this is where the trees were taken off and where the trees were taken down and these go to the safety concerns and these were two-man crew and nobody is flagging and this is low impact and this is off, brotherhood way, and this is what, the permit presumably was for, i don't know, there was nothing posted, anywhere in the park merced. and warner says that he is an account manager for the company, and here he is vp business development for the entire san francisco area. this is a hayward company. and i would like to know where the san francisco office is. >> these are all flagging and are all pedestrians and not to be confused with the flaggers and the muni busers and the

garbage caravan and they shut down a second street and i have codes in other relevant issues if you want... >> thank you, knee other public comment on this item? >> hello? >> so i was out there and i saw no signs. and we called the department, 3113 days in a row, four of us 12 complaints and with all due respect to him, he said that he had never gotten any complaints and it did not go to his personal office. and it went to 311. and only, we tried mapping and you have to understand that it

is a war zone when they come out and we start cutting all of of our trees down and so it is intense but he can testified that we called, four of us three days in a row, and we got no response. and so the inspeckers came hours later. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, commissioners the matters are submitted. >> i don't see the evidence to base that. >> i move to deny the rehearing request. >>

>> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny both hearing requests. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0, both rehearing requests are denied and notices of decision and order shall be released. >> okay, thank you. >> so we will move on to item 5 a bc. these are three appeals filed by lagos, 13-130, 605 gonzalez drive. and 13-131 at 811 gonzalez

drive.protesting the issuance on september 18, 2013, to parkmerced llc, tree removal permit (removal of one (1) tree with replanting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available). order no. 181658 >> you have three appeals filed and so have you 21 minutes. >> good evening again, commissioners on behalf of the coalition of safe park merced i just want to fill you in on the fact that i intent to share part of this presentation with another community activist, miss cathy lenz who has the expertise in the issue of tree preservation and she will be speaking tonight as a co-presenter on behalf of this appeal. the reason why we are appealing this particular, these tree removal permits, is because, we are rapidly losing our canopy in the park merced at one time

when it was designed we had over 2,000 trees. and we are now down to 1500. and we believe the reason why we are starting to see a major loss in trees is because of park merced's rush to get their new project under way. and there has been reference to that by a couple of people that submitted letters, to this board. and on behalf of this appeal and we believe that is the real reason why these trees truly are being removed and it is unfortunate that we have a particular department the bureau of urban forestry, and approving the rapid deforestation of our community and so that is why we are here today to preserve at least three more significant trees, these are trees that are called

significant because of their size, their age, and their proximity to the street and they are in ten feet of a public right-of-way. and i would like to mention the fact that thomas church is the landscape architect. that is or was responsible for the landscape design of the park merced and he is also responsible for the landscape design in the goalen gate park and stanford university and cal berkeley just to name a few places and well reknown architect. i mentioned the fact that there were 2,000 trees at one time. as a matter of fact it is one of the reasons or one of the main reasons we are trying to protect these trees and that they are habitats to while life in our community. we have 50 different species of birds that fly through the community and park merced is

considered a major union site by the arbon saturday for bird watching and so that is something that needs to be considered, and when, you will listen to this appeal tonight. and it is also habitat to a number of other species of animals and wild life. and we have raccoons that make these trees the habitat. and we are seeing squirrels, skunks, and occasional cat that might use a tree as a habitat. and so, that is something that we don't believe the bureau of urban forestry took into consideration when they came up with their evaluation of these trees and approved the permits for removal. one other thing that we want to mention is that there is a widespread use of pesticide on the property. and i was told that about ten days ago that round up was

being used throughout the property and the round up is a very toxic chemical for the trees, plants, wild life, and we believe that they may be a contributing factor to the death of these trees that they allege is happening. so, i would like to get on with the issue of the trees themselves and i am just going to briefly go through each one of them because miss lenzwill cover the issue of the trees themself and why they need to be preserved. and she will get into the science of it. and i would like to go to tree number one here which is at 603-605 gonzales drive here is a picture of it. >> and this tree is about 60 feet tall and has a 20 foot canopy. as you will see, that tree is very green. it does not look like it is

dying, it is the only significant tree on this particular side of the block. and there has never been any kind of a complaint from the residents or any reports of it being an accident or a street failure, or a tree failure with this tree. i might mention the fact that all three of these trees do not have a sprinkler system and so there is no means to maintain these trees, with water. the second tree, here is at 811 gonzales drive and it has a 40 foot canopy and it is very green and shows no sign of disease at least to my eye, i am not an arborist, but you will hear the testimony tonight

that there really is no signs of health issues with this tree. this tree is also run of those trees that is one of the few significant trees on this particular block. and finally, this is for the final tree here that we are appealing tonight, at 840 gonzales drive, it is 50 feet tall and 20 feet canopy and there is no sprinkler system for this tree either and so it is not being watered by the park merced and yet, they want to remove it and claim that it can't be saved and so, i just want to mention the fact also that about a week ago, in park merced and that i spoke with, told me that they had been directed not to water these

trees. and so, they have been told not to water these trees and they claim that the only source of nourishment for these trees is rain. and that is what they have been told by the maintenance department. and so, and i was wondering why aren't you watering the trees? she have been told not to water the trees, let the rain water the trees. and so i want to get on with the arguments for why we are here tonight. we believe that the duf has not made a strong case for these trees and showing any imminent possibility of catastrophic failure. and they did not do this at the hearing in august in front of the hearing also, and they showed and i asked, do you have any accident reports, of these trees, having failed and short not to come up with any

accident reports. and also, i will mention the fact that duf has not shown any die diligence comparing the reports that they are going to submit tonight, regarding their preparation or required by law, on the characteristics of these trees and i was given this and i am going to show this up and i will put it on the overhead there is no evidence that she or anybody in the department did the due diligence in preparing the report. on the characteristics of these trees and this is what is required by law. she was supposed to have done or one of her, subordinates was

supposed to conduct the report and the characteristics of these trees and the benefits to the community. and also, it was supposed to have evaluated the characteristics of these trees and how they benefit the wild life habitats and there is nothing in her preparation or in her subordinate's preparation that they have done any of this. similarly, a locational characteristics and there is no evidence, that duf did any evaluation of how the trees contribute to the community in terms of providing shade to our community. and also, she really did not provide to this particular hearing in august any evidence that these trees are hazardous, and that the burden is on duf

if they want a tree to be removed rntion that the tree has to be shown to be hazardous and she has not proven that. >> and also, she but, made no mention of the fact that there are possibilities to saving this tree, she did not offer any evidence or any kind of a report where these trees could be saved, and what is called restorative action. and by trimming and topping, she provided no evidence that she or anybody else in the duf had done their due diligence to provide a alternative solution, besides the removal of these trees. and finally, we have been told but was short, but i should say, it was short have told the community members that all of these street trees can be preserved, and we are going to have testimony tonight to that

effect that these three trees can be preserved and don't have to be removed and so i will leave it at that. and we believe that the burden is on the permit holder and duf to show that the trees are hazardous and they have failed to do that and they have not met their burden and the permit should be revoked thank you. >> and now i will show the rest of my time with miss lenz, and she will go over the three trees. thank you. cathy lenz, and i have a degree in hort culture from the city college. and my specialty was pruning and small trees, 25 feet and under. i contacted a second arborist because although we agree, at least two of the three trees

can be preserved, our original arborist i did not feel did a good job. so i got a report which i submitted to the board. and commissioners, from ted kiplin who is in my opinion, one of the best tree people in the bay area. and so i refer you to that. and i submitted it. and i want to start with the first tree, on gonzales, 605. here it is. photo. >> well, okay. there is the photo. and i am happy if my testimony is not witness enough to contact ted and have him come in. and it was very expensive to get him, and to come in it would have been another 500. and i thought that i could prevent it. >> with 79 percent of all of the large trees in the city, being removed, i think that everything should be done to

preserve the trees that we have. replanting it will not bring these trees back. ted gives 70 percent chance that this tree can be saved. ten to 15 years can be gotten out of it. there are trees in golden gate park that are 100 years old. we agree that it has needles and it has (inaudible) but ted has recommended using agrefars and petra bark to get the immunity of the trees up. as mr. roberts said the real problem is that park merced has drawn all water from these large trees, we are condemning them to a slow death. as well as on gonzales alone, roughly 12 trees have been removed, significant trees and

not replanted. and this is concern. ted also recommended that this be cabled and says that 35 years can go with cabling their turn buckles on it. i honestly don't know if arbor well has the experience or the ability to do this. i am not sure, but they can be cabled. and i know that the department's concern is insurance issues but the ted says that we are insured. and if these were my clients, and i had a 70 percent chance if i got water on me immediately he said bring a sprinkler, anything to hydrate them. i would take it.

811 gonzales. again, i will have the photo. and thank you. again, this is an 80 percent chance of saving, we will have ten to 15 years with it and but it needs immediate hydration *, and pentra bark to pick up the immune system with the proper pruning which needs to be removed and all of this and you can only take a third of the plant off or you will kill it. >> ted also recommended the use of the russian pines with the various planting. the third picture is 840

gonzales. and we agreed with the arborist from dpw, that it all of us that it could not be saved, however, we had rain in early september, and i took this photo two days ago. and it has bark needles it is coming back. because of that. we are told, there is a man named martin kutcins that is amazing he can bring trees back from the dead. so, i think that it is worth a chance. to save this. and again, bark and whatever is used to remove to kill the bark beetles. and so as i say, i know that this require work, but i feel these trees should be maintained. they are so few. and to reiterate, you know,

replanting them, it is going to be years before, and as we have said, we are losing all of our significant trees. we are not able to have them replanted. and we are working with dpw now to have some back, and do you know the amount of work that it takes to go out and look at these? these people are not pruning any of the trees, they simply wait for them to die. and then, apply for a permit. we know that they are not the perfect shape. but they are being given for attention. and ted also points out in his letter, on less than party... (inaudible) they are all dying there because they have withdrawn all of the water as well. these people need to be asked, and forced to start watering them, pruning the trees, and taking care of them. and replanting the significant

the trees that have been removed which we think will be subsan shall. >> i think that is all. >> thank you. >> oh, one thing. i wanted to show you because when you love trees, to see what is going on in the park, truly heart breaking. here is a photo of a picture of a tree, it is on ocean park motel. and it is taken many years to get this. it is japanese type of pruning, i can't do it i am not that advanced but through the years, the planes take shape and i want to show you another tree, there are very few people that are this good. and this is also a cypris that has been (inaudible) and look at the beauty of that.

seeing what is happening in the park is heart wrenching, these trees can be saved. please, mandate these people to do their job. >> thank you. >> and we are in court and suppose that they lose in the court after peels, and they have given the whole park, then what? one left. >> music to my heart. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, we are hear from the permit holder now.

>> permit holder has nothing to say? >> so, there are two trees in play here, the 851 and they agreed that it is dead. the 811, one is top of the tree is split. and it is extreme hazard. and the 841, is one with the three trunks they wanted to cable. i am sorry. these pines are, and they come at the end of their life basically, and they are all declining, and every limb failures on them and that is why they have been recommended for removal. so, there is good reasons for each of them to be removed. >> you are out of of order.

>> i would like to not have that out burst again. >> the one with the multitrunk is the greenest of them all, but, because of that, the attachment on those trunks that you see, in the picture, the trees is considered a hazard. and so. >> okay. >> and anything further? >> thank you. >> we can hear from miss short. from the department? >> i think that just a couple of points, we i do agree that the trees are over mature and they have begun to si. ynap, what we are seeing is due to the fact this they are declining in health as well and certainly if the trees had been watered consistently and received the water we would see

expect to see dekien as well. i don't know the cause if that is true, generally the trees of this size would be well established and could survive on the seasonal rains alone, but if they have been gathering the water, then eliminating that would cause decline, but i think that it is important to recognize that all of the independent aer bonists including the two hired by the neighbors, agree that there is substantial decline in the tree, at 603 gonzales and everyone agreed that the tree at 840 should be removed. and i think that the we have concerns that the tree at 603 in addition to the decline that we see and the report structurally it is very problematic. and it stands from the same

union. and this is weaker than a tree with one strong central leader. and it also has the base of the tree, as smaller than where that union occurs. and which is called a reverse taper and so those branches in there are very substantial. and have a higher likelihood of limb failure and actually the tree at 811, which is the canopy, and that is the one that has the good canopy and there is a lot in that tree, and it has resulted in the structure on the stems on that tree as well. and i think that our concern is gonzales has the traffic and a lot of the students and i have been out there quite a bit recently, it is well used and if any of these stems was to fail that could be very, very risky. and we do feel that these trees

are declining in part at least due to their age and over maturity. and i think that there are a lot of other trees of similar age, and size. and that we are seeing similar decline in those trees as well and in fact, his report recommended to move to the other trees that he saw that he did not think could be restored. and so, those were the reasons that the department gave to approve the trees for removal and i would note in the recognition of the fact that they are large, contributers to the community, and the requirement was imposed that three trees be planted for each one of the trees removed and the largest size would be and working on the neighbors and

come back. and they have an outstanding requirement that has not been fulfilled and it does appear that there are issues and so we will be requiring that and enforcing that. >> i have a couple of questions, and you have been before us before and i do respect your opinion and i know that you love the trees. in the trees that are in question, do you feel that any of these can be saved? >> or worth the effort to be saved? >> right. so i think that there are and i mean can be saved is kind of a general question, and a little bit hard to respond to, but i will say that the tree with the vigor yus canopy which is the tree at 811, that is the healthyist tree the challenge there is that structurally it is weak and if were to be

retained i think that substantial cabling will be required. the challenge there is that the minute that the cable is installed there is a recognition that there is some risk there. because there is a recognition that there is a structural flaw and so, whether that is reasonable to require the property owner you know, i would give to this board, the department felt that it was reasonable to remove because of the risks. >> we have had trees that had failure that we recommended to keep before the board prior but on this one, you feel that because of it would require cabling for matter what. >> i don't think that it should be retained without cabling. >> okay. >> >> i don't think that the tree at 840 should be retained, i think that tree should be removed. >> okay. >> and then the tree at 603, you kn