this condition. we must recognize the role that these trees have played and the fact that they have performed well in difficult conditions. the last thing i would say, everyone would like to say that san francisco did not have native trees it but we also did not have the vehicles runaround, the urban footprint that we have. trees are what we used to mitigate the current condition. just the fact that there was not a lot of 80 trees does not argue against having a good tree canopy. >> thank you for your presentation. this is always educational. the tree in front of the courtyard, can you speak to the potential removal of that single tree to accommodate the structure that was approved by planning? >> we did not look at approving

a single tree for removal. at our hearing, it was brought up that the design had this new opening. so, just looking at the one tree was not really brought up. i don't know if this is something that would appeal to them. i think that that is a lot less challenging for us than the removal of all 11 trees around the building. in cases where the design of the structure is such that a tree that is existing would impede that. does this take it into a great consideration? >> in this case, this esthetically blocks the courtyard.

certainly from architectural point of view, one could argue that it doesn't keep the entry. there's not a physical impediment. >> it is the usual that one does a design and gets the planning to sign off on the design and one does not ask the tree to be removed. >> we are working hard with the planning department to get projects routed to urban forestry. potentially, the designs could be reworked if the removal is not granted. there are many cases where the approval was granted in -- and routed to urban forestry. the urban forestry permit would

be obtained ahead of the planning department permit so it would not be granted without the project. >> in a residential design where you want to put a garage in the driveway, it seems like planning does throughout it. >> i believe the goal is that anytime a tree removal is propose, they would not be approved by planning. i don't know when these went through. >> thank you. >> this seems to be -- in conditions with those that exist.

>> we would not grant removal on the basis of the current guideline. that exact location would not be replanted something that meets the current guidelines or in some cases you would not have a replacement tree. because they changeover time, if that was the policy, there would be many all over the city. >> is there public comment on this item? please step forward. >> i am the architect. can i say something?

>> i have lived in the valley for over 20 years. this is a little bit less than in the area. i think that the trees are not in that great a condition. i think the life span was only 20 years. they are 15-18 years old. they will not be blasting that much longer. they do produce a lot of slippery fruit all over the sidewalks. i guess we already mentioned the power lines.

it seems like you could have and better products, not planning to put in small trees. i gathered it would look better for the neighborhood. >> thank you. any other public comment? you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> i believe that there is a program for the interfaith community to upgrade the church buildings. i know that this the case because we were presented an award for starting this project with the breakfast. the board of supervisors was there and they support this. this was a huge burden for a nonprofit committee, the amount of that this project is costing us and the burden that they are

placing on us with issues that are going to resolve and come up in the next year, probably less than a year. trees that have these massive freeze that are less than a foot from the utility lines. a tree that is within two feet of a poll. these have an average life of 20 years. they have read problems. we have two arbors reports that have spoken to that and we have presented that to you. this is in direct conflict to the city's position on trying to have the interfaith community seismically upgrade the building, which is a huge problem in the san francisco. we are trying to do the right thing. we don't want to tear up the sidewalks six months from now. that would be crazy. this is costing us millions of

dollars to do this project and on a very limited budget. we are trying to correct the issues and we are trying to comply with the city guidelines and plant the trees appropriately. it is time now that we make the -- and correct the issues with these trees and plant trees that are proper trees for sidewalk in san francisco. the new zealand christmas tree has gotten a lot of bad press. they were small trees. today they are huge. these trees have issues and they need to be resolved now.

>> i was walking on the sidewalk, which is new zealand trees. there are serious issues for these trees. this does not make sense. these are the wrong trees for that sidewalk. you cannot see the stop sign. and i personally experienced some of that. >> one other thing i want to say

is that this is huge. this church has a lot of people who come through the doors. we rent the building out. there is community organizations that use the building. [bell] so safety should be an issue for -- a priority for the sport and the borders supervisors. for most and upfront -- a priority for this board and the board of supervisors. president goh: the tree in the middle of the courtyard area, did you assume or presume you would be able to remove the trees? were you routed to dpw? could you just explain that? >> we had a landscape architect who worked as a consultant with our architect. we designed the building to

actually remove the trees. we thought we were doing the right thing. as she said, we are down to me, because we would have planted the same amount of trees, but -- we are down one trade. -- one tree. of course, we are not going to spend $4 million on the project and have a treat -- tree blocking the courtyard. president goh: ok, thank you. commissioner hwang: would you be willing to remove a single tree as a compromise? >> initially, i would have said yes, but after having two arborists come out, there is the financial burden that this will bring, and these are covered

with fruit. they drop the fruit. it is a mess. there is a lot of children and baby carriages, and they are messy, and it is dangerous. the roots are compromised because of the planter boxes, and the way it was was, which it was explained to me by the arborist is that -- and the way it was, as it was explained to me by the arborist, the roots did not grow down, but they grew in a square. vice president garcia: your answer to the question? >> no. president goh: ma'am? >> they are putting a lot into that, to their seismic upgrade,

but i do not think this works with the trees. i think they can help address and certainly reduce the frequency that the sidewalk might be damaged, increase greatly the amount of time before they would need to do any additional sidewalk repairs. in terms of the life span of the trees, the plum are not a long life tree. they are not in any way indicating that they are at the end of their life span, so as you know, i do not like to give life spans, because they are very unreliable. just like human beings, they can live to be 110, or they can live to be 40. we are looking at the trees, and

based on the condition of the trees, we thought they were healthy and worth trying to preserve. commissioner hwang: can you tell us, is the city responsible for the condition of the sidewalk on the side of the street? >> those are privately maintained. commissioner hwang: ok, and another question on the palm droppings. is that left to the property owner to clean up all of the time? >> yes, and i will say that we do not recommend planting fruiting trees in the public right of way. president goh: and yet, we have them all over the city. >> yes, but some of the fourth drop is not as substantial as others. -- some of the fruit drop is not

as substantial as others. commissioner hwang: is there any way to stop the fruiting? >> there are hormone injections. commissioner hwang: is that something you can do? >> we would be open to it. it is not something you would do once. it is annual. commissioner hwang: it is done annually? >> they may not have been trying to get fruiting plums. they may have been trying to get ornamental ones. it is not an exact science. vice president garcia: these trees, have they reached their effort -- their mature growth?

>> they will continue to grow. vice president garcia: as to the issue having to deal with the stop sign that is partially blocked, right there, in the middle of the street, "blocked" to reinforce? >> yes, i believe so. supervisor sandoval: vice president garcia: -- vice president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: i will start. we are finished with testimony, sir. to be consistent. we are an urban setting. it is a built-in varmint --

built environment. i think there should be some allowance in terms of planting trees in relationship to the architecture, and there is a correlation there in terms of the overall design, and i find this a reasonable proposal. president goh: i will be consistent, too. we have heard that there would be a net loss of a tree and that it would be possible to create larger tree basins to mitigate the damage. in fact, after a revaluation, the trees are healthy. that clipper is a windy street, but those trees are healthy, and that particular type of trees does well in these condihormoney

could stop the fruiting. i would support the department. i would have considered removal perhaps of one tree for the design of the new building, but understand the appellant is not interested in that. -- but i understand the appellant is not interested in that. commissioner hwang: you have articulated the comments i have, so i will not korea articulate them. -- i will not we articulate -- re-articulate them. vice president garcia: i felt more strongly about the first case because of the idea of being consistent, but it is going to be really ought having that mature tree with that young tree -- it is going to be

really odd. i do not think any of these were recommended for replacement. i do not think anybody would recommend a fruited plum. i loved your comment about the canary. the fact remains that those pipes are under the ground. we have no control over that. you create a problem. but i think the reason i am going to vote the way i intend to vote is because i agreed with a comment made by commissioner fung, and that is that the trees are in reasonable design element of the project, and i do believe they are beyond that, safety

issues with the fruit trees come -- trees, and there is the potential for ongoing expenses, so i do not believe i will support that. president goh: so we will make a motion to uphold the department. director goldstein: i think we can call the roll on that, please? secretary pacheco: the motion is to uphold the denial. vice president garcia i am -- vice president garcia: i am sorry, president goh. are they going to remove the one, or is that something we have to deal with right now? >> they would have to reapply for that one tree.

vice president garcia: because i would absolutely support the removal of that one. president goh: so would you consider the removal of that one tree? >> i guess if that is your decision -- president goh: you have heard the votes of the commissioners, which look like they will not go -- >> we will go with the one tree being removed. vice president garcia: that one tree, another one going in somewhere else? >> so we take the tree out, and we have to find another place to plant another tree. president goh: or if there is not another place, you would pay

fee in lieu of replanting. ok, in that place, i am going to modify my motion. would that be to grant the appeal? director goldstein: that is correct. president goh: the one tree that is in ine -- line -- director goldstein: we would need the description of that one tree. they are numbered. president goh: the newly designed courtyard, and she is getting the number in confirming it with the arborist. >> so it looks like if we go with the design, the sketch, if we can have the overhead, the

tree that would be granted is tree no. 7 on the sanchez frontage. president goh: this does not show the design, so it is hard for us to -- director goldstein: you need to speak into the microphone, sir. >> it is tree number 7. vice president garcia: it would have to be planted wherever dpw said you needed to plant it, so you would not have that discretion. >> exhibit. president goh: director goldstein, i am not comfortable

with these two different numbering systems. director goldstein: if we go with the flow of traffic on the street, we start with number one and go along sanchez, and i am sure we can work with the project sponsor to find an appropriate replacement location. sure, yes, of course. president goh: did you get that, mr. pacheco? secretary pacheco: what i have is to grant the removal of tree number three on sanchez street with another one to be planted -- in size, i assume, as well, and location. president goh: ok. secretary pacheco: excellent,

ok, on the removal of a tree number three on sanchez with a replacement treaty be planted with a species size and location to be determined by the department of public works -- with a replacement tree to be planted. on that, it commissioner -- on that, commissioner fung? commissioner fung: if i voted, it would change it, so i vote yes. secretary pacheco: it passes. director goldstein: we now move to item no. 8. mr. pacheco, if you could, please call that item. and i would ask that those who are in the room that need to have conversations, please step out of the room so we can move

on with the board's business. think you. -- thank you. secretary pacheco: calling item number eight, appeal 11-002. it is the repeal of the relocation on december 23, 2010, of taxicab medallion number 997. >> good evening, president goh, vice president garcia, director goldstein, and others. if you are going to hang someone, you have to do it on the basis of reliable evidence, and that is what this is, an attempt to impose an economic penalty with the relocation of his medallion, and the question here is not just that the mta met its burden of proof but why

is even trying, when they violate their own rules. richard arvin -- excuse me. it has been many hours. he is currently comply with every rule and regulation imposed on medallion holders -- he is currently in compliance with every rule. to satisfy the annual driving requirement. there is several reasons why you should not allow this to happen. first, they cannot show that the evidence that they inherited from the taxi commission is the same evidence that the taxi commission collected. one officer, who participated in the hearing but regrettably did not write the opinion, was very

disturbed by the manner in which the evidence was there, which means it created doubt. under the circumstances, the imposition of the maximum penalty is grossly disproportionate, failing to take into account the trouble with and the conflicts in the evidence. mr. arvin's history, his total history, including that he is currently totally compliant. it takes away not only his immediate ability to support his family but down the road possible retirement benefit and hundreds of thousands of dollars. finally, there is an inherent conflict of evidence, because the mta, its own employees sat in judgment and stand to directly benefit if mr. arvin loses. a preponderance of the evidence means that the mta has to put forward reliable evidence which is unopposed to establish that

there was a violation justifying this penalty, and it has a problem here, and it knows it because of its past rule to fix it. something adopted last year reads as follows. "in the event that sfmta requires original records, they will provide a receipt for any original document that is removed from the permit holders premises or that are otherwise provided -- from the permit holder's promises -- premise s." that is not what happened here. it is undisputed that a recently hired a probationary employee of the taxi commission picked up mr. it ar to