neighbor that led to them. thank you. excus>> thank you, good evening. let me say that i do now -- and have worked with him it in the past and it is difficult to be on the opposite sides of the case. he is an active member of the kennedy who was often in touch with us when there has been illegal removals' or trees have gotten damage. we appreciate the efforts he has made and his commitment to the neighborhood and to improving his own property. i think the challenges that the city policy really seeks to preserve established trees. certainly one aspect is the mortality rate of younger trees.

they are more prone to vandalism, they are more prone to potential destruction by accidents than established trees. there are also fundamentally providing more environmental benefits to the city then young trees. i think that coupled with the fact that san francisco has a reduced tree canopy. we don't have the kind of coverage that many other larger cities do and we don't have a lot of mature trees in san francisco and our policy is very preservationist. in this case, a city policy is at odds with the city -- the owners' desire to make an improvement to their property. i can understand wanting to have matching trees but are finding was that one tree had a structural problem that cannot be corrected through pruning so

that was granted for removal. the second tree, there was no major deficiencies so our policy is that we should preserve that tree. and stand the concern about the neighbor and wasps. any flowering tree can be very attractive to pollinators including wasps. any tree could be attractive. if that is the basis for removal, there are no guarantees and i would suggest that there might be other alternatives. there are companies that can help to try to deal with nesting in trees that don't use pesticides and are environmentally friendly. that would be our preferred course.

they wanted to increase the base and size. that is what we recommend and support. our reference in the condition to a 24 inch box was not the tree base in size in the sidewalk, this is the size of the tree replacement box and there might have been a misunderstanding if they were inches. we recommend going larger. that reference was to the replacement tree box up ou .

>> would it move you at all of this board to the condition that the young trees be maintained and were they to die, then they would have to put in other new trees in perpetuity? >> our code would require that. our code would allow the property owner potentially to pay the fee rather than replanting it. it would not be nice to have a guarantee of trees in the future of that site. >> take away their right to do a fee. >> with that move you? >> i am sympathetic to these property owners. the decision of our department was that the one tree was healthy and sustainable. i am trying not to let my personal sympathies get in the way of representing the

department's interest which i think is maintaining the one tree that is healthy and sustainable. >> this question is purely my own curiosity. you made the statement about the amount of can't be an urban areas. are there specifics? >> we don't have the most recent data but a steady in 2003 suggested that san francisco is far below other metropolitan urban areas and we only have about one in 8. "that would beat the same with the wind conditions, rainfall,

all of those conditions? >> this is more based on population size and density. san francisco has some challenging climates but i think in terms of soil, this is a good place in many cases to plant trees. >> is there public comment on this item? >> in regards to the trees, if there was vandalism, we would definitely replace it. we believe that these add to the look and feel of our property. unfortunately, you don't have a picture of we have done a lot to the property to build it up and have the trees without -- not at

the front of the property would make it look worse. we would replant them if anything happens to them, vandalism or if they die on their own. in regards to the nesting comment. there has never been a bird that has nested in these trees in the 18 years that we have floods there. in the canopy area, particularly this area, we live in the southern part of the city and there is a lot of can't be there. missing ferret canopy. -- i don't think that we are missing the canopy. i don't believe the trees that we would like to replace would be sorely missed. >> if you were to stipulate three trees in, that would be something greater in terms of taking care of that ecological balance being lost by putting

young trees instead of mature trees. >> to put in three trees? >> if you were to get to take out two and put in three, but would you consider? >> the challenges the distance between the driveways. "she might not be able to. -- you might not be able to. >> the distance between them is not very far to accommodate three trees. if we did have the space, we would definitely contemplated. >> i did not understand what the arguments and maybe it was short circuit. i cannot get your argument on

the crime on the other side of the street and how that has any connection to the street thought to this -- connection to the tree. >> we are trying to shed light to the sidewalk. because of where the trees are and the size of the trees, the light is not filtered through. the street lights are too far away to shed more light to that part of the property. >> we could add a third tree if -- of our neighbors that have moved in have taken out portions of the sidewalk without having a base and making it actually a longer basin. instead of the 40 feet we are

looking at -- 40 inches, we could probably triple that and then add a third tree. we think that the trees are planted back in the 60's. there were planted on our side of the street. unfortunately, they were not correctly pruned. if they were correctly pruned, and there crooner comes in and actually prunes in areas so that you can see through the trees. this is so dense that i don't even think that we can prove needs and the right way and have them sustained.

>> i don't need any time for a bottle but i am available for additional questions. >> can you talk about pruning and printing the interior of the canopy? >> these trees are dense and they have a dense interior canopy. this is more dense than the variety is -- it is difficult to get a more open canopy. part of the justification is that you never really get could form -- get good form.

>> this is not popular because people don't like the flower drop but this is approved as a free tree -- fruit tree. >> it looks like this is up on a hill. >> certainly parts are. >> we are trying to see if i have a clear enough a few to see if we could do 3-2. it looks possible but i would

not be certain without going to look at the actual site to see how much frontage they have >> if it is only possible to put in two trees, i am trying to look out the parameters. -- i'm trying to look at the parameters. >> that does not seem unreasonable. >> how long does it take for a tree to get to level of maturity that is considered acceptable? i don't have any interest in cutting down a healthy tree. >> one of the issues is getting

a treat established so that it does not require weekly water. that takes place in three-five years in san francisco. the other question about preserving trees that are larger and less likely to have the other positive mortality, you might be looking at 5, 7, 10 years. usually, we are talking about something that is the law requiring water and can survive on its own. -- that is no longer requiring water and can survive on its own. >> commissioner, the matter is yours. >> it seems like it would look really strange with a mature tree with this canopy and then they would have the smaller tree. i think that the people who are keeping up and maintaining their property and not only their own

but i know for a fact that they are very involved in their neighborhoods and they do a lot. they have a very good canopy. i think it has been demonstrated that the appellant is willing to do the ratio and if he can't, three trees can be placed on the property, he is ready to have done in lieu fee. i would support overturning the department and conditioning that whatever trees get there must be there in perpetuity.

>> it wouldn't that require some change to the date? a condition of maintenance for the trees in front of the property. >> yes, i believe it could be recorded on the property to enforce the condition of approval that this board would have and then it would be enforced by the respective agencies and departments of public works. my only question is that street trees are on the street and this would be for the actual property itself.

>> can we except this on good faith? >> i would support that the comments -- i would support the comments commissioner garcia made. >> i might. i would not support my fellow commissioners unless i have yet to vote on taking down a healthy tree for the reasons stated by the department. housin their rear instance that there was life and safety hazards, i might vote in that direction but in this case, i

don't see it. >> i believe i voted in the minority. >> i will not make a motion. >> i will make up a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the department. >> please call the roll. >> we have a motion to deny the appeal and uphold this denial. >> we did not come to a final vote. i think there was an agreement with the department. >> of holding the denial on that

one tree, the order would be upheld as a split order. we will put, uphold the order. the motion is to deny the appeal and tonight he appeal as is. >> know. >> no. -- the motion is denied the appeal and uphold the department. >> when did you make a proposal to replace three for 2. >> yes, i thought it was

stipulated to. i thought it was reasonable. it was indicated by the appellants brief. >> i will vote no. >> i would move -- >> i would like to interrupt. i would change -- i will withdraw my motion. with this vote, we would continue. i don't think that we need to waste the city's resources. >> since the mission -- missing

commissioners' vote would not change the outcome, you would not need to continue. >> i thought -- are there three votes in favor the proposal? >> the motion was to uphold law department, that requires three votes. -- the motion was to uphold the department. you need four votes to overturn the department and tel. my apologies for the confusion. i should let you continue. >> i'm not sure. >> you said you had voted no. >> you are voting to uphold the department. >> the vote count is 123.

-- one to three. >> the motion made was to uphold the department. without three votes, the motion fails. >> we need a new vote to overturn. if we get three votes on that, -- >> then we can continue. >> i propose an alternate motion. i move that we overturned the department and that we condition this that two trees be replaced with three trees and that there should be an nsr such that if the trees fail, they will have

to be replaced and they cannot be replaced by going to be in lieu fee. if to trees are only possible, then the appellate would pay. in lieu fee for the third tree. >> this motion is from the vice- president to overrule the department, to modify this order as stated by commissioner garcia. on the motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. this is overruled as they.

>> i don't have to formally withdraw my the earlier motion? >> it failed. >> thank you. >> moving on to item number 6. >> calling item 6, bethany matted hissed united church -- methodist united church versus the department public worse buk. this is appealing to the denial of a tree removal permit for nine trees. >> good evening. we are requesting to overturn

the denial of the nine -- the removal of the nine trees. we are currently under a major renovation project on this property. we were in the building and planning process for two years which included our site plan and the plan which was approved which showed that we were removing the trees and we were replacing trees with new trees. part of the reason we wanted to remove these trees is that we were changing the existing elements of the building. we were moving the entranceway down sanchez street to a new courtyard. one of the trees that was denied was in the entryway the

hon. this is not work too well. in addition, the trees had a lot of safety issues. we have a key are versed reports. -- are gribprorst -- beenararbo. the trees to not comply with the city requirements. there are two trees, one of them is within two feet of the utility line, another is within a foot. under our plan, we will comply with the city requirements. these trees are 20 years old.

wheat planted them ourselves. unfortunately, we planted them in planter boxes -- we planted them in planter boxes. we planted them ourselves. they have a lot of safety issues. we have liability issues. we have already paid out a lot of money. for a property such as this, it puts a lot of liability on us. we have a lot of people coming into this church. >> i will speak about the project briefly. this is a remodeler of a hundred-year-old building which was approved by the city. we submitted for a tree permit on july 21st of 2010. we received a denial to remove nine of the trees.

we went to a hearing on january 24th, 2011, and we are still denied. >> this is the sanchez side of the street. these are the existing trees. these were proved to be removed and these have been removed. this is a long klipper street and this has been approved to be removed. these are the new zealand trees. these damaged the sidewalk. now would be the time to replace the trees and make them suitable.

i will show you some plans. all on the left side are the existing trees showing the new plans. this is our proposed trees. since they were removed, there are now nine trees remaining and we will replace them. this is showing the existing trees that remain. you can see the one tree falls in line. with the new scheme, we are proposing two trees