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 know, you could potentially extend the life a little bit,

but, i don't know how long i do think that it is in decline in part because of the age and if these efforts were undertaken in terms of the treatment, and cabling. and potentially it could remain without major issues for some time, but it is a trade off of how long. >> the replacement trees and how large of these replacement trees? >> so, that in terms of to say that they would go in? >> the departmental hearing, the neighbors expressed interest in participating in the selection process which we will be happy to involve them in, and some of the species that we had suggested could be i think good alternatives for replacement, and they do have a more narrow canopy and so some of the neighbors thought that even though they will get

large, stature. it is likely to dictate how large of a tree we can find and we will be looking for a 48 inch box because the landscape allows these sort of park strips and so, you are not constrained with what we are in so many cases >> a couple of questions. it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the trees. >> that is right. >> are you in a position to mandate other than taking it out, are you in a position to mandate any kind of care or feeding, if you will? >> i think that the code requires that property owners take care of trees, it suggests certain what maintenance entails and that includes pruning but it does not specify treatment, or that sort of thing. our guidelines, only talk about maintenance and terms of obstruction and into the public

right-of-way and so the sidewalk and the current of the sidewalk or the roadway and or our code does specifically say that you can't prune the trees or dlibly damage them, but we don't have the code requirements for the certain, types of maintenance like what is being proposed here. >> thank you. >> the multiple speaksers have brought forth the variations on this 75 percent or the 80 percent of significant trees in the city have disappeared. where is that coming from? >> i don't know, where those figures are coming from. i think that i would certainly agree that we have a young urban forest in terms of the make-up of the age population and i don't have that data with me tonight, but we have done some analysis in the past about kind of the over all canopy make-up and many mature trees in san francisco have been lost

and so we do have a young, sort of age dominate in our age of trees in san francisco. but i don't know where these figures are coming from in terms of the quantity of large trees that have been lost. >> i have a question about removal of the trees without a permit. and what our, or what does the department have to penalize? is it the department that is reinforce the penalty on that type of activity? >> yeah, it is. >> and we as i said, we are performing analysis right now. we do have because of some previous reports we have a fairly good documentation about trees that existed. and starting in 2007 and that is when the significant tree ordinance went into effect and if anything prior to 2007, if it was not a street tree we

would not have jurisdiction over, so we are comparing what we see on the ground, with what was in that report. and, it does appear that there have been some trees removed without permit and we will issue the finds to the property owner that those are penalties, or they are the fine is meant to be a requirement to replace the trees as well. and i wonder how the fines calculated. >> we don't have, and we do have some information in the report that was previously done, in order to perform what is called a landscape appraisal to determine the value of a tree, we have to have detailed information and so we need the information about the condition of the canopy and the small branches and the trunks and the roots as well as five species. and if we have sufficient information to perform the landscape appraisal then we can do the value of the tree and the large trees, because there is time invested in their growth, can be appraised at, you know, several thousand

dollars or more. when we don't know the value of the tree, there are code, suggests that we should issue the finding or the value of what it costs the city to plant the tree and water it for three years. >> and so, it could get a nutrient establish and that is set at $1753. and so that will be the minimum find and if we have sufficient information to do an appraisal that could go up from there. >> a tree like the ones that are at issue in this appeal, say the 65 or i don't know, that was, and estimated age of a tree. and some things substantial of, you know, that nature, if it were by the department that was removed without a permit and it was improper, i mean that you would, cutting one and removing one without a permit itself per se is a violation. >> yes. >> and to the extent there could be mitigation because

that was otherwise determined to be yeah, we would have done this properly. is that, it does not really matter. >> it is not as precise, but what would that level of harm be calculated like valued at? and what would the fine resulting fine be? >> so, it is very hard to say because as i said we need to know the conditions of the trees and basically you start with a tree of a certain size and the large trees have would be a discount, but the vigor would be a discount. and so, i am reluctant to give a ballpark figure range. >> i would say, it is hard to say, but what i can say is that we did some appraisals of the trees previously, of similar

species, where the canopy was good and in those cases the range was from a few though dollars and the maximum and i would say that was a tree that none of these are in the same condition. was i think 17,000 dollars and that would be the appraisal would be the fine? >> then the fine would be issued in that amount. >> okay, i got it. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? >> step forward. >> all right. so sorry, thank you. defining and i mean the condition of the tree is due to the lack of maintenance and pruning and whatnot. i mean if you are not taking care of a tree it will not be in good condition.

so, it is an interesting, you know i appreciate all of the work that carla has done, and she came out and met with us and we did a lot of legwork, but to bring these issues to light. but, it still the burden is placed on the individual, the resident and the citizen to we look at, article 16, and in the public works code, and it the responsibility of the property owners and except as specified, the duty is to include routine and major maintenance of the street tree, in addition and according to this section, the owners will be responsible for the sidewalk, maintenance as well. and the department of urban forestry will have the pruning standards, so, evidence that park merced or arbor well or whoever is in charge of the trees contacting, you know, for

pruning, measures, prior to just applying for a permit to remove because it is less expensive, or more convenient, or the developments is ramping up or for whatever reason. and it is kind of not a good reason. and for article 16. and what it reads. you know, to the citizen that is how it reads, you know, i expect these city departments to do their jobs and i expect these, and with and i understand and it is overwhelming and under staffed and quite labor with the park. and as a individual home owner you would mandate that they cable it and preserve the tree. but here, you know, there are so many, it is... and they also on the website, it says, includes the proof of the damage caused by the tree and i

wonder if they are submitted with the permit applications as well as the receipts to maintain the trees in question has that been requested or is it mandated to be required with the application, the permit application. and so, the arborist report prior to asking for a removal. 605 lists two trees, the 605, and the circle, which i am presuming has already been removed without a permit because these permits have not been issued and the 811 issue, application lists three trees, one of which was two garsis which was taken down with an emergency notice and not a permit. so, >> i think that your time is up. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? >> good evening, my name is (inaudible) and i represent the

owners of park merced. >> your time to speak would be under rebuttal. >> thank you. >> we are going to take rebuttal but we will start with mr. logos. >> >> we believe that the main reason why we are here, is not because these trees are dying, or of the disease it is because, park merced wants to set a precedent in the tree removal. and they want to get a head

start on the development and we believe that this has been going for quite some time and finally we caught up to them and now, so we believe that this is what this is all about, and there is a court appeal of the development project and it is in the court after peels and we believe that they should not remove any trees until this appeal is resolved by the first district court of appeals

>> he came up here and of course, he stated that these trees were diseased. well he is a businessman. and his company makes more money from tree removals than from maintenance. so, of course he is going to come up here and say that these trees need to be removed because they are diseased. and on another point, miss short do not really recommend any restorative action for these trees. she sort of skirted the idea that these trees could be saved but she did not pose that as an alternative that these trees could be saved. and with some tlc, tender loving care by the owners. she also mentioned that the drive is a high traffic area. these trees do not pose a hazardous risk to the cars or

pedestrians or even the buildings themselves. and once again, she is not provided any evidence from these trees, she has not provided any incident reports. and that these trees have caused some kind of injury or damage, along the gonzales drive. and the same thing happened back in august in the initial hearing. she did not present any reports. >> she has not worked out with our group and working with our group and we bring the issues of illegal removal of trees and replanting and she has not reached out and we are

skeptical that she will reach out if indeed this body decides to up hold the orders of the hearing officer we don't believe that this plan is enforcable and we will now put the recommendation here on the overhead. and for the public and for you to see, and this is the recommendation. and so, the highlighted in pink here. and she approved the removal of these trees conditioned on the replanting of three trees with canopies of similar to the tree being removed and the largest size available and working with the neighbors dpw to follow up. >> well we have not done this

in the past. we had a number of trees removed illegally and they have not followed up on the compliance and we do not believe that this will happen in this particular case, so we believe that this appeal, should be upheld and that the permit should be denied. >> thank you. >> >> cathy lentz. >> so, i just want to address one thing. we agree that the 605 gonzales is by carlos said 811 and ted said and i trust that 605 definitely needs cabling and 811, according to ted does not, or he would have recommended it. it needs and this is 811. i have a photo there.

and it needs wind sailing and whatever the other... and let's see. wind... take the large limb off and rate the wind sale reduction and so he has not recommended cabling. and the best tree person in the bay area. you have to understand that we have had a very acromonious relationship with planning, the project has been painful to the residents out there. we are trying now to work with planning and the science report will indicate how many trees have been removed without being replanted. i do feel still that 605 gonzales can be saved and carlos pointed out that it needs extra pruning since we

have not seen one tree pruned out there or maintained. maybe it is asking a lot. it came from the urban forest counsel that 79 percent of the large trees are disappearing in san francisco. and i am sure that it is a logging in brotherhood and what is going on with the park merced. it is contributing factor. and so, the main thing is that these people are not watering the trees. so, they are condemning them to a slow death. and there should be able to be some enforcement to have them keep what we have. rather than have to stand back and see for them, to wait until a tree looks bad and then come to you, and have you say yes, let's remove it. it seems to me that they should be made to prune these trees. which we feel as we have demonstrated can be done.

so we really are at your mercy. we want to keep what we have and it is very demoralizing to our community to see these disappearing left, right and center. and i believe that there are 60 years, and it is heart breaking. and if they are treating the trees like this before the project has even started, how do you think that they are going to treat, us? >> i am appalled to see the way that they have dealt with the environment, cut the water over and over watering the lawns and trees that are under 25 feet they don't even take care of. they send the gardeners out and they cut the topps off and those poor men have no experience in pruning whatsoever. i throw myself on your mercy, what can we do to make these people accountable, when all that they really care about is money? and that is the bottom line.

not maintenance, not preservation and not caring for the environment. thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder, any rebuttal? >> okay. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> and yes, i won the contract to this and i am doing the work, and so i do profit from the work, i do the work. i do not... if the tree is pruned and you keep pruning a tree you keep coming back every year and once you remove it you are not coming back so that is not particularly true. and there has been pruning done on some trees out at park merced and we have to currently trying to do more and this process is stopped us from happening. and so, that is all that i got. >> thank you.

>> i have a question, sorry. >> so, besides the tree removal, has the bodies that have hired you asked you to take a look at the over all health of the rest of the trees? well, they currently have a contracted with another ar bonist to do a report and he is reviewing all of the trees on the site. and because you know, off doing the work and so we have to kind of, i have the opinions on everything that is out there and... >> are you the higher arborist to do the maintenance of the current trees? meaning like trimming and bringing them to the general health? >> yes, in terms of a and the main nens contract, i am asking to do and respond to the specific tasks on the specific trees and i provide a quote and i do the work that is the nature of that. >> what is the percentage of the tree removal verses

maintenance? >> tree pruning? >> it is disproportionate and i am asked to prune about 200 trees. >> so you have been asked to prune, two? >> correct. >> around the buildings. but, that is all not happening right now. >> okay, thank you. >> miss short. >> miss short, any rebuttal? nothing? >> okay. >> question for miss short? >> yeah. >> with respect to the tree, at 811, which it was suggested that to do this end wait and see the wind sale reduction and i think that was the one that you said was healthy but we do agree that that is an potential alternative for maintaining that tree? >> again, i think that any reduction would happen reduce the likelihood of the limb failure and wind fail

reduction, the same concept. i think that the structure of that tree is because it has in the past is problematic and i think that cable would also be essential if that tree was to be retained. and there actually is a cable, in the tree that installed at some point previously and although i don't know if it was installed properly and i have not inspected the cable itself. and but the canopy vigor of the health of that tree is the best of the three. >> you did reference earlier that by cabling sort of indicates that there is some sort of structural, failure, does that create liability of some kind. >> it does not indicate structural failure, but it indicates the higher likelihood. but you would not otherwise perform which is basic. and so, there is then, the potential for higher liability if something was to happen, you

have recognized that there was possible concern. >> thank you. >> next? >> i did have a question. >> the arguments that been made that the burden is on the requestor of the permit, you know the permit applicant, to, establish the basis for the removal and that the burden was not met, here. and it... when you approach your review, of these permits, are you going through any type of like a checklist or sort of is one factor more positive than another in making the determination that is such a permit application should be approved for removal?

>> our arborist will do their own assessment and we looking at the structure of the industry. and as you know i have presented before you in many other cases if the tree is healthy and structurally sound even if there are other factors that can be mitigated through the pruning or the sidewalk repair we do not approve the removal, in these cases we felt that the conditions were poor enough that it met that threshold to grant removal and i think that what he is referring to are criteria specific to significant treeds and that the director of public works should consider when making a determination. and that there are a number of factors that he mentioned and i would just note that it was the director of public works and not the hearing officer who

ultimately issued these decisions. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> all right. >> well, i will start, i guess. >> okay. commissioners as we know, i love trees, and i am a tree kind of guy. and as we know, whether they were ill watered or maintained on a poor basis, there is a situation that they are at the point of no return. and a tree of that size having a failure could be a very problematic situation, whether it is a car or whether it is an individual and there are a lot of pedestrians in that particular area.

i do sympathize with what the appellants and the fact that they have had a lot of missing trees. and i think that having it in front of this board the people that are in the know are now in the know and so we probably will not see any more trees hopefully disappearing. but i will be i will up hold the permit. >> okay. i would concur with your assessment. and that is, i have not heard any basis to contradict the apartment's assessment of the permit. >> anybody else? >> no. >> i am going to move to deny the appeal, and up hold the permits. do i have to provide? that the issuance of the permits were code compliant. >> thank you.

>> we have a motion from the president to up hold all three permits. on the basis that they are code compliant. that is right. >> yeah. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0, all three permits are upheld on that basis. >> we are going to take a ten to 15 minute break.