3 hundred pounds coming down 45 feet over the sidewalks that's a failure partner in the tree regardless of what's been said we have a self-confident self-evident situation and he trees that are a high-risk condition when it's done it's been topped 3 times and headed again in the same manner i don't consider that to be a sustainable tree here's my card >> i have a couple of questions approximately how long ago did the limb failure curae. >> i don't know but the wood is not discolored on the 6 inch figures significantly that's

still a blonde color. >> so that will indicate? >> probably during a winter storm. the 8 inch limb is a year prior because of the discoloration >> and the others question i have since you're a risk professional so do you think when the ownership was taken in the tree was maintained would that have helped? >> i think the biggest well in a word - risk reduction can only be to a certain thresholds so you can maintain the tree but you're only maintaining a risk at the certain threshold even after pruning because it's a large tree that's been topped on 3 occasions prior it will have

limb failures and the propensity for future failure. >> one ownership taken over would have prevented the linkage failure. >> i don't know. i honestly, i don't know >> okay. thank you. >> ms. short. >> good evening carr lo la department of public works i don't have who too much to add it was our assessment of the previous topping cuts that was pointed out in the presentation evidence in the past attributed to weaker branches so it's faifs

those trees are structural problem. i'll note the one of the reasons our inspectors who are certified tree risk careers for the record that the root structure was potentially problematic it's true the roots clear road i cannot beyond the box but that can't be sustained for even those roots will 0 need to be removed in order to fix the situation and the area around it, it's a combination of the structure in the planter and even if the trees remain we can't leave the hazardous conditions out for the public this is a need to be fixed. the last point the appellant referenced some eucalyptus trees

that have been looked at in san francisco. i think it's fair to say that they were landmarked because they were large for the species in san francisco. and had not been previously topped that those trees exhibit. thank you >> question. so can you remind me of the box size of the replacement trees >> i believe that it was discussed at the previous hearing 60 inch box i stated that a 48 inch box i thought would be no problem to install at this location and a 60 inch box would be okay but a function the utilities to get a 5 foot

tree into the situation area. >> how fast growing are the trees replacements. >> the southern a magnolia is pretty fast growing i don't know what their proposing and so potentially it would be somewhere between moderate and fast growing unless it's a dwarf growing with you moderate to fast. >> any public comment on that item? please step forward. >> good afternoon. i'm with the san francisco housing coalition and speaking on behalf of the one hundred and 25 members thank you for letting me speak this

project with present last year and all folks were enthusiastic it has all the elements on the inclusionary near transit and high volume parking that activates a public realm it is to the eastern neighborhood plan the city put 10 years of work into creating a plan that will accommodate more housing and activate the space this is an example of the plan and the kind of projects we want to support so, please look at this this is a good project we want to see this and it reaches the mayors goal of building those units. please move forward >> next speaker no other public comment?

>> hi i'm amy i am a renter in san francisco until my partner and i were able to purchase our condo and in our dog patch neighborhood are the trees in question were a big reason inform purchase in the block their huge and beautiful and shady and change the feeling of the area. i walk under them everyday. on my way to the train my cats watch the birds i've invested in this neighborhood but emotionally i became a steward

of the community to protect the character for future resident of san francisco. we've got to protect those trees. please revoke the permit allowing this developer to tear down those trees if you don't force them to tear down the streets they'll do the best for them. the trees they're going to put in are no way a replacement as some people feel they've taken 40 plus years to reach their health. the magnolia trees there's already magnolia trees on our

blocks the developer says this site is ugly but those trees need tlc this has been testified by two unbiased experts they need to be protected and we have to do it because those greedy out of town folks are not going to do this for the long term treasures that belong to the community. thank you. >> is there any public comment? >> good evening. my name is a jackie oh, my god the second floor of the building. this appeal is not about housing

or the problem of housing in the sf ear. those developers have gotten housing lobbyists here to speak about how we the neighbors are the ones stifling this they don't live on the block i bet if there were trees on their blocks they would fight for those trees they are homes to birds and bees and cats, in fact, i've watched a cat with a house collar climb a tree. if they pose a falling hazard those folks call themselves our neighbors but those trees are our neighbors the tenants use the shades and the future resident they're trying to build this for could greatly benefit

as was said under 15 percent of 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