are you aware of i.m.p. that the -- any i.m.p.'s that haven't been accepted? >> additional and her mission might be asked for, and even the most controversial one, you would think that there's would be challenged or not accepted. i don't understand it. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. i think one could argue correctly that the city has been very restrained in pursuing enforcement against the academy. and have made steps towards compliance and removing signs from buildings. they have begun to perceive the environmental impact report. he wanted to continue to encourage that. this is just a small drop in the bucket. the 36 properties that they currently own or operate, we had enforcement issues thought about 2/3 of them. this is one property of the many that they have better in noncompliance. we made it very clear to the academy that we will not accept this anymore. we will not condone them to simply changing the use of property where the authorizations are required. that is why we issued the notice of violation and we believe the board should uphold it. i.m.p. d. -- the i.m.p. requirements, they have this transportation network that runs parallel to the city's transportation system. people have complained they have seen buses around the city with only one or two people on that. -- on it. it has been an understanding between the city in the academy that the path towards compliance would be filing the environmental impact report and getting that environmental review completed. and get the transportation study completed. it would become part of the i.m.p. we would have something that is sufficient and we can move forward with that. we can move forward with the land use entitlements. it takes up to two years to have an environmental impact report. they submitted there's more than two years ago. -- theirs more than two years ago. respectfully, i request that they all pulled the violation. -- the borard uphold the violation. >> the matter is before you. >> the issue before us is appealing a notice of violation of penalties. because the academy of art university is operating at46 4560 townsend without conditional use authorization. and there is the i.m.p. the first part is irrefutable. we could talk about whether or not the process has been fair and reasonable, and two points had to deal with the issue of receiving from someone in planning a note or something stating that the basic requirements have been met. the language would suggest that not all of the requirements have been met. there were three other things, i can't remember what those were, i think it was enforcement, transportation, and a third thing that was being asked. the other issue has to do with technical aspects of that, whether or not the hearing was closed. the hearing is not closed when the additional information has been asked for. i feel comfortable with the fact the basic requirements having to do with i.m.p. have been met. i am not going this a a thatau -- to say that aau acted impishly. [laughter] >> i'll go. i concur with commissioner garcia, that the issue for us is the conditional use. the appellant is asking the us towei weigh in on years of a process and make a judgement as to whether the i.m.p. is acceptable. whether there is a concern -- a concerted effort to get the c.u. i can't talk about that with the amount of and permission we have and not within the timeframe we have been dealing with the specific case. it has not been refuted that the underlying the zoning in this particular location allows for educational use. therefore, i find that the planning department's decision is appropriate at this point. president peterson: i agree with what has been said. >> i am accustomed to master plans and the reviewing them. they look more like a constitutional document. if we were going to do with the appellant asks us, the file would be bused to occur than this. -- much thicker than this. it feels uncomfortable to talk about the i.m.p. or anything else because it is a limited issue. i concur with my colleagues that the violation was found properly. >> i so move that we uphold the department and its n.o.v.p. >> that there is no error. >> thank you. >> on that motion from commissioner garcia, on the basis that the zoning in administrator did not error. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner goh: aye. president peterson: aye. >> commissioner hwang is absent. it is upheld. president peterson: we can move to item number seven. >> we have to continue. >> item number 7, david and gail oc'conner -- o'conner. the appeal of the nile of free removal permits order #17813. president peterson: you have seven minutes. >> good evening, president peterson. we reviewed an application to remove one significant tree. under the public works co, they are trees on private property that also meet -- and they are located within 10 feet of the public right of way. those criteria are trees with height of 23 feet or greater. in diameter measured at 12 inches or greater. they must meet only one of those three criterion, but then must be located within 10 feet. the application reason for the removal permit request was an unbalanced canopy in the signs of -- and signs of rot. based on the inspection of the tree, the department believes that the primary risk of hazzard from the street would be limb failure rather than root failure. reasonable people can disagree, and the tree house high failure potential for uprooting. the greatest risk comes from limb failure. there are two reports. the only way to eliminate all hazard would be removal. the department believes that mitigation of the most likely potential failure can be achieved through pruning and monitoring of the tree which is why the department denied the permit. and removal of dead limbs of the tree. i just have one comment in the brief, the annual inspection was in response to the appellant's assertion that if you have to do at an annual inspection, there is something wrong with the tree. we recognize that this tree is very large and it has some structural concerns. we are recommending that it could be preserved if properly pruned. we are also advising that it be monitored on an annual basis to try to ensure that there is no risk to public safety. it doesn't mean you have to do work on an annual basis other than having it much heard by a certified arborist. with those provisions, the tree could be preserved without compromising public safety and the removal permit was denied. in the event that the board find otherwise and would grant removal, we would request that a large replacement treaty required and also would reach a large stature at maturity. it is not a tree that will give substantial -- that will reach a substantial majority >> appendix b, the last paragraph says -- you have that in front of you? they are not sure what to recommend here. >> it is an internal document. they summarize our staff findings. >> was recommended that day removed and changed their mind? -- was its recommended that they remove it and change their mind? >> it was based on concern about them failure. it has very large limbs. if we were flawless all the time in our decision making, there would be no reason to do public notification or have a public hearing. we make a staff recommendation that can be overturned by the director and in this case, it was. >> it was recommended that this treaty properly proud of the other side because it is heavy to one side, asymmetrical? will we be left with a pretty ugly 3? -- tree? >> much of the growth is on one side. we're not recommending a severe pruning of the tree. we are recommending proving to reduce the and wake of these large lems to help try to reduce the likelihood -- that a large limb failure would occur. we think that it can be done, there is enough structure that the height of the tree could be reduced somewhat as well. if done properly, it should not result in an ugly tree. >> if it is done properly, it is my understanding that the property owner, the tree owner would hire someone to come and trim the tree or reduce the crown, what ever you are suggesting. how does the department oversee that so it does not end up with plans that might fail? -- limbs that might fail. >> it refers to the best management practices and the printing standards. -- improving standards. -- pruning standards. the department would be happy to meet with the property owners if they requested that. >> how does the department in force having the tree inspected annually? >> is the recommendation of the director. we feel is in the property owner's best addressed to make sure that there is no additional change in the condition of the tree that would warrant them coming to us and asking for another removal permits. we ask -- it was a recommendation, preserving the tree and insuring that it remains healthy. >> you said that the concern was limb failure, not root failure. at exhibit d, you probably know this photograph. can you talk about that? it looks like a tree that might fall over. >> our visual inspection reveals that this is not a species that is prone to whole-tree failure. it can be prone to limb failure. this is also the assessment by the guy that literally wrote the book on tree evaluation. our feeling is that the decay is localized and that the trunk other than that section appears sound. the neighbors report also come to that conclusion. people can disagree about what they are seeing, but it is our feeling that given the size of the trunk and the fact that the decay was localized, we did not feel that history is likely to have a whole-tree failure. the rate at which it decays depends on many factors, another reason why we would recommend having it regularly monitored. >> is there a way to mitigate this whole -- hole? >> it is not like you can affect the rate of decay. there is disagreement about whether removal of moisture -- if you can allow the wood to dry out, it's not always recommended to take that away. thank you. president peterson: mr. o'connor. >> good evening. i am the certified arborist that has been hired by the o'connors to evaluate and the cyprus. i have determined that there is no remedy to reduce the hazard except for tree removal. the neighbor and his arborists evaluated the tree with the intent of preserving it. we have ruled that it must be maintained -- they have ruled that must be maintained. they are hereby requesting the board of appeals issue a permit to remove this hazard is tree -- hazardous tree. it is about 2 miles from the pacific ocean. it is surrounded by a potential target areas that include their home, other homes, cars, pedestrians, and high-voltage electrical lines. it is likely that there will be significant property damage, loss of life, or fire. there is really know where for it to fall. -- nowhere for it to fall. the city department had approved the permit application. because they are well knowledgeable harbor is, --a rborists -- arborists, they have strict guidelines. their support is an assertion that it is no longer viable and cannot be preserved. the reasons for supporting this appeal are as follows. he is not a reliable expert in this matter. he does not understand the basic definition of life-crown ratio. that is what a standard arbour as -- arborist would know. he failed to adjust the diameter according to industry standards and failed to apply the proper trump strength formula -- trunk strength formula. the strength loss formula measures hollow cylinders and doesn't account for a breach where the bark is dead and tissue destroyed by the fungus. it was an improper methods. the recommended removal of decayed wood would cause further damage to the tree. it is contrary to our best management practices. with proper analysis, this tree is hazardous and is likely to approve. -- uproot. i disagree on the propensity for uprooting. they can and do uproot. one did not a dozen blocks from here last winter. my report extends into the roots and into the quadra the tree nearest the o'connor house. limb failures are extremely common. they're correct in that. 2-inch, 3-inch limbs. that is not what i am concerned about. i don't want to see a tree with decay falling over. they are not the reason for the original removal application. has has stated, they applied for the sperm that due to the high failure potential. -- for this permit due to the high failure potential. should the tree uproot, the trajectory of the full cannot be predicted. potential targets for damage and the surrounding areas is 1.5 times the height of the tree. it includes neighboring property, the runway, pg&e high- voltage lines. i was asked what i thought the tree weighed. i removed large trees regularly. with cranes, we have scales, and pwe can tell how heavy pieces are. i said probably 40,000 pounds- 50,000 pounds. it is an enormous amount of potential energy. they recommend removal of decayed wood. this is equivalent to preserving a condemned building by removing the defective portions of the foundation. it will not make the tree safe. removing the wood will open the tree to further decay. it is contrary to industry standards. to comply with recommendation to removal would be contrary to recommendation one. the hazardous condition is likely to result in serious property damage, loss of life, or fire. thank you. >> have you been maintaining this tree over the years or did you just get involved? >> they hired me to evaluate this because i have qualifications like being a certified risk assessor with certified graph equipment. >> what comments which you make about the way it has been pruned in the past? >> has been pruned primarily by pg&e for power lines. the upper part of the tree has been made severely unbalanced because of the utility lines. prior to my involvement years ago, they had some lems remove towards their house. -- limbs removed towards their house. they did do some limb removal. there was a large limb that failed recently, about 18 inches in diameter. >> you are going beyond my question. not to interrupt. thank you. president peterson: is there any public comment? please step forward. >> ok. can i use the overhead? ok. my name is tim, and for 25 years my wife and i have lived alongside the tree we are talking about today. we support the decision. this tree is precisely the sort of significant tree that the urban forest ordinance protect. projects. it has the greatest stature of any tree in forest hill and is one of the biggest in san francisco. for the past 15 years, our neighbors repeatedly, in excess of become an unnecessarily printed this tree. this photograph showed the imbalance they created -- and excessively pruned this tree. last october
Related Keywords
Cyprus , Forest Hill , California , United States , San Francisco , Pacific Ocean ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.