the canopy cover in 70 compared to other west coast cities we need to stabilize and grow the trees that we have not remove and slink and replace them with tiny magnolias those won't get as big as the trees now and in 50 years with the 60 inch base will not get as big as the trees now. those street trees have a required by planning department the amount of rooms o are remove could be added else where. i work in the tech industry and make significant changes to the

plans i create howell everyday and instead of wasting 7, 8, 9 they 0 could have made small changes please revoke this permit that was presented to unbiased experts >> is there any public comment? >> hi the question is about housing i mean the owners of 2051, third street are progressing to build this about heirs. so i do think it's sweet 80 that the neighbors building ras those

trees need to stay but the reality by volunteering the trees from the housing question so as was indicated if i leave the trees there will be fewer unit but if you leave the trees you'll condition san francisco's you know difficult process of building so we have a lot of people claiming but everything is expensive yes. because it's to expensive to build is takes time you have to have capital only big companies can build. so you have to have a lot of capital for the 2 to 5 to seven years to build something once something is build it has to be

a selective progress. their gary the cover to la what's our cover a guard to new york or philadelphia or the baltimore. so i'm flattered about the idea of being lobbyists i'll surely a lobbyist because the entitlement process it biased against the future recipe it could be one hundred and 50 people that move in when it's finished that didn't count the thousands of people that those exists the place i live is one hundred and 50-year-old it's not about san francisco's housing but the future the trees are not going

to live one hundred and 50 years. that's pretty much all i have to say - oh, thanks >> do you want to state your name? is there any further public comment seeing none, we'll take rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> first, we're not against development but we're for the trees and a good architect worth his or her salt can figure out this the trees have been here for 60 years you've heard expert

testimony i'm dump struck by ms. short not being front yard in maintaining an urban canopy which particularly we're the lowest in california i don't believe everyone is licensed but more importantly you're going to have to make a decision between the university of california that's what you're up to this is about the trees all those other things are really something else. there are many, many developments it take care of trees and receptionist them and build around trees certainly if he were redwoods that would have happened but all life is important. >> there were a couple of things

that might mislead the board one is there are no tripping hazards. the statement on the part of depending staff there are tripping hazards that will have to be corrected is simply falls. there is not even a raise or s discontingent of the pavement raising of a half-inch the areas that are cracked with roots in no way have a discontinuity it says so the situation a okay. the other is that yeah. there were 3 relatively recent failures and i agree with the developers arborists o were

recent and two in the past year or so. but the reason there are failures is because of past poor maintenance and current no maintenance. pardon me >> okay. we can take good evening linda i'm on behalf of the permit holders. i have a few quick points first, as we've heard in our brief dwp's decision to grant the permit and allow the removal of the trees is under the ordnance as ash brevitys explained their

common trees and no longer recommended for planting that raise structural concerns for the permit holders. the depending and tree experts notice the recent limb failures they have heavy i didn't limbs it subjects the owners to ongoing liability and dangerus for the pedestrians there's no historic value they're only three or four-year-old and they're not candidates appropriate for a landmark status as trees, and, secondly, in the planning commission unanimously approved a project for the site it would not have

appealed to the board and the project is moving forward. remaining those trees it would cause a reduction of density in this project. as rick mentioned we're estimating a reduction of 15 units 6 percent of the proposed units on the sites that's a huge loss this would result in 2 onsite relocate e rental uniting units this contradicts the housing accountability act. in may the permit holders agreed to allow the delay of those to insure the neighbors this project is moving forward and a reason to remove the trees, however, the project is fully approved they need to be able to

remove the trees to get onsite for the construction of the preparation for the construction building so for those reasons we're asking you uphold the project and allow this to move forward if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> i have a couple of questions. at the planning commission hearing was there he any talk about the impact of the trees and alternative designs >> i don't believe it was raised. >> and the second question i have is how - i mean, you raised ♪ our brief and testimony how applicable or pertinent is the housing act do you think this is weighing more. >> i believe you're looking at an act which says if you have a

housing action by a local action that will disapprove it on a lower density will have to make difficult findings that the project will have a negative folk effect on the public health and safety. >> thank you. >> ms. short. >> carla short department of public works if i don't have the overhead i'll borrow a photograph there is substantial roots left immediate to the trees where they're related to. this is i don't know how

availability it is although it's not a building inspection it's asphalt it's uneven pavement and having been out to the site i can attest to that. the other thing for the record i'm in favor the growing the ushering forest i'm a co-chair on the urban forte but we need to look at each tree individually and the policy we've had we assess the condition of the tree and trees in healthy conditions you know i try to insure those remain we don't issue permits in this case we felt again they're very big trees i certainly understand why the neighbors appreciate them but in my mind there's a lack of

maintenance and poor maintenance practices have created poor trees so our decision was based on that. thank you >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i'd like to ask our city attorney basically the same question double the housing act is okay. >> i'm not agreeing this is a decision about the removal of trees and i don't believe the housing accountability ability act is about the trees themselves. clearly the sequence and the events of the permit that put this in a position to be agreed would interfere with the project but the skens could have been otherwise so i don't believe that process extends the

accountability ability about the tree removal >> was it you who was not present? i wanted to see if you have anything to add to the question commissioner hurtado. >> this was on june 25th. >> we decided to rehear it because someone explicit participate. >> that case was first heard in may and the decision was decided in june when you were present.

>> that's true that fell off the calendar. >> well, i, start. well, i certainly respect the age of the tree and the beauty of the trees, however, i'm pursued by ms. shorts presentation and the other presentation and i believe that they have taking into consideration into grandfathering the permits so i'll be opposed to granting this appeal. so i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued.

>> i just wanted to i'm looking at again, the original permit because i know the last time the board heard the matter it was there was a condition placed on the permit to specific the box size of the replacement trees and another condition that had to be with the detailing of the permit so i wanted to remind you of that in this case there was any confusion of the permit that it requires. >> yeah, i'm prepared my motion would include keeping the original conditions. >> well, the one box sizes that were required under the boards motion. >> that's correct. >> so that 48 inch box

replacement trees. >> so that's a motion would be a motion to - >> the last motion in the docket said 48 inch size i 60 inch size is that the same language. >> do i need to remind the commissioners the motion didn't pass. the thing that was in contention when the trees could be rochd whether or not they'll wait to the planning commission authorized the project >> my memory was different the motion did not pass and what curd. >> no. your right commissioner. >> we instead of taking our normal action where the commissioners motion would have effected the final decision we

should have continued it based on that motion. >> that's correct and so my motion will incorporate that condition that did not pass. >> okay. so to grant the appeal and uphold the condition that the trees be of a 48 or 60 inch box size. >> yes. thank you. >> on conditions that the placement size be of a 48 box size i if possible 60 inch box size. >> and that potentiality to be determined by the department yes. >> to be determined by dpw and

it be properly issued so to reiterate we have a motion from the vice president to uphold the permit on the basis it of properly issued that the replacement trees be of a 48 or possibly 60 inch box size to be demonstrated by the dpw. on that motion with that condition >> commissioner fung. councilmember davis. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is upheld with that condition. thank you. >> thank you. so the next item appeal golden gate heights with the mapping

the property on canning terrace street for the bell engineering of a excavation permit to install a new cabinet the public hearing was held and this is on for further condition for the permit holder and dpw to submit conditions on the location on 12th avenue. >> commissioners, i must recuse myself and asked commissioner hurtado to chair the meeting. i'll start with the permit holder and the vice president consents you'll have 3 minutes >> i miss foster johnson where is he.

>> he's on vacation. >> on here on behalf of the at&t we're here because the june figuring out hearing we were asked to support our statement that the proposed site was not a viable site because of the landslides so we submitted the inhabits last week i'll highlight a few of the inhabits exhibit a the mark 2013 amending e-mail in that e-mail mr. wilson talks about the preinspection determined the danger of the land slides is dangerous next t is exhibit b this is the notice

that was issued to the property owner that is dated march 12, 2012 is asked the property owner to clean up the rocks as a result of the landslide and exhibit h is at&t's report to the officer and it notes that dpw inspector and at&t found erosion felt hillside. >> and those are the further compulsions that show the concerns about the site. and about the landslides and the hill. including exhibit e from the notes of may 23rd box walling walk where the 203 ken tar was

identified as a site with the boards commission i'd like to give the floor to ms. ray has. >> good evening, commissioners i'm with at&t. i just wanted to put up a photograph to give you a sense of what it looks like up at the location that we're talking about. as you see the situation is pretty much gone from the landslide our box will be going back behind the pole set back from the sidewalk up into the hillside so the department of public works has put barriers to protect this part of the sidewalk but this is where the box would go and this is the significant landslide problem we

have with it i wanted to put that up there to give you a context of it >> so i have a question i don't know do you know when the landslide had awe curd. >> that's better inform dpw we only know about when what is going on since we filed the permit and as we worked with dpw and they came up and look at that after that they filed this notice on the landowner i don't know it's one landslide maybe erosion that continues on a

daily basis. >> i'll asked the other colleague. we're going to hear from the appellant next you have 3 minutes. >> good evening agent for the appellant thank you for the opportunity to speak the board requested that at&t present inhabits supporting the lack of inhabits and none of the inhabits submitted by at&t contain any statements from any engineers or experts they stayed

the job was on hold until the city looked at landslides he described as dirt covering the work area. they were sited for obstruction and the remarks were to clean up the rocks and soil. femur i have an e-mail from the chairman of dpw i asked a question back in february why at&t put the box there. saying specific that the inspectors of dpw rendered no remarks furthermore, the rock slides was on march 2011 two years before the preconstruction meeting years before this ever happened nothing to do with the situation it was permitted to

put the rocks let me show you some pictures. so here i can see the area where the landslide happened more than 35 square feet away from where at&t is putting the box and the neighbors have shored this up this is mr. john lee who refused to shore up the area. here is a little close up of the area where mr. lee was sited to clean up the area and a further close up of the area. this is where at&t said they will place their box under notice you see in the notice therapists e that's y where a

they're going to put the box that never received any notice for nothing at&t failed to show the hillside is safe so i ask you to urge at&t to move forward with the area to provide a viable location as provided by state law. if at&t fails their permit then they'll have to start over for a new location. i appreciate our support. >> ms. short. >> carla department of public works. i wanted to make a couple of clarifying points. in the brief from at&t they noted in the 3 that a second

city engineer arrived i wanted to note that we didn't have a city engineer we've had a couple of sidewalk inspectors and we've spoke with them both and they've said they can't make a determination whether or not the sidewalk was unsafe and doesn't remember saying anything i'm sorry not whether the sidewalk was safe is of but at&t will have to make that determination. and again in exhibit h they note a dpw inspector stated that - let's see making the site unstable again that was no a dpw

determination only the sidewalk needs to be cleaned up. i want to acknowledge a miss statement in that is included well it's not necessarily a miss statement there's an uncertainty who is responsible for the area immediately adjacent to where the box it is proposed in at&t brief they've included an e-mail stating this is a paper street so the adjacent property owner is responsible for the maintenance we believe that's true, however, we've found inconsistent in our record we're in the process of confirming with the city attorney's office to get the original ordinance it refers to a list