is quite popular. i remember when i first started going to send francisco, i would sit on that wall so it is interesting. an agreement with what the other commissioners have said, some of the other issues we have looked at relating to the sidewalk and all those other things,i do not see those same issues we brought up before. in this issue of equity, it is unfortunate timing, and i am sympathetic to the other business owners. the timing of this particular

lease occurred later. it does not mean we cannot do something like that, but i am not sure what. i am leading to the fact that it is properly authorized permits based upon the findings the department issued. >> just thinking about it a little more, the business model is pretty well established given the type of facility the permit holder has.

the way i feel right now is is a possibility -- i am sorry, i do not have your name. miss tran's operation might have some things similar to the cart and might have things that are diverse and different, and her operation has the ability to alter their menu if it turns out this is to greater competition. is has been stated, is subject to review. i do not know what the impact would be or how to establish incentives we did establish it, so there is no basis to compare

what happens going forward. i feel the proper thing to do is to uphold the permit and to deny the appeal based upon the fact that the appeal has to do with the other issues we are talking about, elevated motion on the sidewalk and whether or not it is going to block the sidewalk, distance from the bus stop, trash, the individual operating is going to be responsible for picking up the trash. it has to do with the pushcart at the entrance to the appellant building, and if is well separated. i do not see that as an issue, so i moved we deny the appeal based on the things just stated,

that i did not find a basis to overturn or to give it a year to see what happens. >> i agree with that. there is a motion on the table. >> we have a motion to deny this appeal and uphold the permit. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld. >> we are going to >> item number 8. jay moses v. the dpw.

protesting the issuance on october 27, 2011. we will start with mr. moses. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. good evening. i'm here to ask for your help because they're planning on cutting down all the big trees, a block. i would like to think of myself as a reasonable resident of san francisco. i am outraged. that this city has given permission to the school across the street for the trees to be removed in what i considered to be the absence of any legitimacy. i am not an arborist. i do base my decision to appeal

the permit order on the work of the city's arborist. he says this matter can be addressed by simply pressing or trimming away some of the branches that are -- pose a danger to the school. and the students. not to mention the residents of san francisco. it seems to me that the matter has not been clearly established as a necessity. and i need your help. i do not think mr. buck is here. the director or somebody, one of the city's barbarous does here, is that right? i am hoping to get to the bottom of how it came to be that decision -- the decision was

drastic and i am hanging my hat on the findings of chris buck. i am upset i do not have him here to address this matter personally. it seems to me that the city, the department of public works is relying on the notion of a pattern in regard to these trees being part of some -- being somehow tied to the health of other trees that have been center move. one was struck by lightning and i have a neighbor here who will speak to that, he was an eyewitness. the other was a tree that is identified as one that needs to be removed for safety reasons. it did have a catastrophic collapse in advance of the city's moving it. that wasn't on healthy tree. i see these trees here, this is

a black-and-white picture. i did not rely on much of an address other than a personal appeal for your help. that is about all i have. again, i am relying on the statements of this city's arborist who said there were certain limbs that could be cut and that could remedy the situation. i do not understand why we could not reach compromise our build some consensus about whether these are not healthy or there is good reason for them to be removed and to leave an empty street with no trees. it is a very beautiful street and i am interested in maintaining that. it is hard to put a dollar value on duty. there is the notion of children playing in a playground at school and getting crushed.

needless to say, i do not want that either. i do want what is there and what we have here, i do not think is. that is it. >commissioner fung: you lived there hear? >> i have lived on oak street for more than 30 years. commissioner fung: you're across the street. >> i am right across the street. this is a block where you have a lot of noise echoing through the way the school is built in the way my courtyard is bill. the sound bounces around and i think the trees to provide some insulation and some relief from the street noise. there is a lot of traffic. oak st. is a heavily traveled thoroughfare. it has one way lights going up franklin which is another major 0 fair -- to repair. you have a lot of traffic.

this does provide some insulation as well as some relief from the pollution and most of all, those trees make the street very beautiful. i do not want to characterize the school across the street as being ugly, but it is an institutional building that is built in the 1950's, i am guessing. i think we know what that looks like. president goh: thank you. the agent from -- for the permit holder. >> good evening. commissioners and staff. we're here tonight in response to the appeal.

representing international center for schools. we're here in response to the appeal concerning these trees and the schools are very concerned about the stability and safety of these trees. first and foremost, interested in the safety of our students and our community. and by extension, the public in general. these trees have had a long history of failures and other problems that have caused not only for us but the city and after an unpredicted collapse and failure of one of these trees into our school playground in june of 2011, when not only asked the city to review the trees but consulted with an arborist, an expert who can do tree assessments with regard to failures and so forth. on his evaluation of the trees,

and his determination that three of them represent a hazard to the school and to the public in general, the schools were compelled to request, demand that the city debate this hazard. compeled enough to press the city to allow us at our own expense, considerable expense to not just removed but replace these trees to the benefit of the schools and the community. the schools are not anti-trade. we have engaged with friends of the forest to plant trees on the public right of way. on various streets around the campus. this is not a vanity exercise to improve visibility of the school's signage to passing motorists are anything like that. this is a matter of safety, life, and limb. if the board will allow, i would

like to present a video of one of these collapses. if i may rewind just briefly. buh-bye in the upper portion, you can see the tree collapsing, bouncing off the wall and then flipping into our yard. on the upper left corner you will see the pedestrian through the slot in the wall and the pedestrian almost gets crushed by this falling tree. >> my god, that is pretty

intense. >> was it struck by lightning? >> failed -- it failed presumably because it was raining that day. there was no lightning. it failed and that tree had been assessed as healthy and sustainable and without any evidence before the collapse, that it was at risk, it was a soft -- assessed after the collapse. no evidence to ascertain why it had failed. commissioner hwang: how did you happen to have that video? was that security cameras? >> the school has security cameras at all exit points in case of missing children and so forth. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> good evening.

i'm a consulting arborist and i was hired by the school's for the purpose of evaluating the trees along this particular block. and my arbour is report in its entirety has been provided in your packet. i will be very brief and simply summarize that my approach was to ascertain what impact their repeated sidewalk and street repairs had had on these ficus trees and determined through brute crown excavation whether extensive root cutting had occurred and if so, what that had created in terms of the decay in the trees. given in some cases without decay, whether it has created a

hazardous condition. based on those findings, and there are photos in my report that are indications of the extent of the root kaeding that has occurred, -- root cutting that has occurred. as well as root cutting for repairs which is extensive. the last tree was tree 5 which is near the corner of franklin. it has had all the routes removed along the curb line and concrete used to fill in the rap -- gap where the grinder took the root system. it is not an issue of chris buck looking at the branches of the trees and stating that some

pruning could be done. it is a matter of entire trees coming down and the risk that poses to the school as a target. and the roadway and the passing cars as a target. i may certified tree risk assessor as well as a certified arborist. daniel did not have that specified in my qualifications. it is relevant to my assignment in this case. thank you for consideration and please let me know if you have any questions. commissioner fung: the tree number five you referred to near the corner is the one that is not being allowed under this permit to be removed, is that correct? >> the tree that is no. 5 in my report, is near the corner of franklin.

it is one of the permitted trees. there is a small tree that is kind of life in the middle of the block with a lean in the trunk which i did not determined to be an imminent hazard. that tree is not permitted. the two new the bus stop -- near the bus stop and the one that is at near the corner of franklin, those three trees, there is one, too, and five are permitted and are considered by myself and the department as imminent hazard. -- hazards. >> good evening. bureau of urban forestry. i would like to first point out

an error that i noted in my brief to you. i think it is clear from the attachments and also from the previous testimony. on the second page i indicated that department granted the removal of the four trees and three trees were permitted. one tree was denied. i do want to address a couple of points that came up earlier. the department did initially denied the request for removal. chris buck evaluated the trees and i did. i am a certified tree risk assessor as well. i am an arborist. the department has not concluded these are imminent hazard spread we did grab removal of three trees that are -- at our hearing based on concerns about limb failure. i disagree with the assessment

that the primary concern with these trees is whole tree failure. there has been pruning that was done under supervision of a certified arborist. it was done by the school through our claims department. it is my understanding that the burning was overseen. it is never ideal to prune the roots of a tree. i do not want to suggest we think that is simply ok. the concern the department has about these trees are limb failures. the structure of the ficus tree which is typical is the current structure were you do not have one strong central leader. and apparently, the structure will be more prone to limb failure then an x-current structure were you have a strong leader and branching points emanating from that leader.

we do base much of our evaluations and our knowledge on our experience with species in san francisco, the same tree species. we recognize this species does shed limbs and in some cases they can be massive. the failure you saw was the -- it was a large salemme -- limb that tore off and took off a second when it fell. that was based on our belief at the staff level that burning of the -- pruning of the limbs closest to the school, there is one last limb that overhangs the lunch area and removal of that would eliminate most of the overhang in atlanta area. the staff level decision, recognizing there were a large number of trees that were

removed, we did identify some that should be removed in the past. we thought that much of the risk, not all the rest could be mitigated through printing -- pruning. this is a high use area. our decision was overturned because of that same concern of limb failure. the species is quite tolerant of root pruning. in addition to the students, they use the sidewalk area. many parents are lined up waiting for students to emerge from the school in the parking lane and adjacent to the parking lane. when we look at assessing trees for risk, we have to look at target potential and if a failure were to occur, what is the likelihood that property or

more importantly, injury or worse could occur. i think the departmental level decision was based on the concern, given the high level of use of this area and the fact there have been pretty dramatic near misses which does not mean again, we think these trees are healthy, for sure, and have some structural flaws that is not typical of the species but one of those structural flaws is a substantial limb failure. i am sympathetic to the neighbors. this was a much more tree-lined block. there have been many large trees that have come down and there will be one remaining larger tree that is not very large when these three come down. however, i am terrified by the prospect that a tree limb could come down near students and i think the school is genuinely concerned for their students well-being. i understand this is why the department made the decision.

we always have to live with some risk. we felt like this was too great all risk to live with with the potential of some of those limbs coming down. i think that is all i have. i am available for questions. president goh: what species are you considering using for replacement? >> the species that have been used on that blocked is the swamp myrtle. the trees will be larger. it is a tree that can overtime grow to be 20 feet to 30 feet and develop a nice canopy. it is slower growing. there will be substantial lead time before those young trees reach the stature of these trees.

commissioner fung: these are city-owned trees? >> these are. i will take a moment to clarify. if the city identifies a tree should be removed, through our own routine inspections or at the request of a property owner, the city bears the cost of the removal. if the city determines that we would not agree with removal of another tree, the property owner has the right to apply to remove the tree at their own cost. the school, because we did reevaluate after that june failure. i will say we looked at -- it appeared sound. we would not have predicted the failure to have occurred when the dead. i would dispute it is not simply that it was rainy. that is the structural flaw that these trees are prone to with these multiple attachments.

sorry, to jump back. if that property owner applies to go through the permit process subject to the appeals and if the permit is granted, the property owner bears the cost of removal. commissioner fung: along those same lines, on city-owned trees, the maintenance of those trees are done by city staff or outside contractors? >> parmele by city staff. in some cases, property owners can and do work with our city claims departments if constraints would delay our work. they can hire their own contractor and get reimbursed by the city. which is what occurred in this case. president goh: thank you. we can take public comment now. can i see a show of hands, any people? ok. how many minutes? president goh: 2 minutes.

it is late and we have two more cases. if you could do it in one it would be much appreciated. whoever would like to go first, please come up to the mike. president goh: can everyone else lined up? >> i live directly from these -- across from these trees and half for 22 years. if i had been able to i would fight for my own tree which was in front of my house. i want to assure you, this is directly across the street from two of those trees. this is my -- i live on the entire top floor. the tree that got cut down, can you see it? the canopy spread all over the rooms. i had two certified arborist tell me it was fine but the city arborist said it was not. it was cut down. i was not appealing it because i

was given the wrong feet for the appeal on that tree. cynthia goldstein called me with an ice apology about that. i am supporting toward these beautiful trees in my neighborhood. this is the view from my house. it can see that. -- you can see that. that is one bedroom looking at the trees they want to take down. here is another from another room of my house. you can see the trucks -- trunks. i had another tree entirely in front of these windows before. this is new year's eve they cut that other tree down. i want to show you that other tree. this is the stump from the tree that was removed. that is what they look like. there was lightning and thunder that evening. i live across the street. that tree was back in to buy a truck -- backed into by a truck.

i called the school and said one of your trucks that was working on the tarmac on the playground. one last thing. these two trees, this is the best photo for my living room. can i show these trees? these two trees, these are on the far end of the block. they do not in any way hangover -- hang over the school property. that -- there is a wall there. commissioner hwang: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. i live in the neighborhood close to 30 years. i know that you will could hire an arrest who would -- an arborist who