Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 17, 2014 6:00am-6:31am PDT

6:00 am
ed indication i didn't hear anythingful from the requester naefts that leads me to do that. >> it's not brief. >> okay. >> it wasn't that clear it would be a better brief. i have one last question what did you recommend we do >> who wants to come up first? >> obviously being a impartial the way i look like it there's evidence and san burn and there's questions there has to be questions about the building so i'd say indemnify a chance to file an appeal and let's look at that it is what it is and if
6:01 am
there's more documents out there i want to see the assessors records there maybe other things there's 5 in the front as well and the market is right. i saw a photograph the entrance it looks like a two unit building. >> that's part of the hearing. >> exactly. >> if the commissioners decide. >> just to follow up when where i was going if the request has not been filed planning and the other departments won't have recognized this. >> we having would have begun and done our inspections then we could look at it and resend the permit to see if it's issued in error that's another thing
6:02 am
people request and you're right we would have just inspected it. >> something to add mr. sanchez. >> all right. i renew my motion to grant the jurisdiction question. >> we have a motion to grant the jurisdiction request. on that motion. commissioner fung arrest commissioner hwang. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 5 to zero the jurisdiction is grand and she now has a 5 day appeal period and this ends this coming monday. >> thank you. >> this coming monday. >> okay. we'll move on to item
6:03 am
67 the next stacey versus the urban forestry protesting the issuance on march 6 to the orthodox of a tree removal permit to receptionist two privately maintained trees. starting with the appellant you have 7 minutes >> hi i'm stacey we're representing in response 10 homeland security on the street at the 299 valencia street as concerned folks post of the case orthodox foundation we ask the board it the destruction of those trees is not necessary for the fruittion the church wants to see this done to reduce their
6:04 am
costs this has nothing to do with the safety of the community and we shouldn't have to have the loss of those trees. the first argument the trees presented choke places for the mrufrm it's the trees if they're preserved they'll have to do the smaller section and delay their projects and extend the number of days the vehicular and pedestrian project will not delay this on steven king street that's extremely low traffic. as seen in the briefs furthermore the concrete for the function of the parking lot authority harassing has been poured with the trees intact.
6:05 am
we have pictures of that as well. there is more than adequate space for trucks not to be blocking the traffic on the street this is only a reason to cut down the property. all the steel will be delivered on valencia street and lifted by crane they claim the trees need to be removed in order to have the 50 feet of structural elements are that the churches brief and the letter and sketch from the contractor they lack the construction site in the trees are preserved also i called osha to see if there's a problem and didn't say they think there would be. the church is capable of having the crane on the construction
6:06 am
site and lift the trees safely. there's two traffic parking and turn lanes there's enough space to reroute the traffic. the act it's less convenient but the neighborhood shouldn't have to suffer the loss for a private entity. there's also a third argument i'd like to present. >> i'm also a resident at the 380, 14th street the argument is they're going to be replacing the trees with additional trees that don't exist yet so they're to try to show you they care of about the urban forestry but the code they discuss the loss and recommend of trees it states if
6:07 am
the allows the trees with an equivalent replacement value is in the place of removed trees if the board feels it's envelopes to replace the trees it will include the trees 25 to 8 feet tall. and have can percent that are at least 26 feet in diameter. so far the church has included the size of the tree box and they'll speak about the size for the trees that are going to be removed if they're removed. and the additional trees that the churches is proposing to put in around the alley it has
6:08 am
extremely low pedestrian traffic. i'm wondering in the san francisco urban forestry ordinance part of the purpose of it the says it green spaces are vital to the san francisco life and bring boost to our residential sites and enhance the overall character how does this going to be done by putting trees on the side streets by cutting down two mature and healthy trees on the highly trafficked commercial corridor of valencia. eaten furthermore, if the church is stating how they're good about taking care of the
6:09 am
community property in the past i want to show that the street in august of 2013, the department of public works they oishld a fine to the church for topping 10 trees and effectively he removing all branches and those are the trees trying to good back they've levied the trees. so i would urge the bona fide before to consider that and do - 23 it is mauptd that the trees are cut down they provide for guidance in terms of size and subpoenas of the trees their replaced with >> thank you. okay. we can hear from the spit holder >> >> before he states i'll make a disclosure any daughter
6:10 am
attends school across the street but won't effect my decision. >> commissioners i'm john goldman of goldman architects the architects for the cathedral. could we get this open the screen. great. so the - oh, okay. so you see a drawing that was approved by planning and drawing and prauptd by dpw and the urban forestry. there's been no changes on the alley those are light green trees we're putting 7 new ones but the issue today is what's happening on valencia street. the tree in red we weren't originally removed but they want to replaced because of disease. those are the two trees with 3
6:11 am
large trees. the appellant failed to note the reason we're removing it two this is the curb cut of the driveway it services the underground gag so we can't get into leaving the garage you'll be hitting the trunk of the tree we're going to plant a new tree a few feet of the west out of the curb cut and with a tree not as large and this tree didn't exist so there will be a new tree and we're proposing to
6:12 am
remove that. there's massive steel there's beams 50 feet long we're talking about huge steel we can't get that off the site without cranes. this shows one swing system and they require those two trees to be gone the concrete is to stop water from coming up the soil that's a mud slab there is no in structural concrete poured that's massive pumping rigs and two at once taking up the whole street yes, we're rovm them and
6:13 am
are not those are huge trees we don't want to see mature trees in front of a church and now we want to see huge trees we want big trees but the fixing us species is not only approved if we remove those would won't be allowed to put those species back they destroy sidewalks we'll plant an approved species and by one of the tree open the east literally we can't get out of the garage there's no question so the other one interferes with building so we're taxiing taking anti 2 owe putting in 3 and all the trees in the alley so i think their paying attention to the urban
6:14 am
forestry that's why they approved it. there was talk about stevenson it's narrow we get the cranes there we have to vw have the cranes even though up in front of valencia street so those tree removals t are necessary one the the east to get in the cranes and the west the construction requirement. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> did you say that one of the two is diseased. >> yeah. >> no, not one the two. >> that's what i want clarification. >> let me see the red one is diseased and actually, we weren't going to remove that it
6:15 am
is diseased but we're going to replace that it shipping so that's much bigger than the one we're going to put the two trees that are huge that one doesn't exist there so there's more trees in there. >> the structural steel is for the roof structure. >> for the framing of the church and the doom of the church dome. >> so when you mentioned the 70 foot span that's for the roof structure isn't it and the 70 foot is it 70 or 55 are 68 feet. >> for the roof structure.
6:16 am
>> right. >> and what evaluation. >> about 50 feet the dome starts so we have a 50 photo right here so we're talking about 50 foot treess here about 50 by 50 central square it supports the dome about a 50 foot dome. >> so did you see the appellants pictures rewarding h regarding the current trees. >> yeah. in my office we were upset about that somebody without permission did that. so >> you the church didn't higher to trim the trees. >> i know it was some church
6:17 am
member that hacked them. >> we were very upset. >> next question if there's that's the way your teaching of the trees you're the way the church it taken care of of them how can you have 3 trees. >> on valencia on stevenson was ridiculous those trees have been there since 1995 never a problem i think it happened they didn't consult with me. >> very much arrest. >> thank you, ms. short.
6:18 am
>> good evening commissioners carla short department of public works i don't have too much to say we agree with both sides it's usual unusual the two trees were denied by staff because of the condition those two trees were the microscopes of the department of public works not the church. they are healthy and have structural issues we denied them at the staff level, however, the hearing officer was presented with information about the construction needs and he felt they were suv convinced the trees were in the way of the project so the permit to remove the trees was granted subject to replacement with a anytime 60
6:19 am
inch box tree that's about a large of a tree into this location. so and i'm glad to hear the church wants to put large trees and they're required to if the permit it up held. that's the departments best effort to mitigate the public but we agree the loss of those two trees is substantial 60 inch trees is a good replacement it won't be 35 to thirty feet tall but depending on the species it would be 20 to 25 feet tall >> can you confirm i asked the tree be removed. >> yes. there that tree was in decline. >> your approved list of trees. >> well, i would submit that
6:20 am
the brisbane box on valencia is the fixing us fast growing. >> i have a question so if past when this board has allowed the development to remove trees and promise an "x" amount of trees and the utility water and cable and phone they're unable to replant those trees has our department suv gone over the plans to make sure that isn't going to happen. >> i know state with conversation the replacement of boxes trees theirs sufficient room and as well as the third it tree. i have to admit the third tree the additional tree their proposing on valencia i don't think we've vested that the
6:21 am
third tree would be an additional tree and it seems like every time they do that they can't do it because of a power line and phone so i think - >> yeah. >> i'd like it question answered personally. >> i'll get back to you on that. >> thank >> thank you. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, we have rebuttal you have 3 minutes. >> so i'd like to first address the access to the garage the proposed garage i add it is here where they're proposing it on valencia street and this is tree number one as referred to in our
6:22 am
belief. they say they must cut down but at the original hearing he spoke to them they've looked additional options off stevenson street they want that because of the parking garage the community you shouldn't losses the trees because of a few center parking spaces. i'd like to address the crane swing we only got this one diagram of where the crane is located. but when telephones up here he showed you another option for the crane in the middle right here. which would provide a swing you know all the way around this way. so i want to say we're not here
6:23 am
to be unreasonable so the compromise needs to be made we care about the exultant so it's absolutely necessary to remove one of the trees we would request that the one closer to our building maintain the one where the area where they want to put the driveway and there's adequate restroom room for the swing of the crane theirs 82 feet ton their side to the tree well, for tree number one and give, you know, 13 feet for the canopy because its 26 feet that's 69 feet of working space and at the end of the day it's a
6:24 am
convenience at the could bring them into steve son street or pour the parking lot before we put in the crane and have the mobility of the entire area to build it's only for their convenience i ask you take into account it's a private entity >> thank you rebuttal from the permit holder. >> i'm an architect i do know as much as they know they contractors say they can't make the cranes work with the trees there, and, secondly, the tree on the east closest to the building i understand they want to keep that but that's the one that's in the curb cut of the
6:25 am
criteria so leading down from the graerg also not true that an entrance from steve son would loss spaces an entrance from stevenson doesn't loss spaces there's only reasons on valencia street through hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction and fees we've studied stevenson but didn't have a loss of spaces. basically, you know, there will be a short time no trees but bend we're down there will be 3 trees and a fourth replacing a diseased trees a short period of time it seems the street is not as nice but we're going to
6:26 am
replace those with big trees >> happy to answer any more questions. >> whoever spent hundreds of thousands of dollars designing the property project for the trees were they take into account. >> yes. >> it sounds like i don't have a good understanding you glazed over why the entrance to the parking can't happen on stevenson. >> it's happening on valencia actually, the main thing when you enter the building the client wants to enter off a nice street instead of a teeny he stevenson we're talking about a lot of traffic. stein son is extremely narrow talking about sunday mongers and overloading the teeny street 0
6:27 am
so from a traffic standpoint we didn't think and some other people in planning agreed it was a lot of load on stevenson it's a tiny narrow student and another thing it used to be the policy when we first designed that that the department would let you remorseful one tree automatically in the way you have a driveway. apparently that policy is no longer the day but when we got our approved permit no one said heaving john your removing a tree because of the driveway no it's a given maybe it's changed but upper given would be tree removal >> i'm assuming there is no no course to the curb cut. >> your creating a curb cut.
6:28 am
>> oh, i don't understand. >> it's a new curb cut but i was saying. >> a new curb cut to replace. >> yeah. it was about 20 feet to the west it replaces the existing curb cut that will be a curb. >> yeah. >> i see what you're saying and i have nothing further. >> thank you hear from ms. short any rebuttal ms. short? >> carla short i don't have much to add i thought clarify i've been a urban forester for most but i don't know when the plans where we've never had a policy to remove a tree when
6:29 am
there's a driveway i'm sure in my 10 years, in fact, when in a basing boss had the prior position we'd try to prevent the removal of a tree we'd get a return to this body or at the departmental hearing but never a policy a given you can take out a tree for a driveway. >> commissioners the matter it submitted. >> i guess i'll start. never been a huge fan of the fixing us and we've had many, many fixing >> but i'm concerned about i'd like to see did trees replaced with more trees that don't
6:30 am
industry the roots or sidewalks but at the same time, i want to make sure they are held accountability to put the 3 trees in there that's my thinking at this point >> actually, i like fixing us that show us how everybody is different. based on the pragmatic the reasons they've brought forward i expect two but not all the issue the driveway is one i mean, i'll accept his rational for the steel elements i don't accept his concrete