schedule call the board office. it is located as 1650 mission street room 304. in meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv impanel a channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase at this point we'll have our swearing in process if you intend to it testify and wish the board to give our testimony please stand and raise your right hand. please note that mia any member of the public may speak without this swearing in.

do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> item one is public companion phenomenon items not on agenda. any public comment on that item? sierra club item 2 is commissioner questions or comments commissioners. seeing none, no commissioners with questions or comments item is the 3 adaptation of the minutes of june 5, 2014, >> corrections or deletions or other. >> so moved. thank you any public comment on that item on the minutes. seeing none, mr. pacheco please call roll >> on that motion to adapt the june 25, 2014, minutes. commissioner fung. commissioner hwang is absent. councilmember davis pr the vote is 4 to zero >> item 4 is appeal number 4

christopher for the other parties vs. the department of public works upper of forest the subject is essence as incident i image i am street to richard price of a tree removal trees and for the removal of 6 trees and replanning of 9 new trees on the hearing today. we will start with the appellants. you have 7 minutes to present your case >> as i said to commissioner fung i'll start with 3 minutes talking and ray will talk. we're here solely to hear the

appeal that focuses on the removal of 2 eucalyptus trees we're not here to discuss housing or whether it's a good or bad thing or renters or anything this is simply about two trees. and this is what i'm asking you to focus on. i will also say that the required street trees in question do not mitigate the removal of street trees they wouldn't compensate for the removal there's not an issue of those trees being dangers to motorbike there's been no issue we will now have are exerts ray that has worked with our the risk assessment of the trees and

caltrain construction impact and mitigation. i'm also going to read a letter from professor joe mick bride that teaches at the you university of the california and his area is urban forestry he's the professor. the trees are important landmark trees on illinois after the industrial avenue that was planted many years ago those trees because of snaring oounl educateness serve the community and contributed to the reduction in the urban heat island by providing air and shade they're canopies are north sites for birds and humming birds they're they should be allowed to be an important member of the

community it's a historical reminder of the san francisco landscape and harassing as proirtdz of the services. the recent published urban fortey talk about the slinking tree canopy in the city currently, the tree canopy in san francisco is 13.7 percent as compared to los angeles that is with 21 percent and portland is thirty. clearly we're lacking in urban forest ray please. i'm ray the principle consulting for the urban forestry in marin county and practice in the bay area for 36 years. i'm a panic northwest he tree

careers and an international society of qualify tree careers i do the tree risk assessments as stated heeler caltrain and a number of governmental agencies as well as as well as private sector i've examined those trees it's been stated the trees are growing in a box and therefore do not have good stability actually, the major roots stand well beyond the raised bed in which the trees are placed there are all the way to the street and the adjacent parking lot and throughout the adjacent patio as evidenced from the cracks 2, 3, 4 the old black top pavement those roots radiate well beyond the box. the people who wish to remove

the trees show a break-in branch in one of the trees. the truth is that there was a recent failure of a branch but the the truth it also the owners the trees have failed to maintain them and maintenance practices can make those safe and tragic trees and continue to provide amenities a number of people in the next door apartments have asked me to view the trees from their apartments there were more than a dozen humming birds in the trees it's appreciated by the neighborhood both trees is safe trees and can be made structurally better and

more attractive with attention. thank you. >> okay. we can hear from - >> i do want you to be cognizant we have two experts one representing the university of california the department of urban forestry that has looked at the trees and given them a positive bill of height if you go against this you go against the university of california and ray who is working for the park department to simply remove trellis because it's not convention we wish you to look at this is about the trees

whether or not there's more or less housing it depends on the day and time i wish you to pay attention to those professional reports they're in your packet and they're both there. those are very significant experts that are saying those trees are safe thank you. >> okay. from the permittee holder now. >> commissioners, thank you for allowing us a few minutes i'm from the owner the future department site we're here to request you uphold the depending permit to remove the trees to

allow us to move forward with an approved project to construct 23 units this are not under the u.s. forestry ordinance and they have a poor treasure they're on private property in an area that is developed as part of the project it's easy to talk about this when you're not on the site we feel differently. after the removal of two eucalyptus trees we'll be planting 5 new magnolias and this is an image of the frontage as you can see it's a relatively unattractive footage 0 the two trees are there and our project is imposing to make a different

situation this is what it looks like in the for ground the magnolias we're going to plant this is in the planning process and unanimously approved by planning commission this will have a major redesign of the project and result in a significant loss of density we've worked to access this loss in density and the diagram i'll show shows you a 30 foot road us to be protected. is as you see this covers part of our site the result is we losing lose 5 unit that's 6 percent of the density and 20 percent of the parking spaces and in addition we'll lose 20

percent of onsite affordable housing this is under the housing accountability act it's received final approval by the planning commission we need to move forward with site activities that need to take place within the footprint of drilling and taking environmental samples and water testing prior to the site those are necessary for the building department and the project engineers to complete the project we're angrily awaiting the removal of those trees. depending issued a permit to remove the trees in january that was based on a visit to the sigh in which dpw experts in the site

said this is a fast growing and plant in below ground planter that creates structural problems they have the poor structure and show signs of previous branch failures and other things that have a future limb failure we'll also speak to this but dpw's decision was the right won those trees are located on private property and pose long term liability to sf property owners so this includes a number of improvements including planting new trees and the existing trees with in good condition and to

liability and those will have a lower density so he ask the board to uphold this permit without further delay to move forward with the site work. the sooner the trees are removed the surrender we'll make improvements to the neighborhood i'm going to turn it over to ray. i'm roy i'm a consultant ash rift also a tree assessor i'm a certified tree people the tree in questioning r in question is subject to the pruning requirements that would if you can give me the overhead it will require that branches be reduced

significantly on the ends in order to prevent breakage. what we have as a failure pattern are 3 limbs that failed an 8 inch in the middle of the photo and two 6 inches on the levied this is the close up of the limbs. there's a crow for scale in this case you have a question and this demonstrates where the two limb breaks and two above that that were similar before they telling fell that's 25 feet or there about's and weighing 2 to

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 t