>> there is in the file a certificate of mailing signed by our senior clerk typist, se seal ya wong dated august 13th, 2012 that postcard notices were mailed out to owners and occupants within 150 feet and attach today the certificate of mailing is a two-page list from the radius company with probably 70 to 80 mailing labels. >> okay. >> i was under the -- >> do you want to see it? >> no, i believe you. i was under the impression that the notice would be posted near the tree. >> you might be referring to departmental notice from the dpw, but board of appeals has never posted notices near a site. >> i was under the impression -- >> do you still want a continuance, sir? do you still want a continuance?

>> no, i will withdraw that, thank you. >> okay. >> my arguments are the documentation, i asked for some on the tree limb failure which was one of the things that was brought up by the department of public works and none of that was provided to me whatsoever and there is no visual i can see on that tree that there's any limb failure. none on who requested the dpw to remove the tree because we were told that the dpw would not remove the tree for limb failure unless so requested by a member of the public, and the -- se seal ya, is senior clerk typist said that that would be provided to me at some time prior to this hearing, that was not provided. sidewalk access, it seems to be adequate.

there's only a planner blocking access and i don't know whether that planner belongs to the city, is it a private or can it be moved and if it's moved, i mean, there's plenty of access in that site as far as i can see, sidewalk damage, sidewalk damage is sited is one of the reasons why this tree get removed. there is much more sidewalk damage between -- on sanchez, one block over between 14th and market by several trees, debose and 14th by other trees and there is sidewalk damage outside of a housing complex for a senior residence that they have been asking for years to have removed because of the extensive damage to the sidewalk. if they don't want to remove that tree, why do they want to remove this one? replacement, replacement within

a reasonable time. this is one that i really did not understand. the department of public works has stated they will remove the tree for the fact that it is diseased and in danger of limb failure and will replace this "within a reasonable time". they did the same thing near 152 church street and removed two tree, i attend the church there and watched the removal of those two trees over a period of two or three days. those trees were promised to be replaced within a reasonable period of time. that was three years ago. where are those trees now? they don't exist. they're not there, there's holes in the sidewalk where those trees were. if they're going to remove those tree and is replace them within a reasonable period of time, was a reasonable period of time, that's vague or false

or misleading to me, and my request is to set aside this permit for removal as dpt is not responsive as to limb failures, requestors or sidewalk access, none of which they seem -- they have been able and my humble upon to uphold and provide, and that's all, thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. short? >> good evening, commissioner, carla short, department of public works, bureau of urban forestry. the tree removal was initiated by the department, although we did receive a number of requests since 2008 from the community to remove the tree. since 2008, we have inspected the tree a number of times and we have always been of the

opinion that the tree was in sufficiently good condition to warrant monitoring it rather than removal. we did receive a request in january of 2012 after the tree had lost another limb to reinspektd the tree and afterthat inspection, we determined that at this point in time because of the pattern of limb failure and is because of the sidewalk damage and the narrowness of the sidewalk which makes it difficult to repair the sidewalk without having to remove some -- what we perceive to be likely structural roots, we felt that the tree at this point in time should be removed. i'll show a couple of photos on the overhead that give an indication of the degree of sidewalk damage. as you can see, this primary

pedestrian's through way is rather narrow and we have to leave a min number of 4 foot access. whenever it's possible to expand the area around the tree well and fix the sidewalk and hopefully avoid or minimize cutting of structural roots, that's always the department's first choice of action and so perhaps some of the other cases where people have advocated to remove trees, our option has been to create a larger basin for the tree roots or if it's possible to repair the sidewalk and sever some roots without compromises the health or the instability of the tree, we would not perform that work in some cases but we would require property owners to maintain the trees. if i could just go on and show additional photos, you can see it has three primary scaffold limbs and i'll show, this is where one of the limb failures

did occur and i do have some documentation about those limb failures. i would like to note, i'm not sure if the appellant was requesting through the board's office for this documentation but we did not receive a request for this documentation directly. i didn't bring additional copies, i'll put them on the overhead and i'll be happy to provide them, so this is just what we found when we inspected the tree in january where one of the limbs had broken off recently and then i don't know how clearly you can see this, but this is one of those three primary scaffold branches that has almost no foliage remaining, that seems to be an indication that the tree is in decline, that it has lost foliage in one of the branches and that one branch would be removed, that would be a substantial removal of the structure of the tree. it's the combination of factors that have led us to the conclusion that the tree should

now be removed, it's a combination of the loss of limbs and we have documentation of two limbs that failed, one of which was hanging in the tree but removed by our crew but it did break, one of which came down on the sidewalk area and then weapon had an additional limb that was cracked that was removed before it broke, so the combination of this type of limb failure and the sidewalk damage that we don't feel can be easily repaired without compromising the structural stability of the tree and i'll just put this first photo back up on the overhead, you can see that the tree does have a lean, a leaning tree is not inherently unstable, but when you have sidewalk damage that is opposite the lean, the structural roots that are potentially contributing to the stability of that tree opposite the lean are the last roots you would want to have to cut and unfortunately, that is where

the primary sidewalk damage is occurring so we can't see how we can safely fix the sidewalk and maintain that acceptable path for all the citizens of san francisco and preserve the tree. we are considered as you can see perhaps in this photograph, the tree is top heavy, we would potentially destabilize the tree, so i'll just quickly put up some -- these are calls from the 311 call center that come into our service request database and this is a caller reporting a limb 20 to 30 feet long blocking the driveway, this was completed by our crew on october 24, 2011. this was a limb, a call for -- just for pruning the tree, they said it was overgrown, this is when we removed one of the limbs that was cracked on the tree, that was completed back

in 2008. this was a call where we see that the tree had a hanging branch, large branch hanging, we had an arborist come in on overtime to remove that branch. >> what was the date of that one. . >> that is february of 2010. and then this was just additional pruning record that we had, it wasn't relevant, so i think i would just like to say that the department takes our responsibility to protect and enhance the urban forest very seriously, we tend to have a conservative approach to tree removals, we look for option tos mitigate through pruning, through expanding basins and in some species of trees can be tolerant for having their roots pruned and in those cases we would advocate to prune the

tree make the sidewalk safe, as long as we can ensure the public can be safe, we clearly can't ignore public safety concerns and our feeling was that this tree was shedding limbs and causing sidewalk damage and it was appropriate to remove at this time. thank you. >> could you address the concern by the appellant that the replacement timeline is one that is too long. how soon would this tree be replaced once removed? >> i can't make any guarantees because as an example, once the tree is removed, we also have to use a giant machine to grind out the stump so we can plant in that location. we have one large stump grinder that can get two feet of depth which is what we need to plant a replacement tree and it was in the shop for 8 months last year, 8 full month, it went in

for one problem and because it was sitting on the shop for weeks on end, it had three additional problems that had to be fixed, that put us on a big delay for our replacement trees, so there are extenuating circumstances and i hesitate to commit to a replacement timeline but i can say, stump grinder is up and running, we have been planting as many empty basin that is we can and we would try our very best to try to get this tree replaced as quickly as possible, i would like to say that it could be within a couple of months of removal. >> okay, that sounds reasonable: >> we'll just note that we don't have that language reasonable amount of time, just as a side note. we always try to be reasonable. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. if we could take public comment. is there anyone who would like

to speak on this item? >> yes? . >> good afternoon again, commissioner, members of the public, star child, if we could have the photos up here that the department of public works brought in again to look at the tree. thank you. does this show up automatically? there we go. okay. i would like to point out, you can see that all three of the main trunks of the tree are covered in foliage at the top. you know, none of them have foliage going up the trunk so i'm not quite sure what that was about, the one limb or trunk not having foliage, but

you know, this is a beautiful large tree, this took decades to grow, you know, you can't even wrap your arms around the trunk, i don't know what they're planning to put in but typically, you know, things put in to replace these kinds of trees are not suitable replacements, it wouldn't be anything this large or beautiful. i mean, noe is a beautiful street because of it being tree-lined and i think that makes people more likely to want to walk down the sidewalk on that street. also, the planter next to the tree as you can see, here on -- >> there are other conversations in the hallway, there's overflow rooms in 408 and 201 if you want to converse, okay, 408 or 421. >> it's not super visible from this photo, the only sidewalk

damage is right here next to the tree and across from the tree is a planter which i'm not sure if that's city owned or privately owned but that could easily be moved, it has some relatively small shrubbery in it and that would double the width of the sidewalk there and allow people to get easily by the tree even if this part of the sidewalk were left unprepared. however, i think that could also be easily repaired by putting some filler concrete and make a little bit of a slope there but i think that's not even necessary for the sidewalk to be perfectly usable and ada compliant for it to be four feet wide if that planter were relocated. visually, the tree looks pretty healthy, i'm not an arborist but i couldn't see any evidence of limb failures, something three or four inches coming out from the top up there would not have been necessarily visible

but not a great hazard either. when you hear limb failure and is look at the tree, you think as one of the trunks coming down, it was a minor relatively speaking for size of the tree limb failure and i just think it's criminal that we would tear down -- kill a tree like this and, you know, i don't think the department has its policies right, i respect the spokeswoman, they may be well intentioned but there's a lot of trees that have been coming later in the city and i think this is part of a pattern and also the earlier item with tearing out all the grass in golden gate park to put in astro turf, this is a pattern in the city and i would urge you to please save this tree. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, we will move into rebuttal, you have three minutes of rebuttal.

mr. burkett? >> taz dpw did note, they did not bl*ifr to me any documentation about the tree limb failure. i was told by the board of appeals, the senior clerk typist that that would be delivered to me as a port of the process of this appeal, so i assumed at that point that i would get something from either the department of public works or the board of appeals regarding that because i was told that in verbal by the senior clerk typist at that time. she also told me that the requestor, in other words, she said she believed somebody had to request dpw to remove the tree, and dpw says that they were removing the tree at their own request, and that was never given to me. the third item that i wanted to mention is the planter, that

planter, i don't know who owns that planter, and like star child pointed out, if that planter were moved, there's probably between five and a half to six feet clearance between the crack that the tree has caused in the sidewalk and the nearest house which is more than adequate ada compliance. i don't know who own that is planter, i don't know whether it's a city-owned planter, a privately-owned planter or who has that planter and she mentioned also within a reasonable time. when they came and posted the notices to remove the trees at 152 church street, one directly in frnt of the kh*urmg and one off to the left -- yes, off to the left of the church as you face church street, i called the department of public works and asked them what they were

doing, they said they had to remove the trees because they were unhealthy and they would be replaced within the reasonable time and that was the quote i was given and i asked what would a reasonable time would be, and they told me within several months at that time, that was three years ago. that's not within a reasonable time to me, and if they remove this tree, what to me is within a reasonable time, is it going to be several months, it's not proven to be several months in the past. thank you. >> there are several other people on noe that said they would like to be here but because they did not have adequate notice, either they didn't get the mailings or they

didn't pay attention to them and they were unable to be here and they want the tree to be saved. thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. short, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> okay, i'll just try to address a couple of the points that were just raised. i think there may have been some confusion about whether or not someone that to request for a tree to be removed because we have a hybrid maintenance responsibility model in san francisco, so about two-thirds of the street trees are the maintenance responsibility of the adjacent property owner and if those trees are to be removed, that property owner has to file a tree removal permit application and they have to request to get a permit to remove that tree. however, one-third of the trees are still being maintained by the department of public works and in those cases, we do inspections on the tree that is

we maintain and we might identify a tree to be removed and that's what happened in this case. i will note that we have been contacted in the past since 2008 by the immediately adjacent property owner as well as some of the other people who called in those service requests to look at the tree when these limbs have fallen or when they've had concern. this is a tree that has been on our radar but it is up to the department to determine whether or not we want to remove this tree because it is a tree that we have had the maintenance responsibility for. the other thing i would like to emphasize, i think there may have been a misunderstanding, when the appellant was filing the appeal, he thought his request was going to be forwarded to the department because i usually respond to a brief and that's my trigger to get you my brief on time and the appellant didn't file a brief so i also failed to file a brief so i'm not sure where

that's where the confusion over the documentation came. i think the last thing i would add rez is our concerns is multilateral so it's not simply the sidewalk damage although the fact that the damage occurs opposite the lean is a concern, in order to be ada compliant, we can't leave a damaged sidewalk like that and there is some damage on this side, this is the worst o*f the damage, it is a privately maintained planter box, but even if we were to try to move that planter box, you know, we don't know what would happen underneath the sidewalk and whether or not roots would have to be removed in order to repair the sidewalk, we still have this pattern of limb failure and that was the other concern that led us to determine that we should be remove lg this tree at this time. the last thing i'll say is this

photograph shows the limb that does not have -- that has very limited foliage at the top so it's not visible in the first photograph because the other two limbs and their foliage makes it look as though the third limb has foliage at the top but it really doesn't. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. er >> i personally wanted to note that the photograph of the tree and its grandness was very compelling and i too felt a pang of sadness that this is going to have to be removed as i'm sure the spokeswoman from the department of public works who in fact is an expert in trees, she's an expert arborist, so i know from the level of complaints and the length of time that has taken place before this removal decision was made, it was

considered -- i think a serious amount of consideration was given to protect this tree and i feel completely satisfied by what i've heard today with respect to the decision-making process that took place to uphold the removal. >> and i'm in agreement and i really don't have anything more to add to that, other than i find the testimony of the expert arborist to be compelling as to the reasons for needing to remove this tree. >> i guess i appreciate there's been watchful waiting for four years, so that's to me a pretty good determination that the time has come to take that down. >> i'm going to move to uphold

the permit, deny the appeal. >> would that be for the reason stated in the dpw order? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> on that motion from the president to deny this appeal, uphold the permit on the basis stated in the dpw order. on that motion, the vice-president is absent. commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0, this permit is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> okay, we're going to take a short break and resume at 7:30. (break for 5 minutes, to resume

at 7:30).m5