view. have you are worried about the trees on columbus and lombard, i have got a list. we have got trees that have been illegally removed. we have trees that are in a compromised condition. there is plenty to do, and the amount of time that has gone into protecting these could have done a lot to protect the broader forest, but they do not need to worry about this site. 15 trains will be planted, five for each of them. over 30 trees will be planted. we are going to rip up 13,000 square feet of asphalt and concrete. this site is going to be fine. in addition to the urban forestry, we get a better sidewalk, better conditions on the street. we control light and shade for the new building. we have a sidewalk that will be optimized for the bus shelter and bus stop, for the utility

poles and the crosswalks, and we are going to give it up for what proved fourth three varieties of the species that the city no longer allows to be planted in san francisco. they are called heavily weighted with many weak branches, including bar, basil nunes. -- basel wounds. the odds are not good for these trees. the next two trees but have suffered catastrophic damage and have been removed. others have been removed up and down. three or four ficus are in

serious condition and look to be dying. we now have documents from carl short and others acknowledging the poor condition of these trees. if a kid gets squashed, or if the city gets squashed, the city will be additional liable because the city had non about this condition. this is so we can gaze on them for another two or five years, or we can move ahead with our neighborhood, something for our children and grandchildren. please let the permit stand. thank you. president hwang: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is judy irving, and i am the vice president there, and i am speaking to you mainly as a documentary filmmaker. i made a film about the wild parents of telegraph hill. i would like to bring another

aspect into this -- the wild parrots of telegraph hill. i would like to bring another aspect into this conversation. the tall mature canapes in other cities, like new york, chicago, and even denver. there are a lot of birds that need tall trees, and to say that planting basically 15 little saplings is going to make up for taking out yet more of our call, mature canopy is disingenuous. there is a huge difference between tall, mature, healthy trees that can be pruned and little saplings in 24-inch boxes. that are going to take decades and decades to get big, so i would ask that you please

consider keeping these trees at least until the in addition is settled. this was like the department of public works talking to the department of public works, and with everyone agreeing with each other because they are in the same department. it just does not seem fair. there are three arborist reports on these trees. it said, one of them, that they were fine. and that one was carl short, -- carla short, and now they are all bad. there are ways of saving these trees. many, many people are forced to save trees during construction

projects. to remove these trees just for the sake of pouring concrete sets a really bad precedent, and i ask that you consider saving them. thank you very much. president hwang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is -- i actually work for the city. i am a neighbor of north beach or over 20 years and have been involved in this project for 13 years. yes, it has been 13 years. president hwang: i does want to clarify. you are speaking as an individual? >> as an individual and neighbor. so you heard a lot, and i do not

want to consider -- continue this analysts conversation. i am part of the group that supports everything around, and we work hard. there were two failed ficus several feet away from these, and we replanting the mccaw olives. this is a matter of time. a matter of time. we are talking at most 85 years with the way everything goes around here, so are you looking to the past, or are you looking to the future, is what i would ask you. supervisor campos: -- president hwang: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> commissioners, madam chair, i am speaking on my gun. if indeed these have been dubs a

significant trees, and they have not been evaluated or considered as such, then i urge you to have them legally and administratively done so in the manner described in the code. these trees as well as other ficus trees are, indeed, damaged and in poor condition. the reason is several things coming together at once. one is that the dpw has flyin detailed these trees for a very long time, and that is bad because it lets the sunlight into the bark. usually on a miniature ficus', there is enough -- on a mature ficus, there is enough -- the sun comes and and causes a disease, a cancor, and it can be

easily treated. i have gone through this with the university of nevada agricultural extension. i do not know these trees exactly, if they have been diagnosed with that, but if they are damaged and in poor condition, they may very well have been diagnosed with this, so if you could have them re- evaluated as significant trees, it would be much appreciated. thank you. director goldstein: is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, we will move into

rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> would you be willing to accept an exhibit by me? president hwang: what is in the exhibit? >> this is about the people in public works. president hwang: why was it not submitted a with your submission? >> because i did not get it until yesterday. president hwang: 1 not? >> why not? because i did not have the informatio if not, i can put it up. president hwang: put it up on the screen. has dpw seen this as an exhibit? >> no.

i never copies for them. president hwang: maybe you should and m1 also. >> even if i'm going to put it on the screen? president hwang: that would be nice, as a courtesy. the first one is from carla shorted to deborah morgan, and it deals with the trees that have been inspected and noted that three of the five were noted with public notice. two of the trees were denied based upon their condition, so that is the reason that this is here. president hwang: is that an exhibit to a submission already proved that email?

what is the date of it? >> this is dated march 5. 2012. this is before the hearing on april 23. president hwang: ok. and what does it say again? it is from his short? >> this is an assistant. ok. do you want me to read it again? president hwang: we wanted in the record. i am wondering what it says. >> it says than ever inspected the trees and have posted some for public notice. some were in good condition. bay would issue a denial letter, and you can appeal the decision, but the reason i wanted to put this in here is that there were two trees that were in too good of condition to be given the approval to be demolished.

president hwang: thank you. >> and the next one is from yelena to carla, and they are talking about how they would handle the problem and if they are going to discuss it with the director of public works, and that one is dated march 27, and the response is april 2, where they say they have made contact with the director of public works and will proceed with the discussions as to the process going, and so this also indicates that the hearing is on the calendar for april 23, so

what i did want to talk about in the remaining time that i have is that we are talking about saving the trees, whether or whether not a library is built. the trees need to be pruned into a vase shape, and they need to be topped. the barbarous had recommended six them 8 feet of topping -- the arborist had recommended six them 8 feet to take the weight off of the trees themselves. during construction, the trees could be wrapped, protecting the words, and this could be done by issuing an addendum to the contract, but everybody on board would need to be with protecting the trees, especially the construction inspectors who would be watching contractors to avoid damage that could sap traunch this, so we

are -- is that it? i thought i had more time here, thank you. it is possible to save the trees and to build a library is what the bottom line here is, and i hope he will consider that. thank you. president hwang: on the last point, i have been looking at this law that ms. short put up with it going to the property line, where it basically would require -- >> i think i know which one. president hwang: is that the result that you would like to see proof like a half a trade? >> yes. it is not as good as if the trees had more space and the

building had been designed that it would have given them more space by moving them over, but this is an example on fillmore st.. i actually measured from the building, a three-story building, to the stem of the tree, 3 feet, 9 inches. what we have on columbus beat is 5 feet between the trunk of the tree and where the property line is. president hwang: what about the issue of the roots? >> this is something where we do not know where their roots are. some people mention that there was a building on the site and that they may not be that bad. a ficus is an incredibly tough trade, and it there was a tree that could save -- could survive this atmosphere, it would be it. it would seem that the trade

should be given a chance. they had not been maintained before, which is why they are in this condition, and just to kill them just because they not been maintained it seems rather rude. president hwang: so your response effectively as we do not know where they are, so it is not necessarily an issue, is back it? >> well, the arborist who was hired by the city mentioned in their report, they only did a report on one of the trees, that it could probably survive but that the limbs would be in danger, which is why it continually needs to be monitored and needs to be continually pruned to make sure that does not happen, even after the building is built. they would still need to maintain these trees. president hwang: anna a couple

of more questions. the significant tree, what if it was as ms. short attested to prove does that change your analysis at all? >> well, i am not an expert on that code. president hwang: an expert will speak on it, but what is your analysis? >> it is my understanding that the process is the same for both. president hwang: so there would be no distinction? >> well, there were seven issues that were supposed to be analyzed by the director of public works or whoever was doing the analysis, and we have no evidence that any of those were -- i should not say any of them, that those all were taken into consideration in the director's decision to put out

this order. president hwang: if it is not a significant tree, and it was not determined to be a significant tree, the analysis may not have been done? >> presumably, but as i said, i am not an expert. here is a -- president hwang: i have another question. talking about the lawsuit, and there have been different, enters -- different commenters, this tree relates to the lawsuit itself? >> yes. the open space that would be provided if there were not a building, that needs these trees, it would be pretty bare without mature trees, if it

stayed open space. i would not say state because right now it is a parking lot. president hwang: and i do not have a copy of the lawsuit and do not know the ins and outs of that. is it the case then, your position then would be that you need the trees and order to maintain open space? is it not true that you could maintain the open space -- have the open space with out the trees? >> you would have the open space without the trees, but it would not be interactive. president hwang: it the loss it were to prevail in maintaining the open space, the trees are not necessarily -- i want to know the answer. i am just asking. >> i hope i can answer. president hwang: are the trees part of the open space lawsuit itself? >> they are. president hwang: ok.

thank you. >> what i have here is one of the trees. it is not the trees' fault. in terms of breaking up the space, they do need to have some space around them. president hwang: ok. >> that is it. director goldstein: thank you. we can hear rebuttal. >> hello, this is leni again. i do want to clarify something about the loss it. the challenge, the legal challenge of this project is on three fronts. one is on the ceqa, and one is on the general plan referral, and one is on the charter amendment. i do not believe the trees are specifically named in any part of this lawsuit. there are only three challenges, so i just wanted to -- this is

my understanding, and the other one that i wanted to address is i am afraid i did not make myself clear in answering your question regarding the timing of the lawsuit versus the timing of the construction start. my understanding is that the lawsuit determination will come out in the next couple of weeks, so by the end of july, beginning of august, we should have a determination from the judge, and in the meantime, the project is also moving forward, and we anticipate starting construction sometime in august, so if it ale best. we can keep moving the project forward. we do not have any other options but not to do that, so hopefully this will get into a point of resolution and inclusion, and the project can happen. that is all i have to say about this, what i wanted to address. >> thank you.

carla short, department of public works. just a few things i wanted to clarify. it is true that in 2010, i looked at the trees. just to be clear, i never said that they were fine. if you look at the report, i said the trees that structural problems, that one of the trees was in fair condition, and that one tree, i will put up on the overhead, has had substantial limb failures. this is not a change in assessment. it was changing conditions that led to a different assessment. just to address the question about notifying the public. quickly. arco says we have to make an effort, and the way we do that, and we have done that for many many years, and that is that we put the notices on the trees and on the corner of the block, so these were posted a public notice, and in the corners of the block were posted with public notice, and then when the

hearing was requested, and clearly the public was aware that the trees would be removed, we we posted -- we posted them again, and lastly i would say that the initial hearing was a dpw hearing, and now we have a board of appeals hearing, so this is an independent process, and that was not the last thing, but there have been four arborists that have looked at the trees, and all four arborists and said there are issues with these trees. commissioner hillis: can i ask a question? the prior situation, making the determination, what is different about this case? >> i think there are a couple of things that are different, and i will say many of these cases do not and up before you because they get overturned at the

department, just as we were overturned with our initial assessment of two of the trees, and they do not come before the board, so it is not uncommon for the dpw and the officer, based on the trees, to actually allow for the removal. at 1190 mission, the project focused at the dpw hearing on the cost impact to shifting the pedestrian path into the roadway, so it was feasible, presumably feasible, to build that building and preserve those trees, and they focused at our hearing on a warning to pay those additional costs that they would have to take that roadway lane. this case, the conclusion of the dpw director was that it would not be feasible to build this building because of the impact to the trees during the construction, so it was not just convenient to the building, it was impact to the trees.

commissioner hillis: and do you share that opinion? >> yes, it the building is billed as proposed, i do. it is likely that they extend well belong -- -- well beyond the drip line of the tree, and i think there would be a very definite impact. president hwang: if i miss characterize this, i am sorry, but might understanding is that you cannot build where there are interesting trees. is that the situation here? not you, but dpw is potentially trying to build where the trees are? i know there is one in a footprint of the building itself, and you cannot get around that, but do you know what i am talking about?

as i understand it, based on the limited amount of testimony i heard, when you are designing your building and determine where to place it, this one is obviously going to the property line, so if it is doing that such that it would impact those trades, i do not know if this is a question for you -- ok, the project manager. >> they sometimes require people. >> the project architect is here. if i may ask her to address it? president hwang: i would like that to be addressed. thank you. >> my name is marcia. i am with an architectural company. just so i'm clear on your question, you are asking if this is a policy question about placement of buildings?

president hwang: i have a question that was raised in my mind when i heard about two people talk about an architecture test, s i said, i may have not heard it correctly or misunderstood it, to build where the trees a exist. i am sorry, but that is how i understood it, so i need help here. >> i do not know of any test, and i did not hear that in the testimony this afternoon that specifically. i think as professionals, we look at all of the constraints on every side and combine that with the uses and the program requirements, and this particular project has had a great deal of pressure from a lot of different areas in terms of using the best, the resources to their highest and best use, for the library, for

the playground, and for the open space in north beach, so there has been a lot of balancing and issues on this project, and a great deal of time and discussion has gone out to the public and what all the different aspects, and this was the selected master plan would review by the community and the various departments, so this particular project is complex with the decisions that were made, but it is within the city code of where you can build. the property line on columbus avenue. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: commissioners, then the matter is submitted.

vice president fung: maybe it depends on the date. the architectural examine used to be two parts. for those of us who took the older exam, there are many things. there are two things about this case, before i get on to some of the merits or the pros and cons of this specific appeal, and one is that i do notice that there are some inconsistencies in the department documentation from a historical perspective of what we have seen in the past. secondly, from a personal point of view, and i am also a resident oe