inhabit those units on third street it will displace the people in the city and the people blocking the proposal are dribble responsible for insufficient city of lodging in here that's san francisco's real issue there you are cruelty against other loggers in the city we need to build up and bigger and now >> is there any additional public comment. >> hi i'm here i wasn't expecting to speak but i pay a lot in rent and know that the only way to lower rents is is to have more apply and if you care

to fill out a speaker card that will help with the minutes is there any additional public comment okay. we'll start with the rebuttal of the appellants you have 3 minutes. >> hi i'm ray the urban forester also a social of board certified tree horticulture tree risk careers. i would certainly not recommended the retention of trees that is a treat to the property or people this happened to not support this view that the kits are the problem, in fact, both of the failures the

arrest bureaus showed they're not from topping cuts you'll notice on the picture which is disappeared you'll notice on the picture one the failures is from this point here that's well below the heading cut which the way up here. neither of those breaks both of them from the side of scaffold lens it is true that the cuts are more weakly attached but the top can be reduced to grow over time to have a greater told them, in fact, it occurred along the ago and the sprout haas has been attaching to larger numbers

of attachment so with the structural pruning can make the tree safer than that that is now although it's not a high-risk to people or property at this point and proper maintenance that's been denied to this tree in the past can make it a great contribution to the community. >> thank you. we'll hear rebuttal now. >> hi good afternoon, commissioners melinda i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor i want to sum up together by saying what carl short said 30 years the removal of this tree

it was supported by the ash rifts and dpw those trees are of the common species they're a species that's not recommended for planting in the city because of it's problematic health conditions those trees are plant in raised beds there are safety concerns and the limb failure which is a special concern whether there's residential projects on site that will subject the owners to liberate. they don't have a historic value they're only about 40 years old and in addition the removal is appropriate here because it will allow destruction of a code compliant code and allowing the

construction of more rental units we're estimating this will reduce the project size by 15 units that could be going into the cities housing stocks and so it's a big impact, in fact, harassing as part of the project we're going to be beautifying the magnolia street shown in the slide so there is subsequential greenery the impacts won't be that great and end up beautifying the project. this project is scheduled before the planning commission on june 5th we have endorsement of the dna and a number of neighborhoods and anticipating approval of that entitlement it was mentioned the project is asking for a number of variance

and compensations that's not true they're only requesting one expectation from the rear yard so it's far less than other comparisons in the area and f that is to lion the center courtyard with open space. so especially o essentially the tree are large and the proximity to the curb don't merit retention given the quack on the project and their current health condition we're asking you uphold to project >> the question about the 9 trees i saw a reminding put up by your project sponsor what a size are the trees going to be? >> a good question the maximum

size. >> they're to be imply grown. >> when their planted. >> yeah. >> roy. the new trees that are going in will be large enough to allow pedestrian access bicycles theres a bicycle facility in the building they have to be minimum nursery stoke is a 36 inch box and the gentleman from rain tree said a 48 inch block so those trees are 15 or 16 feet tall and have good-sized canopies 5 or 6 >> they're going to look like the rendering.

>> yeah. the question is to accurate but that rendering is a pretty good representation they have to be up overhead. >> the permit currently reads there are as 24 inch box for the replacement trees that's on the proposal. >> ms. short any rebuttal no. the matter is submitted >> i have another question for the project sponsor attorney. i didn't understand the length or to delaying the decision today to the planning commission hamburger you addressed that point but i didn't follow is there anything that's going to be raised at the hearing address that would have any bearing on

the trees from our prospective >> noting not that i'm aware of. >> you understand why a delay was being requested. >> in the event that the project isn't approved i would say that's highly unlikely it will be developed and the reasons for the removal of the trees are there regardless of the development. >> but your requesting a variance; right? >> no variance this is a - >> a change. >> part of a large project there are modifications under the code under sections 329 which is not a variance procedure only through the side courtyard area design to lion with the existing pattern which is an actual waterfront plan and it was at the question of

neighbors and folks adjacent to the property so it's not a modification slight to other residential projects in the area that have requested rear yard modifications for this type of development. >> can you explain why it is going to planning. >> it has not been to planning the appellants want this hearing before the other hearings. >> i have another question. to what stent is the project sponsor prudentially to have the removal >> the project in delaying the excavation until june. any prejudice? >> hi i'm jason from rain tree

partners with the owners of the prop we detailed did original scheduled hearing to should hearing could be heard and anymore clarity for the outcome of this hearing. >> what prejudice if the tree decisions were detailed i understand our point but - >> it's time and expense we want to understand with certainly we have the ability to remove the tree when the planning commission takes place. >> but if the trees stick around until june 5th than what any harm? >> (inaudible). >> is that accurate how she stated that. >> that wasn't my question.

>> i'd be interested in the answer. >> if the only delay was to the date of the actual meagerly and the permit was up held until such time at which time the department would be accountable we could accommodate that. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question for ms. short. as many tree cases that come before us can you explain the difference between a 24 and 36 and 489 >> that's united states size of the root area to the 24 box tree is the minimum by the public works code and depending on the species because this species it

maybe larger than the slowing growing species but a 36 inch box tree adds trunk caliber of an inch to an inch and a half for a 48 inch box and it is reflected in the height as well. >> have you had a chance to look at the 5 mag nostril. >> i have. >> certainly a 24 inch box. >> no, it is bigger than a 48 inch box it would look like amassing anonymously and i think the trunk would be smaller but i don't think that rerpd - and so

to get close the rendering would have to be 48. >> sure to exceed. >> along the same lines what wouldn't that amount i mean is there a box that's bigger they can put it in to match what's reflected in the rendering. >> a 60 inch box tree is possible to purchase that requires that you have a very large planting area so it could be difficult to chaff within the sidewalk condition often the utilities make it hard to excavate an area so the 48 inch box trees are unusual feasible depends on on the 60 box tree it is certainly possible but not

knowing where the sidewalk would be structured over the root area i likely who have the full basin by it could be challenging it needs some engineering. >> you think 5 will fit in the space but your understanding of the terrain there 5 b will fit of the 60 inch. >> assuming those conditions don't exist. >> certainly a proposal should be planning for the trees at the maturity a 5 trees burglary fit but i think filling with something as large as the 60 inch trees the utility is the key to excavation. >> okay. thank you >> okay. it's with us.

>> okay. well, i having heard what i just heard i think this is hard i think those trees are behalf and at the same time we've heard interests of the housing and other concerns that our city deals with mime inclination is to i guess condition the permit on having as large as possible box that can be done within the site 48 at the minimum and 60 in feasible. to match the rendering because it was a very attractive rendering and it will offset some of the loss i think it's sad to lose large trees of a significant and a half that can

be corrected but at the same time we've heard from multiple interests ♪ room and i think that resonates with san franciscans otherwise the department has, you know, authored that those are my authenticity and also conditioning the removal of those trees to the tack place at the time the site permit is issued so there are there longer >> i'm in agreement with my fellow commissioner, i think unfortunately exactly what she said the trees to be removed and that the replacement trees to be conditioned to at least a 48 inch box and also i heard they'll be in agreement not to

remove the trees until the permit is approved. >> i'll make the motion to i think it's grant the appeal and uphold condition the permit on those conditions i tarnished and commissioner honda seconded. >> would you care a to state the basis for your motion. >> well, first of all, the permit the concerns that i discussed earlier are part of the basis for upholding the grant the appeal those are significant trees and the loss will be a big - a loss to our

earth and our city to lose those large significant trees, however, i think and i don't know if this is proper but the other basis is that otherwise been considered a proper site for the replanting i mean, the planting of the new replacement trees that fill up the space to the largest stent as soon as possible and the safety concerns thank you. so the motion by commissioner hwang is to grant the appeal and uphold the grant on the basis the trees are large trees and some safety concerns associated with them and on the condition the trees not be removed until

the issuance of a site permit for the project >> correct. >> at it election and the replacement trees be of faye inch and if property 60. >> anytime 48. >> commissioner fung i believe they're in agreement to the date of the hearing not the permits. >> well, that's my motion. >> okay. so on that motion commissioner fung. no. vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus. and commissioner honda and okay. that motion carries 3 to 1 and that permit is upheld on those conditions.

okay. thank you. so the next item we actually are calling items 9 through 16 together. already hang on a second i was incorrect there's a 4 vote need to pass that motion i was speaking incorrectly that motion does not carry and absent any other motion the permit would be upheld >> you want to modify the motion. >> i'll file the motion. >> it has been vote on. >> i'll make a motion the same motion except if i do this commissioner fung would it be worthy my time. >> make the motion. >> the objection i heard from

commissioner fung part of the condition where the trees would be removed to the date to the site that the site permit is issued i think this motion will be modified to say the trees will be removed to the dated of the hearing on site permit; is that correct? >> yes. >> i think i need clarification on the hearing and on june 5th open the project that's a site permit; right? >> it's a large project for authorization. >> can i hear from the - what exactly is happening. >> it's the large authorization planning project. >> that's an appealable motion.

>> which i'm sure we'll see to the rest of the motion is the same to grant the appeal and uphold it their large trees and on safety concerns and the trees not be removed until after the june 5th, 2014, before the planning commission on the large tree authorization and the replacement trees be of a minimum size of 48 inches and possibly 60. on that motion >> commissioner fung. president is absent. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda so that motion carries again my apologizes for the prior item that motion carries >> a short break.

>> welcome back the wednesday, may 7, 2014, of the san francisco board of appeals we're now calling items 9 through 16 the item the 9 as the coordinators transcript for the preceding for items 10 through 16 and commissioner pursuant to the rules of the board of appeals article for the appellant at&t requested that the board inspect a coordinators transcript as the official record a letter to this effect was submitted to the report and at&t has compiled with the certified transcript to no cost

and dpw passing has agreed to to designation we need a vote of the board, however. >> so moved. >> okay. any public comment on the designation of creditor and commissioner fung and commissioner hwang and commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda we'll use the civil rights transcript for the preceding and items 10 and 11 will not be heard they've withdrawn and the rest of the items we're going to hear them in a manner similar to how we heard the previous wounding wounding once we're agreed about the parties to give the parties time at the beginning of those hearing to present global argument and rebuttal and take each item via with a shorthand

amount of time and decide it separately we'll start with the appellant to start with the global argument. >> is there a reason why we can't hear this aggregated the brief is based on an aggregate argument. >> if you want you can ask that felt appellant and my understanding is their interest to be able to present more factual information about each address but if you want we can ask chairperson johnson to talk about that. >> the last time there were no specific arguments. >> that's why we want to change that. >> if they want it i understand

okay. >> so the reason with that we requested to be able to address each one of the 5 appeals individually this evening i may have misunderstands commissioner fung's position. >> can you speak is more the microphone. >> as i understood commissioner fung's position at the last hearing commissioner fung suggested on the record that the board of appeals have to recourse but to deny the appeals in the aggregate because although he acknowledged there are common legal arguments that apply to all of them we hadn't argued the record there's a possibility of one or more of the appeals were exceptional and didn't apply he recommended they

be denied. i may have misunderstand our position but given my understanding of why the board decisions the first 9 we felt we were required to argue the appeal and there's a number of reasons, however, i made the statement and you have the right to have each case heard spril if you want that >> okay. if i want to proceed on that basis you have 10 minutes. >> so good evening commissioner president lazarus and the board foster johnson for at&t california and with me are my colleagues david miller, mark and teddy. of at&t. asia the department con seeds at&t has the statutory right

interest install the equipment but law the departments discretion when and where it the extremely limited there are 4 limitations i'm going to discuss. first, the department can only deny encroachment construction in a way of saying obstruct and second if the department denies a permit application it must do so within 60 days of receiving the application and third the departments exercise of the discretion must be reasonable and it is required to follow its own rules and the department has simply go forward each the 5 appeals that at&t is changing that evening