as a representation of the board will not have any effect on my representation. >> good evening, members of the board, tom tunney ruben juniors and rose, the property manager. we are the appellants. we applied for a tree permit. it's described as a tree removal. it's incorrect. we are requesting a tree replacement. i will talk about that more in a moment. the staff originally recommended approval of the permit and then a hearing was requested by neighbors and after the hearing, then the bureau denied the appeal and we have now appealed

that decision to this board. we submitted our papers. i don't want to go over what the content of these papers. i want to emphasize a few significant facts that go to the heart of this matter. these are big beautiful trees. ten trees in front of the office building into one sphere. they are nearing their normal life expectancy. they are a significant asset. no one appreciates them more than the property owner. the trees have become a significant problem. by history of bureau of urban forestry their planted in underground planters. the planters extend under the sidewalk down to the

underground parking garbage. if you are in the garage you can see the planters coming down. these planters severely restrict the growth of the trees root ball. this makes the trees very unstable. our arborist has concluded. he's here if there are any questions. this has been made unstable and can topple. this risk is real. there are steel rings outside the trees that provide some stability, but the trees have out grown the rings and now it's caused what's called gurgling and restricted the flow of water and roots. a girdle tree, again, according to our arborist can die from lack of water. the tree roots are pushing out

of the tree boxes. they have no where else to grow. they are pushing up and damaging the sidewalk. they are also damaging the boxes themselves which could cause damage to cars below. it's a significant risk and they are real. our arborist and civil engineer has provided conclusions and analysis supporting the fact that these risk exist. another important fact here is that the liability for these risks lies solely with the property owner. the neighbors have no liability if something happens with these trees nor does the city. i submit if the property owner is by code responsible for all of the liability that the trees in any damage the trees could cause whether that's by toppling on sidewalk

damage or damage to the garage, then the property owner should be afforded some reasonable aggression. with that in mind, we have submitted streetscape enhancements. i would like to show you an image now. the property owner is proposing a replacement of those trees with 19 new trees. 6 trees at the front near the street where the existing streets are and 13 olive trees and planters closer to the building. the trees closer to the street are slightly smaller than the existing trees but they are still significant an they have to be smaller because of the condition of the planter boxes, this is a

circumstance that has to be corrected now and for the current property owner and future property owners. with that, i will conclude my remarks. as i mentioned we have the arborist here to answer any questions. thank you for your consideration. >> the trees in your rendering are what size? these i believe 25-30 feet tall at full growth, but i can have the arborist confirm that. >> not as you plant it? >> no. we are open to options and willing to discuss the trees

that are planted and the size at the time and how big they would eventually be if that would help achieve some resolution. >> hello, my name is ray -- i'm the consulting arborist. the new trees that we are suggesting by way of my arborist report is a 36 inch box specimens. the nursery stock size standpoint, not the mature size. the size upon planting. the low limbs would have to be above pedestrian heights because there is lots and lots of foot traffic there as well as deliveries and vehicles. we would have to have that eight foot clearance on the sidewalk side as a minimum and then with the crown

above that, on 36 inch box trees having somewhere around 14 feet height on planting. we have two renderings. this is actually one of them. one of them shows what the tree would like like shortly after planting within 3- 5 years after planting and the other one is at maturity. this is showing the trees at maturity for your clarification. we don't want to dissolution anyone about what would be going in. we do believe that smaller stature trees are of critical importance. the container size that we are working with in terms of a total growing space is only 6-foot by

6-foot growing sole about 3 feet. the current diameter and structure that is large enough that the normal mechanical root zone, or structural root zone for the streets should be twice the distance provided by those containers. let's say we did a sidewalk repair, we removed the scale rings and took the sidewalk out. that is all structural, it's part of the roof of the underground part of this building. and if we remove that, then we have potted plants that are in small containers relative to their above ground biomass. we have a very realistic concern that they would fall over because of the lack of

lateral support roots. so, the new trees will be smaller in stature but for a very good reason and it's a structural reason. and no contractor seems to be interested in removing concrete or any other structure that is holding up these trees because there is a tremendous liability for them having those fall down. i tend to concur with that. i know dpw has said otherwise. but the engineer seems to agree with me. >> how long to get the full growth? >> how long? i suggested to put in what we consider a medium size tree by dpw size standards. they have a plant guide small, medium and large. the trees we would put in there are considered large and they are going to be a faster growing tree being

a large tree. so you will get a couple feet of growth of year on the large species and a foot on the small species. if you start at 14-15 feet, maximum, maybe 12 feet is more realistic. what would consider here about 5 years. you have something that reaches maturity and 40 feet in another 20 years. that's more sustainable size tree. that's what we are seeking. we don't have anyway to improve the growing conditions in this situation. normally we could expand basins in this condition. >> what about the size of the

olive trees? >> the olive trees would be in containers and i believe they are about 2 feet across. i don't know a lot about a design element on that. but they are concrete containers. i do know that first of all olive trees are from the middle east, and the northern mediterranean countries and being from these droughtey areas they are drought tolerant and low water use plants. from what i have read in briefs is that there are concerns about drought and planting trees during a drought. these are drought tolerant. and it's my understanding from cushman and wait field that these pots have a water recycling system with a sigh --

in terms of the size, they fill the first story. but again it's something we can work with staff on the ideas for a bigger or smaller olive tree. >> so the issue primarily is the removal of the tree, not the addition of the olive trees, correct? >> i think the removal of the olive trees and the possibility of not putting in ten trees back are on this issue. but the commitment as i read is that there is the pledge to replace the trees. the replacement is six street trees at the edge of the sidewalk where the current trees are located and in addition to that, the olive

trees recessed closer to the building. 13 of those. >> has there been an offer to relocate the trees that are being uprooted? >> i don't believe that would be a practical or feasible issue. typically that would require over excavation to box up something and move it. in this case we have the building structure that is already boxing the trees. so we don't have anywhere to get around the root system to retain the trees and keep them healthy. i don't think that would be a feasible thing. >> mr. tunney? have there been any claims based on incidents involving these trees? >> so like somebody on the sidewalk or in the garage, any claims made to the property? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. thank you.

>> thank you. we can hear from the department. >> i thought you had a different job now. >> i will never leave the trees behind. >> good to see all of you. good evening commissioners. carla short urban forestry division. i don't want to repeat much of what was said but we did move to deny these trees in part because of the concern expressed by our neighbors at our department level hearing. also because there was a misunderstanding at the staff level about any damage and were there any damage to the planters. it's

none uncommon but unique in the situation. we have seen this in the downtown area where there are parking structures where there are vaults created with street trees. when there has been damage reported we see the vaults themselves show signs of cracking. you see water leaking and some sign of damage. the staff who made the determination to initially approve the removal of these trees had been led to believe there was in fact damage to the vault. i think based on the experience of the hearing officer and urban forester and after reviewing the engineer's report there is a lot of discussion about potential problem with these trees and the vault but not any evidence that i'm aware of with actual problems. there was a lot of concern from the neighbors expressed about the removal of the trees. the

damage to the sidewalk is very minimal. i do not think it's characterized as extensive. it appears to be constrained to the area immediately around the planter. so our recommendation of course is to remove the structure that is starting to girdle the trees but so far it's minimal. if those o rings are removed. the trees will recover from that. before a tree dies from girdling it has to impact the flow of water to the canopy of the trees. so to just address a few points that were raised. you know, i do understand that the property owner does bare the liability for these trees. we are not aware of any issues thus far and i have to just question the liability as their primary

concern because there are other trees and planters around the other side of properties where they did not take a recent renovation and they did not remove those trees. while i speculate to me there is an interest in showing off their new renovation which is very nice which is why they are seeking not to replace four of the ten trees. generally our practice has been that we won't remove a tree for some problem that hasn't yet occurred unless we feel it's a really clear imminent structure flaw that we feel is a strong predictor that that problem is likely to occur. also to characterize if it's a hazard tree is not accurate again. if we saw structural flaws within the canopies of these trees, that would be predictably a potential failure point then we might characterize them as hazard

trees. they are larger given the expected soil volume given to them. typically what we see with soil volume constraints is stunted growth or problems with the canopy. our concern here is we have healthy trees. if in the future we saw a decline then at that point we would agree that they have fully used up the soil available to them and at that point we would consider they are unstainable and they would continue to decline. but based on the information presented at the hearing and our subsequent site visit where we saw no evidence of any real problems with the planters, the department determined to deny the application to remove these ten trees and we request that you uphold our decision. >> would it be satisfactory if

the appellant was replacing all the trees instead of 6 of the 10? >> i think that, well, certainly we would request that if the appeal is granted that more than just ten trees should be planted because i don't feel those olive trees provide the same level of community benefit. >> what i'm saying if tree for tree, same location removing the existing, if indeed they are problematic if indeed they are potentially imminently causing going to cause damage or cause harm, would you feel that it be acceptable to replace all of the trees as they stand today with a different rate of trees or the recommended tree? >> i would like to hear if there is a recommended species. i didn't see anything in the brief. i don't

know if i missed it or if it has not been recommended. the departments perspective that we would still wish to see these trees retained until we have some indication there is a problem. >> thank you. >> the canopies are kind of sparse. is that the detail of the species on lack of root? >> i would say it might be a little bit of competition because the trees are planted somewhat close together and species didn't appear to us that it was any sign of decline in the canopy which we might expect to see for the soil volume issue. the canopies appear vigorous but they are a little bit more open. >> i have got a question as well. the permit holder has claimed that these trees are at the end of their

life cycle. what is the average life of this particular species and where are these trees along that line? >> right. i will always avoid giving a life span for a tree particularly in an urban condition because as i have stated at times before this board previously, there are so many factors that would affect the life span of a tree. i will acknowledge that after a fast growing species, the trade off is that it's not as long lived. it's my understanding these trooes have been in the ground for 30 years. i don't believe that 30 years is the max for these species but we are dealing with a number of constraints even just in the urban condition much less in an underground planter. >> the last question the girdling being caused by the rings and they are partially supporting the trees.

if the rings are removed would that cause more liability for safety? >> it is not believed that the o rings are supporting the trees. it is our recommendation that the o rings be carefully removed to prevent any further girdling which i would emphasize is minor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward? >> public speaker: good afternoon, i'm bree demand. the long time neighborhood of the area living 22 plus years approximately half a block away and for part that have period i had my office directly across the street from 201 sphere street. as a result i'm very familiar with these trees as i walk by them virtually daily and sometimes more

than once a day. i believe in your review of the record in this matter, you will conclude that there is not been any demonstrated need for the request of the appellants to remove these trees. there is no hazard which has been shown, let alone the imminent hazard to person or property that is required to justify the removal of the trees under the city ordinance. as the acting urban forester expresses in his brief on behalf of the respondent. everybody agrees these are beautiful trees. if you have seen any photographs of them you would have to agree. he called them big beautiful trees. the arborist for the appellant called them a beautiful row of trees. and they are spectacular. they are far and away the

most mature and beautiful trees in what is becoming a more and more residential neighborhood. as a result they are to use mr. tunney's term, a significant asset to the neighborhood. and the general importance of trees to the city has been noted in the letter from the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods which urges you to support the order of the dpw in this matter. that letter is attached as exhibit a to the letter which mr. osgood and myself both attended the hearing on this matter as submitted as found by the dpw and the hearing officer and the acting urban forester following a visit to the site. they actually visited the site as

they indicate in the order. there is no significant damage to the sidewalk. they have also noted there is no significant damage to the planters. in so far as liability is concerned, it is a potential liability but no issue it will be. the real reason this request is being made is not for any hazard but for marketing reasons. that it would improve the appeal of the building. they have not asked that seven streets on howard street which are similar planters in similar condition they have not asked for those trees to be removed. >> sir, your time is up.

>> all right. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> public speaker: hi, commissioners. david oz with rincon neighbors. they have 20 trees altogether. they are just in -- inclined to remove 10. as they are a hazard of some kind. the other ten in the same planters on the sidewalk and they have made no effort to remove those. i believe there is also photographs in your

package showing the planters from beneath. you can see them from the garage and there is no hint of any water damage or cracking at all. so to consider removing these trees would just be a travesty. i would remind you, in fact the appellant states that there must be an imminent danger. i am imminent is likely to incur. that's not what's happening now. these trees have been there over 30 years. these have withstood every wind storm that comes along. we tend to forget that

and just this last winter we had several big wind storms. these trees have gone through these for 30 years. that means they have gone through a hundred of these severe wind storms that we get occasionally and there is no evidence that one of the 20 has ever caused a problem of any kind. the grades have all been removed. i would ask you to not kill these 10 trees. one other point, the fact that they are going to replace these other 6. that has

never been posted. isn't that legally required. when they posted this, they said they were going to replace all ten. so the fact that they are replacing only six has never been posted for the public. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? please step forward. >> public speaker: good evening, commissioners, i'm keith barda. a live about a block away. for about ten 10 years i have enjoyed these trees. as said earlier today, this is really becoming a really new urban residential neighborhood and this is one of the few places really west of golden gate park that is the most beautiful canopy of trees and i purposely walked through that area to enjoy those trees

all four seasons long. they are beautiful trees. it would be a travesty to have these torn down and have to wait 20 years for something 1/3 of it's size. i looked at the arbor day foundation and they truly are another expert like the dpw over trees and say that mature trees contribute to our health and office workers watt view of trees report significantly less stress and satisfaction of their job. one provides oxygen for four people and one mature tree will produce carbon dioxide for 100,000 miles. trees will also reduce crime. in san francisco it has been a tree designation for years. i would ask you to not have these trees destroyed. tha