too far. in my earlier discussion, it was not very clear. by the looks of my fellow commissioners, i will get to the point which i think that i would consider a rehearing but i would want to see the contract. because what is being posed here is different than what we have seen in previous contracts, in terms of ownership of the billboards, in terms of the ability to remove them, to change them, and so i would consider a rehearing. i would ask we continue the pending receipts of the contract. vice commissioner garcia: we are

looking at the time line to see whether it establishes the agency of cbs? commissioner fung: yes. vice commissioner garcia: i would support that. commissioner peterson: can we continue without jurisdiction? vice commissioner garcia: we can continue a request for a rehearing. >> you can just delayed a decision on it what you ask for additional confirmation all right. it is proper. commissioner hwang: i would probably ultimately support that. i just find the arguments presented our creative and novel. they have no credibility in the facts, given that we had an opportunity to hear from the owner at the last hearing and at

no point in time was it raised that the person speaking on his behalf is not someone representing him. if it were me sitting there and hearing someone stand up and say the had the right to do this and were going forward on a permit and trying to repeal their own permit, i would have something to say about that. that said, i would go with a motion to continue, just so i can actually see the contract. commissioner fung: you are hearing some of the sentiments of this board. if your client does not want to provide that contract, you should tell us now. >> i do not know the answer to that. i am not quite clear whether or not -- i know there was not a direct contract between cbs and a communities at the time. -- and bay communities at the

time. that is probably what led to the confusion in filing for the permit. i think during the transfer of ownership of the property there must to bend some internal confusion at cbs. there was probably an existing lease with their predecessor. that is a document you want to see. i will have to check with the company. i do not have the authorization to say one way or another. but regardless of what the release of the contract says, in this particular instance, even if the contract says cbs has the right to remove the sign and the party that holds that right claims that right was inadvertently exercised or not properly exercised and a separate right was not granted

by the property owner, and cbs was not acting as the agent, i do not know the put the contract says is going to matter much. another issue is we were dealing directly with the property manager, as opposed to the property owner. that is why mr. espinoza may have assumed it was being taken care of. our communications were directly with the property manner -- property manager. commissioner fung: i am going to make a motion to continue this. either it the contract with the predecessor or whatever contract you may find with the current owner, if there is one -- how much time the and the index -- how much time?

>> i can do it in a day. commissioner fung: do you have a recommendation? >> if you want to hear this quickly, next week is a lighter calendar. otherwise, the april 6 meeting we will be missing the vice president. >> next week does not work for me. it is enough time, but next wednesday evening, march 23, i am not available. commissioner fung: what would you recommend? vice commissioner garcia: i do not mind not being here. >> april 6 would be the next available date. commissioner peterson: what about the owner? can the owner make it, mr. espinoza? >> can be here on the sixth.

is that the date? vice commissioner garcia: as a non-attorney, it would seem it might inform some members of the board to know that since there was nonpayment and nonperformance of any contract, it did not initiate a contract anyway. in other words, there was no performance of whatever contract may or may not exist. there's no payment of the sign. would that initiate any terms of the contract anyway? >> that is an area of fact we have not been focused on.

this is a consideration of whether cbs properly acted as an agent for the owner, whether it was authorized to do so by some contract, with the management company or with the previous owner. this board would be in a better consideration of whether to have a rehearing. >> without the document, it is not easy to address those comments. commissioner hwang: i would like to add to commissioner fung. i would like to see the relevant contract, whatever that would be. >> the correct contract? commissioner hwang: one of the contract is that would indicate your rights with respect to mr. espinoza's property at the time.

>> is it possible, because i am anticipating a response from cbs -- is it possible to submit the contract under seal as opposed to making it public? commissioner fung: if you are talking about the compensation, i have no problem with that being redacted. i am looking at terms. >> a redacted version, just having the terms of cbs's a 30 visible -- we could redact the rest of it? commissioner peterson: i think taking provisions out of context would be unhelpful to me. i would like to see the entire contract. i do not need to see the terms of monetary compensation. >> the board would not mind? commissioner hwang: i would mind. vice commissioner garcia: he was not finished.

i think he was going to say redacting those bits about compensation. commissioner hwang: that is not a problem. >> to be advised that anything you submit to the board would be subject to a public records act. commissioner fung: i move that we continue to april 6. >> do you want to allow for any additional briefing? commissioner fung: let us limit it to three pages. >> 3 pages, all parties the thursday proper. commissioner fung: anything they like. >> on that motion to continue this matter to april 6 to allow for the citadel of additional --

for the submittal of additional information. vice commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner fung: -- commissioner hwang: aye. "motion carries 4-0. thank you. shall we call the next item, or do you want to take a break? vice commissioner garcia: i hope you will forgive us. we're going to take a short break.

>> welcome back to the meeting of the san francisco board of

appeals. previously, we indicated that item 4f was withdrawn. we will move on to item five, mission dolores versus the department of urban forestry. this is related to the property at 1855 15th st., protesting the removal of four trees. we will start with the appellant, ms. wright, or your representative. you have seven minutes. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to address the appeals board tonight. my name is claire wright. i have spent my life in san

francisco. i served as the president of my homeowners' association for a 20 unit condo on the block erected in 2000. i speak on behalf of more than 100 citizens who live and work in me neighborhood -- in the neighborhood, and support the publicly reported approval to remove four trees in front of the building and replace them with evergreen street trees. we are appealing tonight the order of 179,025, which has stuck his work. trees in front of the housing were improperly pruned, cutting the branches back to numbers. one tree was pared when the manager of the building came upon the workman, all san francisco housing authority

employees, who were performing this work without knowledge of the housing authority management. residents of our condominium complex immediately contacted our former supervisor, mr. dufty. we requested the trees be replaced with more appropriate street trees, such as those clinton all around balance your garden's -- around valencia gardens. the permit was supported by the housing authority and the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. i personally met with the on- site manager for the property. she was enthusiastic about the idea of having evergreen trees on the sidewalk in front of their building. we looked at various tree species that day.

a hearing was held in december, due to citizen protests filed by a resident of the housing project. i attended as an advoca replacee trees and presented a written statement. carla short of the bureau of urban forestry gave testimony as to why the trees have been recommended for replacement by her agency. her testimony noted that in the 30 years of their lives the trees have never been properly cared for and failed to ever grow scaffolding branches. she further noted that these trees have been seriously impacted due to another episode of damaging and improper pruning. their radically, these trees are supposed to be trimmed annually so they can quickly resume in the spring. in reality, the trees have not been trimmed for three full calendar years. that is not noted in any of the

department of urban forestry documents. this is no surprise, and likely due to the fact that they are not responsible for trimming these trees and has no record of their maintenance. the vigorous canopy of the one tree that is give the pruning is not the result of six months growth, but 36 months growth. that is how long the trees take to grow a five-month can be. the man testified at this hearing on how much he personally love the tree species, and presented a piece of paper with the words "save our trees" written across the top with the signatures of what he claimed to be other residents. we were skeptical of this document which had no details of the issue being debated or the addresses of those who had signed the piece of paper. therefore, it was a complete surprise to our group and the department of public works

decided not to replace the trees. as the decision to deny the permit does not specifically refer to reason for this decision, our group could only surmise this suspect petition was held as evidence of neighborhood support for not replacing the trees. the petition was simply a sheet of legal paper with "save our trees" written across the top. the was no mention of replacement of the trees with a suitable species, effect we are truly certain several people who signed this document completely misunderstood. our group has filed this appeal and submitted as evidence signatures of support from 100 residents who live within one block of 1855 15th street. 50 percent of those who sign on their property and pay city tax.