to city hall in support of fairness the board has xhvsht held the position to t will employ the rules they miss all follow the same rules it's unwavering position to enforce the rules and apply them equally and fairly this equal application of the rules is doubly important when the party in question is the city agency we're requesting a rehearing dpw and follow the rules and by not following the rules they've prejudiced the appellant on december 17th dpw didn't serve the briefs it submitted on me or the appellants at any time we only learned after the hearing the

brief was filed and for the first time after the hearing we got to know dpw legal argument this of the manifestly unfair and it is the only way to serve the brief and i will note the board ultimately september dpws legal argument in preference to the legal argument about the interpretation of public works code we were placed at a distinct distantly and another issue that cries out the issue of indemnify indication as i put in my letter requesting a rehearing the testimony from dpw this position was common following the hearing he sent a shedding request and

asked for the sites as of this date they've not identified one single one sdwoer three weeks later they sent over a reference to 751 carolyn avenue that involves city property attached to the brief you can see the property is owned by the city and county of san francisco it's a completely flat area and completely development i have pictures the roadwork being down on carolyn avenue i can submit those as you can see no similarity to the stan i don't think street situation and certainly nothing involve the indemnify indication it is they have to contact their homeowners insurance and have the

responsibility of the maintenance and the situation exclusively inclusive to the owners building. >> your time is up mr. williams. >> i'm sorry we're asking for a rehearing i have a quick question with respect to the beef broouf brief you were hear. >> did you obtain. >> i didn't know a brief was served i was completely un- i contacted cynthia goldstein's lastly later and i heard a brief was filed that's the first time i heard about it. >> i want to ask the folks standing on the side of the room by the door please take a seat the fire department request that

are on. >> good evening. i'm mark brand the architect for this case you originally heard last month i'm representing my client karen woods only b upon the facts and circumstances hearsay arisen s such fashthsz could affect the rehearing the appellants had an opportunity haven't shown any new facts and circumstances they are said they were upper ware i assume mr. williams is aware of the board rules and regulations it is unfair why he didn't ask about the dpws brief that was on the website a that's where i got a copy the appellants your fwharps unaware of the brief they were

unable to prepare a rebuttal they were aware of the argument if he were prepared to rebut any aircraft they are would be prepared to rebut the brief mr. mims i williams put in his request before the holidays dpw had difficulty and requested a timeline in response the dpw found one receive and steve williams has tried to debunk i attached the records as an exhibit williams says the appellants willingness to comply is reason to rehear it we can't

- it's one thing to agree to the details of what that constitutes it could mean more planning department we've agreed to meet with the appellants a attachment shows we asked more than once to go over compromises the appellants never alleged to meet regarding the indemnify indication homeowners are responsible for the sidewalks and i can't ask the insurance company to look at that it they've not provided any new factors facts and circumstances this is a further delay of my clients property thank you.

>> thank you. we'll hear from the department now. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and supervisors nick with the public works with some mapping i apologize for not providing the brief that was a complete oversight on any part, however any testimony that i present at the last month's hearing was identical to my brief so - that's my position d if you have any questions. >> are you aware you needed a brief. >> is this a process you've done in the past have you come before the board with briefed. >> one time before. >> and do you present yourselves to other boards.

>> yes. and and do they require briefs to be presented automatically that's it. >> okay. thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners the matter it submitted. >> commissioners the our rules are quite clear dpw is a party in n this particular case and i'm prepared to support a rehearing request. >> i agree i believe that procedure has been broken in nicole and whether the appellant could have looked it up on the website was not provided the

brief before our board. >> okay. >> move to grant the rehearing request. >> commissioner fung can we include a date for the new hearing do you have a recommendation if you're on to one? >> what do you think madam director. >> i'll recommend the 18th of february that's the soonest. >> does that work for all 3 parties. >> 18th of february. >> okay move to grant the rehearing request with a date of february 18th on the basis that a required brief was not

provided to the appellant. >> i qualify for manifested justice. >> yeah. a motion on the floor to grant the rehearing question and schedule it on the merits for february 18th on that motion to grant commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you the vote is had to zero this rehearing request is granted the original decision is set aside and rehearing of the merits with a brand new briefing schedule 3 thursday prior appellant and one thursday prior dpw. >> feel free to call our office

at the moment items abc they've be heard together 06 dash 132 and all filed by the rauven by the public works on effort street the first one has to do what the property anothers 1045 on broadway and the second on broadway and the third on broadway and all 3 are protesting the issuance on august 2006 of the permits to remove trees the first to charles one tree and the second to charles and joe and jots for a permit to remove one tree and another permit to charles to remove two trees please note on march 70 that 2007 the board voted to continue those matters

to the call of the chair of the negotiations between the parties let's hear from the agent you have 21 minutes for the appeals. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and board members my name is carr an rogers i sit on the design. >> one second immature to say i have to make a indicts closure i've hired ruben and julius but i can hear this cats and so a member of the board of russian hill neighbors i sit down on the design board and live one thousand yard away for od's of you who are not familiar i want to take a brief moment to give

background other than the setting i have a photo that shows the tree canopy of the trees in question the thousand block of broadway is 3 cul-de-sacks between jones and trailer streets the next to the north of va la from there one has a masking view of chinatown and the baton rouge and georgia daily by resident and visits alike and a popper site for filming movies it forms the southern boundary the vallejo on the national register since the 1980s a listing that was funded by an accomplished by the russian hill

neighbors it is characterized by it's important architecture and it's lush greenery it is a unique asset to the neighborhood and otherwise densely developed area of the city it is lined by the 40 trees in question part of the lines of the same species and canopy 8 years ago grant were permitted to remove those trees the refrain joined the neighborhoods vigorously appealed their removal the current board has reaffirmed that position that the trees should remain there are two main reasons given omi by the permit seekers and just to clarify two trees located on 1041 broadway and one and a half on 1059

broadway admin by one family would who's argument is enhanced onsz on the expense of moinz inmaintaining the trespassed and half of tree on 10 61 broadway a 3 unit condominium who's owners have stated they don't want to be liable for the trees during the intefrn years when the permits were issued the neighborhood decided not seek the removal surface we know by the arresting above the those have been followed reducing the canopies wind and ernest largo the babies and thoughtful pruning that will allow the

pruning to be done his conclusion at the time the trees can live a healthy life with many more years and as far it's conclusion was correct out special care he also recommended a special strength test to verify the strength of the trees the russian hill resident would help in the meantime over the past 8 years the trees have spoken eloquent of their desire to remain they have withstood the weather and this past fall the record breaking rainfall as tipping head noted they're a tough species we ask to meet with the owners have remunerated in no response and state concern no meeting can took place

without the concerns of the other we're aware your likely there are discussions underway at the board of supervisors level to change the city's current street tree policy with the city taking that responsibility rather than the property owners given the trees are thriving you would ask why remove them when the probability of revised tree policy adopted my resolve the liability factor that's an issue for the permit holders thank you for your time you'll next hear if russian hills current president. >> excuse me. ms. rogers. >> yes. >> as the only member of the board that will hear them this current board you folks were going to do a pool test but it was never done. >> it was not done and i was

not privy so that particular arrangement but in meeting the record it appeared neither the permit holders nor the board wanted it to be done. >> i thought it was volunteered by your association. >> we volunteered to help fund it it needed to be done as a collaborative efforts that's my understanding. >> okay. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and board members i'm erica the president of the refrain neighborhoods our mission to preserve and advance the quality of life through the collaboration volunteerism and celebration of community we seek to, a voice of russian hill it's never our desire to be involved in the individual neighbors

decision until we see they have a negative impact other than the overall quality of life in the neighborhood we continue to believe this is the case the permit that was granted 7 of 8 years ago the granting of the removal that the trees must be replaced by a box tree of the fast growing variety we building that ounce the trees are removed it will thwart the conditions of the growing therefore in the board upholds the permit - all right. i lost my place that we do respectfully ask it be occupied by an enforceable needs so make sure the

replanting is immediate and with all good faith it will reach the height and breath appropriate to the character this can be accomplished by posting a bond go requiring an underground root system, etc. i'll introduce a member of the russian hill neighbors. >> commissioner president lazarus board members i'm steve senior citizen e concerning directive a russian hill members board member my it that family has lived here 39 years the trees define the characterization of this entire block i saw a minute ago from carolyn rogers the photocopy from the top 6 broadway one of the most important viewing points of the city and those

trees play a role 90 in framing the neighborhood this will change the character dromowithin our block i can give you first hand account going back to 2005 a crew pulled up and started warming up chainsaws i asked them what we were doing they said they were going to duty cut down the trees they fled. >> several months ago the company is a large land company that owns a number of apartment builds i said why do you want to cut down those trees they said it's anti maintenance man he didn't like them i contacted him he started wailing about the fact he had to replace a sewer

pipe and he didn't like trees they're a nuisance he wanted to get rid of the trees and interesting enough the pipe he was going to replace was a hundred-year-old cast iron pipe i doubt he'll have to replace it again, the original permit was the only applicant what mosser and company for all 4 trees but as though the process half of the trees was on the property this 3 unit condominium building to the west at this point mosser maintenance man recruited feel to sign on to the permit even though they if have problems with the trees they'll on a view they without the possibility of parole enjoy outside of the

bayview and they signed on their stated reason is liability something they've decided that half a tree in front of which their property is going to fall down but obviously combaps the views is not a reason to give so they latched on to liability at carolyn pointed out the supervisors to relieve the folks of tree liability i ask you not grant this appeal bans liability if protecting one hundred-year-old pipes and enhancing views a reason to remove trees then street trees in the city can be removed and you'll set a president to doing

that arrest this permit mraks as dormant since 2007 i can give you more background on the pool test russian hill met with supervisor president wesson we consulted with redwood city they use the pool test to verify the health of the trees and at a arborist from the city in the discussion and president wesson kin offered to fund a truckload have to equip the pool test unfortunately after that there was a major collapse in the city's budget and that fund never materialized maybe i

that's why the pool test was never done this application has been dormant since 2007 other only awakened since cleaning out their cascades they contacted the parties and unfortunately reawakened reawakened issue i believe and if i'm wrong correct me if i am wrong the only party here are the individual from roughly the tree unit condominium building i don't think mosser has an interest in the process and representative from the mosser company they can set me straight but the maintenance man as

retire basically at this point the condominium owners wish to enhance their views those are magnificent trees it will take forever for them to regain their status i ask you not allow the trees to be cut down they're extremely healthy as the arresting above the report points out he made recommendations for simple measures to protect those trees for many decades to come thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the representative for the permit holder. >> mr. silverman.

>> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board david silverman on behalf of the approved including the mosser company first of all, thank you. the russian hill neighbors for coming tonight i'm very glad they're supportive of the trees and we also support the trees in the city no one favors any tree removed that's the history of the anti trees this gentleman said is not an issue tonight bureau of urban foresty said the trees are damaged and pose a threat to the public my clients will replace the trees with a sturdy quality carli short said

it is a threat to public safety to approve the question q request the trees are significantly damaged their verifyable data 3 arborists all disagreed with the russian hill neighbors consultant on his analysis going on from managerial we'll evaluate each tree separately and base our novels all four of the tries are black wood or cash they don't respond to grooming

and this species after the leaves have been cut we don't take removal lightly in light of the statements the fact the trees have survived for the last 8 years is in favor of the permit it is fortunate that'll they've laced that long but that didn't weigh in favor of the appellant their even bolder and more defective now, when the procedures started in 2008, now dpw had a hearing on the appeals filed by itself russian hill neighbors and the heros made her own reports she found the four trees in question with the defects and posed a hazard to public safety due to a

serviced amount of defects on the rooted they cause a public safety their have damaged bark and condone with the root pruning in order to get the sidewalk repair prone to failure the hearing office say they pose a danger we would like to safe all the trees those four are a potential hazard due to their current condition and in ku klux klan conclusion the hearing officer stated the situation has been brought to the attention which the city and now the city must make the situation