mr. pacheco. >> on that motion from commissioner fong to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda no arrest commissioner wilson thank you. the vote is 3 to one this rehearing is denied and the notice of decision shall be released. >> we're going to return to item 4 i know the requester is in the room to hear 926 garfield street this has been called ms. mar come up you have 3 minutes. >> hello the reason i asked for the rehearing because lilly was not here last time and we had

questions i presented evidence i wanted to relieve the room she's trying to discriminate against me she's trying to get a shortage unit so if the permanent results and applied as a room living in f it she is obligated to stay in the location i have no problem with her demolishing the room as long as she follows what she's supposed to do legally and 60 days to vacate she's obligated to give me a relocation she should she's applying for a permit to demolish a storage unit that's 23459 not what it is it's a room she's charged a

dopey presented everyday to that effect but you guys pretty much made your decision not to look at the second violation permit you ran through it and not posted it so that's why i'm asking for a rehearing and both parties are required to be here she wasn't here to preceded that's all i have to say. >> thank you. >> you went ahead and made our decision anyway, that's not fair. >> my name is lillyes have an i don't what ms. that is she's trying to accomplish she say, i served her with a 3 day notice

to pay rent or move she's noted paid rent for 2 months and i'm filing legal paper to enforce the eviction notice based on not payment of rent we're not talking about anything i'm just trying to i have a violation it took out the permits to correct the violation she wouldn't allow me to do so i'm asking the board to run state the permit to allow me to go ahead and make the corrections and then work with the planning department to legalize other you know other problems that might be there thank you i have copies of the eviction paper if you want to see

or we served her with the notice thank you. >> all right. okay. all right. thank you >> okay. any comment from inspector duffey you look like you're ready to get up. >> good evening commissioner joe duffy dbi just one thing on the brief i've read from the appellant she wasn't aware of the notice of violation and the sick amended notice was caused because of the first calling the notice of violations are available at dbi for mop to see you can you can look it up on line and there's a notice if you come down to the department of. >> sorry. >> i wanted to respond to that

item i read in the brief we do make them available to anyone that wants them. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners. >> different. >> the excuse me. the rehearing requester has not provided any you knew information i'm not prepared to have a rehearing. >> any other comment questions. >> move to deny it on the basis no new information has been provided. >> mr. pacheco call the roll please. >> there's a motion on the floor tb commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you

vote is 4 to zero this is denied and a notice of decision a shall be released. >> moving on to hayes valley the proposed on hate street the issuance to laguna, llc of a tree 2 privately maintained street trees we'll start with the agent of the appellant you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> you thank you very much for hearing this tonight my name is jay rosenberg the chair of the hayes valley association greening committee and i represent them as the appellant on behalf of the greening committee on the hayes valley

association had it appeal is protesting the removal of two tries on hayes there's numerous reasons to not permit the removal the numerous public value their that environmental benefits and economic gins their aesthetic beauty on the block of hayes street the public works and the city and county of san francisco recognize the importance value and the enforcement of street trees the planning department is promoting uttering and the known public value on hayes should not be dismissed they're more in a nundz they provide healthy environment for habitat and removing pollutant and reduce energy accumulation they should

not be overlooked san francisco prides itself on a beautiful city and time to uphold those privately held issues they provide the hayes valley neighborhood association has invested and tributed to the overall character and the shaving aesthetic tree street helps our local businesses to remove the two trees that's the commercial center of hayes valley will cause damage to the businesses and the property values it's worthwhile noticing the planning department references to promote the benefits of tree lined streets and the commission shouldn't

chop down those their ficus streets and the general species of failure indeed the species of concern 2k3wr5r7bd new focus on the details for the criteria for all those reasons this should not think cautioning in the second degree many of the recent failures in the city share a consistent characteristic the trees are suffer from long time neglect not the effect of the trees those trees could be preserved with the right trimming and the two trees are not sick or disadvantaged and not dying their tlaentdz by plans of construction on june to remove the trees the reasons was the construction of a new

building and the trees we are deemed healthy and stable and i had a few pictures i submitted to you and showed the difference between a pruned and unpursuant trees those trees were next to the trees on hayes were recently pruned in a manner to show 33 how they could, preserved on pages three and four as seen in the trees a recent pruning in a manner suggested should allow the trees to survive long after the construction mrs. notice the difference in the trees they enter face with the building on page 5

initial requester was rejected the requester remove two trees a condition of removal included with a 36 inch box tree it's our position the orderly trees the recommendations are insufficient we have already presented many benefits of the trees the corridor and the line shops is a thriving business district the benefits to wildlife habitat and pollutants from the air and reduced incur xhoumgsz the trees might office those but in the meantime it will be observed bits the merchant and visitor the replacement find new trees please consider the carbon monoxide removed from the atmosphere and stored in those

trees according to the research the project urban trees are maintained and larger trees store this year carbon and when we plant trees and replant a small trees we've shift did carbon in terms of storage a larger older try will concert carbon to one hundred and one hundred 50 pound of carbon monoxide per year and the new 36 box tree only a fraction over the next 15 years over the next 15 years the difference of 75 to one hundred and a plus is measurable as well as quantifyable the scraper hosts the urban trees those

trees serves metric tons of carbon and over 22 metric tons there's a value for the carbon as established 20 metric tons $14.3 million of storage and $1460 million every year the carbon is what we allows or losses the amount of carbon is not a small issue but the largest organizations on the globe are leading effort to remove carbon in the atmosphere the future survivability of the planet thank you. >> thank you. we hear frompermit

holder. >> good evening. i'm rob isaacson i'm with the ownership when is laguna hayes, llc i want to introduce marta fry are m f la we're fortunate to have marta as a our architect she's worked for us in the past and a long time resident in the past and responsible for the greening committee she knows this issue as well as anybody thank you. >> good evening marta fry i wanted to give a brief history of our tree application and appeals process that is eaten i'll go into more detail the proposed new 580 hating street the question was read the removal of two trees within our

sidewalk and public right-of-way the responsibility of the prove or disprove the adjacent prove or disprove i'm sure you're aware of we requested those be replaced with red maples we want to add more trees but feel appropriate trees this was primarily due to the condition of the fikdz trees permission to remove those trees was noticeably denied and this was the protection application we appealed dpw appeal denial and the department of urban forestry we considered their inspectors opinion and agreed those are trees were struggling come down

la print on an appeals hearing exhibits 3 outlining the reasons for the removal request i feel illustrating their intent on replanting twice the number of trees on the frontage as well as new trees on the other footages laguna and ivy street the subsequent site visit by beginning as well as the property owners new arborist report has a condition that replacement tries be 36 inch box size along the frontages that permit approval was appealed we're here to represent that the argument for the removal of those two ficus trees we're advocates of the healthy and gifted urban foresty streetscape

we're all in argument like the appellant court we're not questioning the benefits nor the goals by the city of san francisco it is those reasons we're asking for the removal upon the recommendations of our firm and i arborist this is do trees important structure as a relative to structural or suckle soil it's age and years of neglect and years of structural pruning the assessment of the trees is bookend not only my professional experienced but supported by an independent consulting arborist the ficus trees in san francisco are not loud for replanting we've seen this last storm assault weapon numerous flurlz causing dame the

property owners don't accept the risk or the responsibility in essence their inheriting trees in poor condition and the yearly pruning of the knapp can occur it is eir reversible and they represent a potential liability and should be replaced with the trees with narrow sidewalks in hayes valley and a heavily traffic pedestrian and commercial street that will provide the correct memoranda support so for short term and long-term will provide irrigation for long term tree growth without compromising pedestrian passage

we assert the appellants premise is ill-informed and didn't look at the subject trees as part of healthy urban forestry we believe in replacing those potentially discerns trees with other trees we're improving the urban forestry and the streetscape as rob isaacson mentioned i was one of the members of the greening committee and some of the appellants and the speakers we share a similar commitment for greening hayes valley we analyzed the entire hayes valley district and analyzed the trees and look at it parks and expansion and soil and snippet and alleys this was very much part of the process as my firm is doing 5 proximate causes

projects if the immediate area those trees are not corrective and the site vital by chris buck after the dbi appeals hearing deemed those trees structurally unsound the appellate has not gotten qualified opinions that is spinal to counter dbi's assessment they have not brought up my new issues and suggested an alternative that suggests the comprehensive review and the basis of our opinion on the viability of the trees in question pr rather than maintain trees in decline and trees with are structurally come down and

fought with viable we have more costing option it is a more thoughtful streetscape for future generations thank you. >> i have a few questions so i see the replacement size are 36 box it looks like this is all the tree replacements. >> that's correct. >> on the species that your replacing with what is the time estimate to reach the current height of the trees that your replacing now. >> we don't know we want them to reach the hielth of the trees right now. >> what will the growth pattern be. >> the growth pattern we have the rendered plan i'll see i'll

say the plan is 6 to seven years. >> in your belief you've noted some of the trees have been hit by buses and other vehicles how do you know those trees one way or the other won't suffer that. >> it has a different structure in form had been a more difficult form appropriate for very 7 to 8 foot sidewalk how do we police that we can't trees can be hit that i buses there's a curb when you get street trees that are pruned to be limped up but you want to keep lower branches so normally street stredz are stacked with a

3 stake system no guarantee against the risks of people driving over sidewalks and curb. >> the final question is the document you've shown would take seven years where your illustrate and if you go to a 48 box how long. >> we'll be 2 years ahead. >> great, thank you. >> i have a question diagram that shows the plan on laguna and ivy some are new and some replacement. >> that's correct they're not replacements their alleged we've got magnolia trees with or that are laguna on a wider street an laguna we're replacing in kind with the same magnolia on the boulevard. >> and your adding.

>> we're not adding we're keeping the magnolias and adding more magnolias and ivy street is part of the alley we've started to establish another our project on 450 hayes. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners chris buck with the public works urban forestry i'll outline a come up of items in the brief we've provided at the hearing on november 24th last year in precipitation for the hearing we evaluated the two ficus trees both trees had poor structure at the time of the hearing due to

an going health of the ficus and the limb flurdz we were finalizing the guidelines guidelines which were going to be issued so the same day of the hearing on november 24th-hour public works issued titled tree removal. ficus the orders outlines the concerned about the species pattern of flurdz and have large mature ficus adjacent to 580 hayes street with the stems with the bark are prone to experiencing large limb failures they have poor structure with limbs that included the barbara total of 6 photos i'll put on the overhead

this image is subject tree number one and what i wanted to point out on this image on the rhetoric the main litter to the right has 3 items with points of told them and two main stems with the attachment was constituent with the bark the stems in the rear has a indicator and two stems attached below that plant i believe that's a poor attachment and this is close up image of that union as you can see there's a indicator with decay within that wound and two pogsdz of the stem extend this is the rear tree number one showing the included bark and the attachment where we're seeking the trees

typically fail and tree number 2 to the west has co-.com in what capacity leaders one injury above the injury have two stem that are joined this stem needs to be removed if the tree is retightened there's multiply co-leaders in tree number 2 this image there is a hook or sweep in the stem with that litter going out over the rod and another behind that this 1 stem ocean boulevard enough has two stems off of it is an unusual tree structure this image here is at the back of the tree towards the building and this stem those 20 stems have a narrow point of attachment so the two ficus trees have poor

structure both of the fikdz have disadvantaged the sidewalk and the property owner will be responsible inform repair the sidewalk and the permit to replace the trees is typically a requirement where the construction is take place if the trees were retained the sidewalk will need to be repair their 3 by 5 circles and that's 6 feet by 9 the sidewalk is 12 feet wide and that expanding the trees will reduce the pedestrian through zone to 6 foot wide and this block as heavy traffic is at the staff level to recap we believe the approval the permit to you approve the permit was a reasonable approval and public works request that the board of

appeals deny the appeal and uphold this will remove the trees that the project object the relocated and the trees in all 3 frojdz be a minimum 36 box containers thank you. >> mr. buck what would you guess is the percentage of ficus street trees in our city. >> the percentage there's a lot of ficus but the overall percentage is not that great there's no way to be close to 5 percent it has to be less than that we have 5 thousand street trees i'll say 5 to 8 percent ball park guess. >> does that seem to be in some areas more - i seem to recall

theiry're mostly on the east side that's correct before me we have a thoroughfare hiding street and mission hill and towards coit tower and individual owners throughout the city more than on the earner half of the city a number in the gentle hayes valley neighborhood last question there's there was a i guess a couple of limb failures on oak street were they ficus. >> oak street has a number of large ficus failures we've been looking at ficus trees along