states the issue at hand, the work order, which is published on-line, and asked the signers to include their street address and indicate whether they are renters or owners. by me personally. i can vouch that every person who read the petition understood it thoroughly. this included neighbors who are extremely active in our community, including the president of the mission district neighborhood association and several members of local associations. these members are in support of replacing what are tree trunks for six to nine months of the year, replacing them with relief the evergreen species which will vastly improve the forlorn landscape. in closing, we wish to make one point very clear. the neighborhood blocks around the senior housing have enjoyed a renaissance of for the past decade as the direct result of

thoughtful, deliberative, and proactive city planning. the demolition and replacement of wednesday gardens had the effect of attracting and retaining young professionals and families which previously would never have considered living in the neighborhood. our neighborhood residents are a mix of young and old. we are very invested in the civic space around us. we are active users of city infrastructure. many of us volunteer, supporting schools and parks. home ownership gives us a financial stake in our municipalities and provide substantial city revenues -- tax revenues for the city. the 20 unit condominium i live in has presented almost $2.50 million to the city in revenues over the past 10 years. a dishat our 100 residents have indicated our support tonight for the planting of these trees.

we wish only to protect the well-being of the street for all of our residents. thank you so very much. commissioner hwang: i have a question on the signatures. were you gathering the signatures of the people who lived in the subject building? >> we did not. it is not a public access t requires permission to enter. i obtained the signatures byer. going door-to-door and knocking on people's doors. commissioner hwang: thanks. >> one thing should also -- >> vice commissioner garcia: you will have to wait to. you have three minutes coming up later. >> the housing authority? >> good afternoon. my name is marie swanson.

i am the property manager. it is the housing authority's position at this time to not remove the trees unless it is found by the department of public works urban forestry that the trees are either diseased or dead. >> thank you. ms. short? >> thank you. carlos short, department of public works bureau of urban forestry. i probably will keep my comments brief and be happy to answer any questions. the department was initially approving these trees at the request of the housing authority. if they are not supporting removal at this time, i will just be available for questions. thank you. commissioner hwang: i do have a question.

at what time did the position change? >> i think after the department of hearing, when the initial request was approved at the staff level and it went to department of hearing. it was denied. at that point, the housing authority decided to abide by that decision. >> is there any public comment on this item? step forward. vice commissioner garcia: the for this gentleman speaks, if everyone in this room who is supporting the removal of the trees would either raise their hand or stand up so we can get an idea of who is for and who is against this? is there anyone in the room who is opposed, who does not want to have the trees removed? thank you. these are people who are against having the trees removed. thank you. >> how much time would you like to give? one minute?

>> thank you for hearing me. i am representing the people in mission dolores senior housing. it is a personal residence. i am the volunteer resident gardiner, so i have an interest in this. i had the initial "save our trees" petition passed around, primarily in our building, but others volunteered in the neighborhood. since that time, as of last week, but decided it would be a good idea to go directly across the street to three separate residence. they were all in favor of saving these trees. i know at certain times of the year these trees are awkward looking.

but they are also the trees we passed by as we came into this building, feeling awkward. i do not believe they should be killed at all. they have been there too long and are appreciated by too many people. with that bill for me? -- was that bell for me? commissioner hwang: did you personally circulate that petition? >> i did. commissioner hwang: when you went to the people you spoke with to sign it, what did you say to them? >> i showed them this. these were posted on our trees, stating that there were going to be removed. the only other thing is that in the ruling it mentions that the recommendation is to uphold the protest by the public to deny

the tree removals and that the trees are london planes. they are healthy. their limbs structures are sound and sufficient to support full growth. commissioner hwang: what percentage of the signers are actual residence? >> i would say 90%. that is why i went across the street to get people who view them every day. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening. i am the tenant association vice president. i have been dealing with this matter personally. i responded to the issue by what was posted on the trees. i shall hear in this particular

room, where there was the department of public works. since then, i have tried to gather up support. i spoke with the brick and mortar woman, who talked about such type of trees and shrubbery is and such. she referred back to what would be the tenants association. since then, i have gone unspoken with henry alvarez -- gone and spoken with henry alvarez. he took the consensus that we are all in agreement that we should save our trees. there was an earlier -- ok. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal.

you have three minutes. >> i find it interesting that to my knowledge and the knowledge of anyone who has been involved in and supports the replacement of these trees we did not know that henry alvarez or any members of the san francisco housing authority were not completely supportive of this tree replacement. these trees -- we have presented evidence of this tree. it is an extremely large and unattractive building. there is no getting around it. it is the locus of criminal activity and vandalism. 1855 it is a blight magnet. graffiti, trash, and drug dealing happen on a regular basis. anything we can do to humanize the street would be helpful. valencia gardens is like night

and day when you walk through our neighborhood. those trees are bare and for at least nine months out of the year. they have no branches. they have no leaves. you may have perceptions of the species, but they are not appropriate for that building. it just exacerbates the effect of light. we really do not understand how this improvement, which enjoys so much support and was fast tracked by supervisor dufty, and i have e-mails by him supporting this appointment, have changed so rapidly. i do not hear ms. swanson explaining why she changed her mind, simply that she has. because maybe 50 people who live in the housing authority building support taking -- keeping those buildings that it overrides the concerns of over 100 citizens who promptly and

enthusiastically sign a statement of support. these are people who own their homes, who pay taxes, who have children, who live in the neighborhood and have an enormous financial stake. i do feel that paying $2.50 million in property tax over the last 10 years gives the 20 residents of by building some say in how the city landscapes the street in a public housing buildings supported by taxpayer money. we do believe this to be heard and considered, that this is a neighborhood concern and not simply a concern of the residence or the management of the san francisco housing authority nonprofit building. i really do think you for your support. many residents, many of whom i met for the first time in the last couple of months, feel very strongly about this improvement and would be so very happy to also volunteer to keep these trees well taken care of. thank you again. commissioner hwang: have you

engaged in any kind of discussions about potential alternatives to removing otherwise healthy tree? >> no, but mr. hastings was here. he wanted to speak as a citizen. he recently had health problems and had to leave the building for a second. vice commissioner garcia: if it is ok with everybody else, given the circumstances, we could reopen the public hearing and give him an opportunity to speak. commissioner fung: ms. bright, if the housing authority is no longer supporting this permit, you are saying that your group will implement it if this body overturns? >> i think of would be very interested in finding out if our group can petition the city for removal of the trees, since they

do not belong to the san francisco housing authority. as far as i understand, the housing authority is a nonprofit -- commissioner fung: let me be clear. will your group pay for the removal and planting of new trees? >> i would be happy to raise those funds. vice commissioner garcia: and maintenance. >> and absolutely to sign of volunteers. vice commissioner garcia: i am not saying that is going to happen. i think you answered my question. we are going to reopen, with everybody's permission, public comment. you have one minute. you have to identify yourself. >> paul hastings. 25 year resident of the city of san francisco and on 15th street for the last 10 years. the compromise would like to propose, should one be needed,

would be to keep two of the trees and replace the two of the ones that are the most disease. that would be the first. the second part would be we would ask that the trees not be pruned, and that they be allowed to create an ongoing canopy that will be able to leaf not three months out of the year, but nine months out of the year. the last would be for the city to consider possibly putting a sidewalk garden around the trees also. there is a good 35 yards in front of the building. it would be an opportunity for the city to support the sidewalk garden project, which we are actively promoting. it would help the environment. it would help run off and do a great job to help alleviate the streetscape environment with that tall building. thank you.

>> ms. swanson, do you have any rebuttal? >> again, i am the housing manager. i originally did take a walk to look at some trees on the other side of the street. we talked about it with my director and the executive director of the housing authority. i am not an expert on trees. i did not know if the trees were dead. i was told there were dead. that was the first time they had been cut since i have been there. i understand that the same person who cut the trees cut them every year and they come back. after we found out the trees were not dead or diseased, the housing authority decided to keep the trees because the

tenants who live there enjoy the trees. vice commissioner garcia: thank you. >> ms. short? >> carlos short, department of public works bureau of urban forestry. i just would like to make one comment in response to the last public comment, which is that any sort of trees or sidewalk burdens that would be installed adjacent to this property would be a maintenance responsibility of the san francisco housing authority. if there is a compromise that is worked out, whether it involves removal and replacement of some trees or installation of some other facility, the housing authority would have to be on board for long-term maintenance. it is not maintained by the department of public works. commissioner fung: do you know

the orientation of that building and the trees? >> i think so. it is the north-facing side of the building. commissioner fung: the building faces north? >> that frontage faces north. commissioner fung: thank you. commissioner hwang: what is the impact on the canopy after this improper pruning? >> it is a good question. we did have one tree that began to leak out after it took place, which is stressful. that is why it should always happen once the trees have dropped their leaves. i would say i think it is likely these trees will leak out normally. i would give them two seasons before we could assess if there is any long-term impact to the

health. it is a stressor for sure to cut the leaves in the middle of the growing season. that is what it takes place when they are deciduous. but london plain trees are relatively hardy. the trees might show some reduced bigger in the immediate cease and afterwards, but i would give it a second season before i would be too concerned. commissioner peterson: from the pictures it looks like one might be recovering but the other three are not. >> that country was not -- that one tree was not cut back. we will advise the department in the future. it fell through, because i was out of town. pending the decision of the board, we would be available to

help advise some of the staff to hopefully correctly trim these trees in the future. commissioner peterson: before this evening, had you heard from the appellant, with respect to a possible compromise? >> no. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice commissioner garcia: i will start of. it is hard not to but admire and be sympathetic to the neighbors who live right there. it is less than totally attractive, the building. that might sometimes be the nature of public housing. i cannot contemplate having

neighbors decide what should go on on another property they do not occupy. just in general, and also because there would be many complications to do such an arrangement. i think one very favorable outcome of tonight's hearing and this movement to have these trees removed would be if ms. bright and mr. hastings were to try to arrange a meeting and say there are people in the neighborhood who are very concerned about the appearance of the building, about the safety issues. how can we as members get involved in and do things that are beneficial to the residents of that particular building, the building itself, and the general appearance of the street? beyond that, i do not know what else could be done. i am not in favor of overturning the department are granting the

appeal. commissioner peterson: i would concur with those sentiments. it sounded to me it like a resounding, "we would raise money to do the maintenance and care." i am wondering if there are other opportunities of beautifying the building itself that the neighbors might want to pitch in to do. these are just -- i think what vice president garcia suggested is very good. i am similarly disinclined to overturn the department position on this. commissioner fung: i have always supported the renewal of our flora in the city. i do not think it has to stay constant throughout. in this instance, we are being

asked to pick the desires, the concepts of what is appropriate as the text, -- appropriate aesthetics of one sive v -- side versus the othe rr side. commissioner peterson: i think the complication is the change by the planning department, -- by the housing authority, which is the permit holder. i had thought to see the impact if there is to take in these particular trees, but that is a long way out. i guess i would suggest more discussion. the housing authority are the ones with the ultimate liability.

i urge the housing authority to look at the impact of the cape over the next two seasons. otherwise, i would feel uncomfortable overturning the department in this. commissioner hwang: i will make the motion to deny the appeal. a poll the department. -- uphold the department. commissioner fung: aye. vice commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> the motion carries 4-0. calling item 6, appeal 11-004, jeff and nicole cooper, protesting the issuance on september 8, 2010 to nextg

network a wireless box permit. it is on the calendar today. starting with the appellants. >> my name is jeff cooper. my wife and i own a home. we are appealing the permit that allowed nextg to install wireless equipment on our block. in our jurisdiction and request a hearing on generic of 2011, nextg said, "we are a nation of laws." it said is heard -- it said it is her job -- she said it was her job to make sure the law was

followed. the law was not perfect but followed in this instance. the p.w. made a statement affirming a mistake was made. this is a good view street. as a result, the planning department review is required. this review did not happen. what does this mean? it means that nextg has partly constructed an antenna at a location where the permit was issued incorrectly. this is exactly when notification needs to occur. if there had been minimum outreach, we would have had the opportunity to research these issues before the end tunnel was built. -- the antenna was built. the general plan is on the department website. nextg's position is that they

did not have a duty to translate the general plan to the wireless map. the wireless map is only for convenience. they did have a legal requirement to follow the city codes, all of which reference the general plan. the permit application included an exhibit a in their written response. they initially highlighted that the location was unprotected. is it too much to ask nextg do its homework? their actversely impacted my home and its surroundings. carelessness is not an excuse to sidestep the requirements of the law. what am i asking? first, the error needs to be rectified. the initial permit approval should be deemed invalid and they should remove their equipment immediately. all of the laws should be followed fully and completely.

this means taking down the equipment and starting over. any new permits should fall under the recently affected -- effected avalos legislation, which attempts to regulate the placement of antennas to protect the city pair of beauty. it also provides language protecting private views, which is new. the antenna is large, a tier 3 facility. it is in a protected location on a quiet street with good views of the bay. it impedes not only street views, but neighborhood views of the golden gate bridge. the antenna is also installed right outside of residences. hopefully, the pictures i have provided give you a sense of how interested the installation is. nextg asserts that this is a deceptive close-up on the

antenna taken with a telescopic lens without perspective. the city view is distorted or misleading. this is false. no telescopic lens was utilized in taking this photograph. unfortunately, the pictures depict exactly how the and tunnel looks. if anything, they do not reveal how intrusive this facility actually is. i respectfully ask the board to revoke the permit and require that they shut down and remove the equipment installed on our block. if them what to reapply for a permit at this location, they should comply with the current laws. with my remaining time, i would like to address nextg's written submission to the board. the mentioned the size of the antenna is a fraction the size of a tier 2. this is misleading, because it omits any mention of the supporting equipment. the site is clearly a tier 3 sites. dpw confirms there has been no

response. had nextg properly notified residents, we could have commented before they started building the site. it was determined the appellant did not have a vested rights. they did not have a valid building permit to the site. if the board determines this permit is invalid, that would lead the board to conclude that nextg does not have a vested rights. nextg says there are no suitable alternative locations. this is an overstatement. there are aboveground utilities in many back alleyways that support never garages. these alleyways are still in the right of way and could be potential locations for an antenna. last year, there were seven and 10 does