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 (inaudible) they are all dying there because they have withdrawn all of the water as well.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 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