses should we get on the record what they should be? if you can go up to the microphone? my degree in judging fee and environmental studies i'm familiar with mapping but the addresses in saint francis square are are anymored after sxhips sidewalks ellis street there is no street draechlsz i

know other departments an even and odd side. we can say then00. behind the garage is one of the sidewalks with address quick step that was on the document that chris showed like 1525 skip bide 10 and that's behind the trees. would it be per it say then00 blockeen side 1300 block of ellis. then 02 to 1398. >> yea. there is no. >> right >> that would you believe more accurate, yea. right there bithe street sidewalk and the tree around the concern or laguna.

1400? chris with public works that is we have 1355 it is 1345 or 1355. we have been going with then 55 laguna. okay t. is mid block making it not in front of a build with an address. there is a -- okay. 1335 laguna the closest physical property address. >> okay that is when we should use? 1335 laguna? public works benefit from knowing the legal address for the site legal mailing address.

i think n tree it is is not in front unit of then 35 can we put 1335 well guna the tree to the right on the street. north. it is north of then 35 but nothing there. to designate a number. departments is a proximate mate the block based on 100 the block would be 1350 if i gis want to make sure we -- making things up so. not irrelevant if there are no addresses you have blocks with no addresses. legal address but -- galilee is a sidewalk. okay. even specifying that is helpful

>> yea. 13 say 1335 laguna. north of that or -- say 5 or 5 galilee. north of 1335 laguna approximately. 10 or 15 feet from laguna. a car length. one lane. a car length. >> yea. >> at this times fine we don't need you. >> okay. we can say adjacent to north of and adjacent to 1335. thank you. president swig read the motion? sure tread and vote and --

>> stay longer you want. we have a motion from president swig to continue had matter to september 27th. so that one, all the parties submit a bref that will be due by 4:30 p.m. on september 21st. this includes the appellate, determination holder and bureau of urban forestry. two, the bla can sends new notice of the hearing with correct addresses specified at the hearing. and this motion was med for the reasons this commissioner lemberg spitzified made the hearing unfir >> and the board asks the appellate determination holds and buff most to collaborate rit on a resolution. we are goods >> on this motion vice president

lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> commissioner eppler. the matter is continues to september 27 thank you for your discussion and hope it guess more smooth on september 27th. >> thank you. this concludes the hearing and saint francis if you typeset reach out tomorrow questions about briefing process we previously sent you instructions. .