>> welcome to the july 11, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is board president hwang. there is one seat on the board that is currently vacant. pursuant to the charter, the board may hold the meeting when there is a vacancy. in such circumstances, the board might overrule the department -- the ruling of the department by three members.

to my left is the deputy city attorney. he is the board's newly assigned legal counsel and will per board -- will provide the board with any legal advice. we're also joined by representatives from some of the city departments. scott sanchez is here, he is the zoning administrator. we have the active chief building inspector. we also have urban forester representing the bureau of urban forestry. at this time, if you could please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all telephones and pagers to they will not disturb the proceedings.

please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven-minute periods. to assist the board in the accurate perpent -- presentation of minutes, members of the public art asked, but not required, to submit speaker cards or a business card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to staff during a break or

after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board of appeals office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television cable channel 78. dvd is of this meeting are available for purchase. thank you for your attention. at this point, we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight hearing in which the board to give your testimony evidenciary wait, please stand, raise your right hand, and say " i do." any member of the public may speak without taking this of pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. thank you. any takers?

ok. the solemn swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> there is one housekeeping item this evening. this has to do with item number 8. this is an appeal of the suspension of the building permit at 1743 12th ave. the parties have requested that the matter be continued until october 10, 2012, to allow time for arbitration to be concluded. demotion in order to do that. -- we need a motion in order to do that. any public comment on this? >> we have a motion from the president to reschedule item 8

to october 10. on that motion --thank you. the vote is 4-0. that matter is rescheduled. >> moving back to item number one, public comment that -- for item that are not on tonight's calendar. we will move to item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? we will move to item three, which is the adoption of minutes. for your consideration, the board's minutes of the meeting from june 20, 2012. >> i move their adoption. >> thank you. public comment on the minutes? >> on that motion to adopt the

gin 20th, 2012 minutes -- june 20, 2012 minutes -- the vote is 4-0, those minutes are adopted. >> we will call item number 4, which is appeal number 12-064. swinerton versus the department of public works. appealing the denial on may 4, 2012, on a permit to remove and replace five trees. i understand that there has been an agreement reached between the parties? i wonder if i could have both representatives -- representatives from both sides to come up to the microphone and present the desired action to the board. >> good evening, commissioners. we have reached an agreement in this case.

the department does recognize that the current condition of the trees is very port and at this point, they are better candidates for removal than for preservation. the developer has agreed to pay for the value of the trees. in exchange, we would no longer oppose their removal. because our code requires that anyone who has been denied would have to wait a full year before they could reapply, we would be asking that the board overturned us and approve the removal of the trees with the condition that time replacement trees are planted, which is the applicants indication in their approved plans and their tree removal application to us. >> swinerton agrees with this. i am the project manager for

the 11900 mission street project. -- 1190 mission street project. >> i am happy there is a resolution, i am unhappy that trees are damaged such that the position of the department' is now the condition of the trees is better off being removed and replaced. i am disappointed about that. i do not look kindly on that, but otherwise, i would be willing to move in favor of the overturning of the department ordered on the condition as stated. >> i want to make sure we ask for public comment. before we call role, if there is anyone in the public wants to speak to this item?

i also like to ask if there is any more specificity on the replacement trees that we need to have in the decision. >> the required size for replacement is 24 inch box. i think if we stick with the 10 replacement trees, we can work out the precise locations. >> i think they indicated they were placing a 36-inch box. >> that is right, they did. perhaps we could include that as a condition. thank you. >> location and species to be determined by the department? is that amenable to the president? >> yes. >> we have a motion to grant this appeal, overruled the denial, grant this permits on merit condition that 10 replacement trees planted with

the species and location to be determined by the department. >> obsolete, thank you. -- absolutely, thank you. >> the decision is rendered on the basis of agreement of the parties. on that motion, thank you. the vote is 4-0. denial is overruled with all those conditions. president hwang: moving on to item number 5. appealed number 12-067.

protesting the issuance on may 9, 2012, at the department of public works, permit to remove and replace the five trees. we will start with the appellant. she has seven minutes to present her case. >> [inaudible] >> i am putting up a picture of the three trees the are referring to. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i am the appellant, merle

easton. i am an architect. the design exam always has a site plan with significant trees. those to cut down the trees, i have a hard time passing this test. i have spent most of my working life trying to save significant trees. by legal definition, the three mature ficus trees on columbus and lombard are significant trees in -- affirmed in the eir application and three disclosure statement of september to a dozen aids. you can see exhibit a in the appellant brief. we are requesting a fair independent public process to evaluate the three ficus trees

and compliance with the urban forestry ordinance in article 16 of the san francisco public works code. our appeal is all about these trees. these help the mature and beautiful trees can be retained. he either as part of a new open space -- either as part of the new open space or adjacent to a new library. no trees should be removed until the pending litigation is completed. however, the department of public works is intended to remove the trees in the last few months if not for our appeals and response to our attorney, the city attorney has said they could only promise not removing trees until july 16, 2012. although not maintained or prunes, these trees are healthier and more robust than the surrounding trees throughout north beach and the city.

many who have been pruned with smaller half-canopies. you can see the photos in d. these are pictures of other trees in north beach and you can see the shape of them. there also ficus trees. -- they are also ficus trees. this is a photo of columbus avenue, it only shows part of it. this extends all the way from the bay up to to the

transamerica tower. it is our fine boulevard in san francisco. it has amazing restaurants and includes all of the ficus trees in a pattern. the ficus trees are part of the street scape visual and aesthetic character and the -- the tree alignments are all the same size, age, and species. it would be a shame to break that up. as described in the appellant brief, the department of public works did not adhere to the urban forestry ordinance and article 16 that the public works code. the director of public works and determination did not legally respond to the appellant appeals, a removal of five

trees, focusing instead on the respondent appeal for the denial of two of the five trees. the department of public works order finding focused on the library project at 701 lombard, including language from the project sponsor. such language is a self-serving. a list of public meetings is inaccurate, since there were only three community meetings for the master plan, at which only one led to its adoption. exhibits l. the director of public works did not consider the seven factors in section -- see page 4 of our brief. the department of public works did not provide notice to all interested organizations, nor to

all owners and occupancy of property. one of the ficus trees was never posted because it was a denied tree. two ficus trees are not posted at this time. notices should be address at 850 columbus. from 2004-2007, the city's eminent domain process seized this property for open space. 701 of lombard is the name of the acquired property. as we just saw in the previous case would 1190 mission, the process can work very well. the urban forester as did their job -- forester's did their job.