a greater expansion and it could be a little bit of a domino effect. but based on the comments i've made and the fact it is co- compliant i don't see a reason either to massage the current scope or design or to revoke the permit >> anything else. >> i agree with commissioner hwang. >> do we have a motion. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal. >> is that because it's code immigra compliant. >> yes. >> we have a motion implicit commissioner fung to up hold this on the base it's code

immigrant commissioner fung. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero the permit it upheld on that base >> so item 6 appeal number 13 dash 57 mcclellan vs. the urban forest. this is regarding a property on francisco street to roam one privately i owned tree adjacent to the property >> i'm sorry if i may make a general comment on the last case. it does us no good to receive a set of drawings from the permit holder at the hearing. i was wondering that there was no brief from the permit holder.

you know, we don't have much time to review things >> i would like to project some photographs can i use the computer with the memory stick?

>> i can work with that. my name is mcclellan i'm the resident and owner on 256 francisco street to removal and replace the street tree. in general, i support the goals i believe the data is submitted for consideration. in addition to their focus on

the health and tree it should be equal consideration. my home on francisco was built in 1863 and part off the coast interest the tree is located where the college was occupied and this house was the only house to survive the 1906 earthquake and fire. when the neighborhood was rebuilt new structures were 3 and 4 victorian flats. in the - a little cottage is my home. in the 60s or early 70s the city plant a christmas tree this is a species that does well and the tree in front of of the house has blocked the sun from my

southern exposure. and has dislocated portions of the sidewalk. and the curb. at the time the tree was plant the building the city took the responsibility of sidewalk trees he since then the city has transferred it but the city restrict what the city owners do with replacement. when i acquired the how is it had a host of problems but it deciphered to be saved. therefrom i constructed a major part of the house and closed the

original basement area and smallest new plumbing and windows and skylight and roared the one hundred and 50-year-old structure. i want to improve the sin light by replacing the existing tree with a smaller tree that's more proprietary to the scale of this property. with the tall structures on the south side it is the only exposure to direct sun that i have. that's a view that was taken from the side of the house a little deck. since i've owned the property i've had the tree trimmed twrisz and it's not improved the direct sunlight. the trimming is stimulated and worsened the sidewalk which is a

tripping hazard pr the bureau of urban forest seems to be focused on the trees health. there are other considerations that are well articulated by city policy. the sb energy conservatism is important. an example that didn't allow new instructors to cast shadows on public park. the whole idea is the policy encourages daylight. the cities upper design projects look to compliant this. when the property to the north of my house was converted the city's urban design policies had the open space that was designed. it's a marvelous interior block space.

in the center portion that came out of the plans development the result is a dense landscaping that contributes to the birds habitat as well as the property owners. i was disappointed that the dw p acknowledged my concerns they don't address my concerns nor have they corrected the damage to the pedestrian active sidewalk. prior to requesting a permit i talked to my neighborhood and were all open to the replacement. there was letters and e-mails submitted during this request and appellant process objecting to my request by people who don't live on the street. one of the letters was actually

a multiple from someone around on stockton named rita who stated that the issue concerned several of her neighborhood who haven't had the opportunity to comment. i'm not aware of any such neighborhood. i he was the approached by one of my neighborhood she unsuccessful tried to rally the neighborhood. i attempted to contact her and have not heard back from her. the ladies objective letter to the bureau she made reference to a haven for humming birds. i've never seen humming birds around the tree there's a habitat in my backyard and one in the center of the block.

the arrow points to the tree. i remain committed to having a tree in front of my house. i want a smaller tree that won't displace the curb. it will contributed to this sidewalk for decades to come. i've suggested this tree because the trespassing tree is 34r57b9d across the street and would be commentary. i'm open to an alternative sprees >> thank you your time is up. you'll have more time on rebutt

rebuttal. ms. shorten >> good evening, commissioners ms. shorten. the appellant and i agree on many things we applaud him on his efforts i want to make a clarification that this tree was not planted by the city it was planted by a permit and has been the motorbikes of the property owner. we do, however, restrict what the property obituaries can do because their credit card part of the public good. it's your maintenance responsibility to take care of the sidewalks. we have restrictions for what people can do and we have guidelines and require permits before they can be removed. we did receive an application to remove the tree if the tree is

healthy and in good condition we'll deny the baigs application if we feel it's possible to mitigate any litigation. but i want to state the department would never seek to keep the damaged sidewalk and it can be safely preserved and our recommendation was to a expand the area around the interest tre to create a larger tree well, for a nice landscape adjacent to the tree. our policy is to preserve may i approach trees when possible because they provide greater benefits to the residents of the city and it takes many more years for the trees to provide the same services. and so for those reasons we have

rules about when trees can be removed from the public right-of-way. i got an e-mail from one person who protested the removal of this tree and asked that we the residents are not in agreement and ask the tree to live >> i want to say the species is a good tree and over time it gets large it is slow growing to it will take time to match the tree so the appellant would prefer not to match but it would take years before we get the benefits from the tree but over time it will easily reach the

size of this tree if not exceed it if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> the beginning could is not disacids. >> it is. a couple of quiz. the picture that was shown in the latest 60s she's a relatively small tree is it the same tree >> it is. newly planted >> what does that say about the life of the tree. >> in terms of lifespan. >> yes. >> i'm also redundant to answer that because there's many factors that effect the trees. they're limited in many cases by the soil volume and sidewalk. that's - soil underneath the sidewalk. we know that urban trees

generally don't live as long as their counter parties. the tree could live many more years based on it's performance it tends to do very good but the limit would be used limited to sidewalk damage but if the tree well, it expanded we don't need to repair the sidewalk the tree can live for many years >> on a procedural basis if there were no neighbors who be obld would the department decision have been different? >> it's hard to say at the directors level whether the decision would have been

different. at the staff level we try to preserve mature trees. we try to consider whether to uphold a staff decision but our departments decision is to keep mature trees. i can't say for concern but the department you tries to preserve mature trees >> is that your primary concern. you should have taken into account the quality of life issues were those taxing. the director the finding don't refer to those specifically but generally, we consider the live issues and we want the sidewalk

to be repaired that sort of thing with you we're looking at the public good such as the public owners quality of life issues >> the repair is fully the responsibility of the property owner. >> that's right and. and what's the cost of life for that repair >> right. >> the base and expansion can reduce the overall repair because less sidewalk is poured back. i think an average cost for sidewalk repair is going to depend on the contractor with you $100 per square foot is common so the amount of damage

what dictate what that would cost. we would be combopg on the property owner for the expanding area it could be kept level with the granite which wouldn't require a lot of damage but it's the property owners responsibility and it would require renewal over the years >> it's a sizeable tree do you make any recommendations for the pruning. >> we would address that and that tend to deal with access over the curb for vertigo traffic and access over the sidewalk. if there are no conflicts that the utility we won't request it

but the property owner has flatten the responsibility in the past >> are there restrictions with a tree of that size would be 3r50u7bd other than maintaining the health. >> our ordinance requires the triz trees are 3r50u7b9d with the american standard pruning standards as well as the international society of our best practice management whichever it more protection. no more than 1/3rd of the canopy can be removed >> okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item okay. seeing none. mr. mcclellan we have 3 minutes

of rebuttal for you >> thank you there was made reference to the fact there's a public benefit to 80 this tree. now there's public benefits to street trees and this is a mutual may be with lots of street trees there's no public beverages. there's heavy street traffic and the recommendation to jack hammer up the sidewalk. i'm not sure with the benefit is for the public good. the other thing is that, you know, over the last, you know, 40 years the amount of habitat done in that area is significant maybe because of the removal of a large industrial building with

that open space. my own backyard is actually planted to support of the bird habitat in the neighborhood. i don't think the removal of the tree will effect the habitat it will be smaller in size. i'm again open to an alternative to this tree if the city has one they think would be more desirable and again, the house itself is in the historic guide books it starts to show you itself off. so as a property owner i'm committed it safe the street tree. i have support from my neighbors. i have a desire to show off this

one hundred and 50-year-old congressional and i want 80 a house that's warmer and drier. i respectfully request you overturn the bureaus objection. >> your between stockton and powell. >> no, no next block. >> new way. >> yeah. >> ms. short. >> carl short department of public works. given i was begin an opening i mean, i'll talk about the public good of street trees. this tree contributes to the public doesn't. certainly evergreen trees anyway's that water is absorbed

when the water overflows it goes into the bay. so street trees help mitigate storm water. in addition they clean the air through uptake of fine matter. they contribute to a better walking environment for pedestrians and they help calm traffic and slow the rate of traffic for vehicles as well. and they do provide habitat. it sounds like there's a lot of nearby haiti habitat. the public didn't get it access that space and they can access the trees in the front. i think the trees contribute as many do to the public good generally and that's why we try to protect them.

that's it >> do you know the location of the e-mailer the one you read. >> she was on 12 graph hill. >> how far is that person. >> certainly walking distance. >> okay. >> ms. short, you know, perhaps better in terms of commissioner discussion but, you know, there doesn't necessarily have to be a conflict between green practices for structures and urban forest goals. this cottage is kind of unique in that it's a small cottage and no garage. what happens if at the 34r57b9 two trees >> oh, to offset the loss of this one tree? that's certainly a possible solution

>> thank you. and the other question would be if it's not the beginning could tree who would be the recommended tree other than that >> just to be clear i'm recommending against the invention could tree it's a great tree. they're slow growing but over time will get large and exceed the existing tree. a >> my the current tree is a fast growing tree. >> if i could take a moment to confirm their might be room for the second tree it's not confirmed. so we would need to double check because we didn't have the location of that property sewer line and we have guidelines for distances from existing sewer

lines. we generally just basz basis that on what we see so we couldn't look at the sir, trap the water meter is 15 feet away from the existing tree so we could potentially locate another tree but we would have to verify that >> i understand and a in terms of other species i think going for the tree which is in interest of the property owner flowering cherry trees would be good but they live do property damage but they're a smaller tree. >> i love the tree except for the tree. >> that would be or in mental cherry trees that don't drop the

fruit. i would have to think of other trees that would match the considerations of the property owner >> commissioners matters. >> commissioner i'm thinking in line of the commissioner fung. i think this is a unique home and looking at the pictures the picture that was shown up from 1960 seeing that home would be attractive. i like trees but i've got the current tree in front of my business and it's fast growing as fast as you prune it it goes back >> commissioner fung would you consider potentially continuing for a week to seeming seek an

alternative. >> i would do that just to frame the discussion bear in mind that cross the street from this gentlemen are at least 3 story buildings. so in a winter timeframe the sun is relatively low as it across the southern hemisphere. it doesn't get a lot of sunlight on the face of this building but further on the top of the building. i think that the question of - well two two things ms. short knows i can't stand that tree. i think they were inexpensive trees by people who didn't want

to spend too much effort in our cities. there is some sense of resume. i'm not for the life of this is less than 15 years i'm guessing, you know. but if or perhaps longer. but if the appellant would like to consider putting in two trees i would consider that as a perhaps a reasonable compromise >> should we ask the appellant. can you come to the mike please. i'm not at all opted to it by i'm not sure it's going to work well. my property is something like 35 feet long and immediately

driveways to the adjacent properties. i don't know what the condition of the utilities in the street that has underground facilities. so i don't know how p that works and i don't know if two trees in that short piece of property can create more have a problem as they grow together >> i'm sorry to interrupt you are have two flowering cherries and they're doing well. >> how old are he. >> 11 years i planted the forestry. >> you know a big tree is not as much concern as a