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

>> 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. the support statement clearly states the issue at hand, the work order, which is published on-line, and asked the signers to include their street address and indicate whether they are renters or owners. by me personally. i can vouch that every person who read the petition understood it thoroughly. this included neighbors who are extremely active in our community, including the president of the mission district neighborhood association and several members of local associations. these members are in support of replacing what are tree trunks for six to nine months of the year, replacing them with relief the evergreen species which will vastly improve the forlorn landscape. in closing, we wish to make one point very clear. the neighborhood blocks around

the senior housing have enjoyed a renaissance of for the past decade as the direct result of thoughtful, deliberative, and proactive city planning. the demolition and replacement of wednesday gardens had the effect of attracting and retaining young professionals and families which previously would never have considered living in the neighborhood. our neighborhood residents are a mix of young and old. we are very invested in the civic space around us. we are active users of city infrastructure. many of us volunteer, supporting schools and parks. home ownership gives us a financial stake in our municipalities and provide substantial city revenues -- tax revenues for the city. the 20 unit condominium i live in has presented almost $2.50 million to the city in revenues over the past 10 years. a dishat our 100

residents have indicated our support tonight for the planting of these trees. we wish only to protect the well-being of the street for all of our residents. thank you so very much. commissioner hwang: i have a question on the signatures. were you gathering the signatures of the people who lived in the subject building? >> we did not. it is not a public access t requires permission to enter. i obtained the signatures byer. going door-to-door and knocking on people's doors. commissioner hwang: thanks. >> one thing should also -- >> vice commissioner garcia: you will have to wait to. you have three minutes coming up later. >> the housing authority?

>> good afternoon. my name is marie swanson. i am the property manager. it is the housing authority's position at this time to not remove the trees unless it is found by the department of public works urban forestry that the trees are either diseased or dead. >> thank you. ms. short? >> thank you. carlos short, department of public works bureau of urban forestry. i probably will keep my comments brief and be happy to answer any questions. the department was initially approving these trees at the request of the housing authority. if they are not supporting removal at this time, i will just be available for questions.

thank you. commissioner hwang: i do have a question. at what time did the position change? >> i think after the department of hearing, when the initial request was approved at the staff level and it went to department of hearing. it was denied. at that point, the housing authority decided to abide by that decision. >> is there any public comment on this item? step forward. vice commissioner garcia: the for this gentleman speaks, if everyone in this room who is supporting the removal of the trees would either raise their hand or stand up so we can get an idea of who is for and who is against this? is there anyone in the room who is opposed, who does not want to have the trees removed? thank you. these are people who are against having the trees removed.

thank you. >> how much time would you like to give? one minute? >> thank you for hearing me. i am representing the people in mission dolores senior housing. it is a personal residence. i am the volunteer resident gardiner, so i have an interest in this. i had the initial "save our trees" petition passed around, primarily in our building, but others volunteered in the neighborhood. since that time, as of last week, but decided it would be a good idea to go directly across the street to three separate residence. they were all in favor of saving these trees.

i know at certain times of the year these trees are awkward looking. but they are also the trees we passed by as we came into this building, feeling awkward. i do not believe they should be killed at all. they have been there too long and are appreciated by too many people. with that bill for me? -- was that bell for me? commissioner hwang: did you personally circulate that petition? >> i did. commissioner hwang: when you went to the people you spoke with to sign it, what did you say to them? >> i showed them this. these were posted on our trees, stating that there were going to be removed. the only other thing is that in

the ruling it mentions that the recommendation is to uphold the protest by the public to deny the tree removals and that the trees are london planes. they are healthy. their limbs structures are sound and sufficient to support full growth. commissioner hwang: what percentage of the signers are actual residence? >> i would say 90%. that is why i went across the street to get people who view them every day. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening. i am the tenant association vice president. i have been dealing with this matter personally. i responded to the issue by what

was posted on the trees. i shall hear in this particular room, where there was the department of public works. since then, i have tried to gather up support. i spoke with the brick and mortar woman, who talked about such type of trees and shrubbery is and such. she referred back to what would be the tenants association. since then, i have gone unspoken with henry alvarez -- gone and spoken with henry alvarez. he took the consensus that we are all in agreement that we should save our trees. there was an earlier -- ok. >> thank you. is there any other public

comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i find it interesting that to my knowledge and the knowledge of anyone who has been involved in and supports the replacement of these trees we did not know that henry alvarez or any members of the san francisco housing authority were not completely supportive of this tree replacement. these trees -- we have presented evidence of this tree. it is an extremely large and unattractive building. there is no getting around it. it is the locus of criminal activity and vandalism. 1855 it is a blight magnet. graffiti, trash, and drug dealing happen on a regular basis.

anything we can do to humanize the street would be helpful. valencia gardens is like night and day when you walk through our neighborhood. those trees are bare and for at least nine months out of the year. they have no branches. they have no leaves. you may have perceptions of the species, but they are not appropriate for that building. it just exacerbates the effect of light. we really do not understand how this improvement, which enjoys so much support and was fast tracked by supervisor dufty, and i have e-mails by him supporting this appointment, have changed so rapidly. i do not hear ms. swanson explaining why she changed her mind, simply that she has. because maybe 50 people who live in the housing authority building support taking -- keeping those buildings that it

overrides the concerns of over 100 citizens who promptly and enthusiastically sign a statement of support. these are people who own their homes, who pay taxes, who have children, who live in the neighborhood and have an enormous financial stake. i do feel that paying $2.50 million in property tax over the last 10 years gives the 20 residents of by building some say in how the city landscapes the street in a public housing buildings supported by taxpayer money. we do believe this to be heard and considered, that this is a neighborhood concern and not simply a concern of the residence or the management of the san francisco housing authority nonprofit building. i really do think you for your support. many residents, many of whom i met for the first time in the last couple of months, feel very strongly about this improvement and would be so very happy to also volunteer to keep these trees well taken care of.

thank you again. commissioner hwang: have you engaged in any kind of discussions about potential alternatives to removing otherwise healthy tree? >> no, but mr. hastings was here. he wanted to speak as a citizen. he recently had health problems and had to leave the building for a second. vice commissioner garcia: if it is ok with everybody else, given the circumstances, we could reopen the public hearing and give him an opportunity to speak. commissioner fung: ms. bright, if the housing authority is no longer supporting this permit, you are saying that your group will implement it if this body overturns? >> i think of would be very

interested in finding out if our group can petition the city for removal of the trees, since they do not belong to the san francisco housing authority. as far as i understand, the housing authority is a nonprofit -- commissioner fung: let me be clear. will your group pay for the removal and planting of new trees? >> i would be happy to raise those funds. vice commissioner garcia: and maintenance. >> and absolutely to sign of volunteers. vice commissioner garcia: i am not saying that is going to happen. i think you answered my question. we are going to reopen, with everybody's permission, public comment. you have one minute. you have to identify yourself. >> paul hastings. 25 year resident of the city of san francisco and on 15th street for the last 10 years.

the compromise would like to propose, should one be needed, would be to keep two of the trees and replace the two of the ones that are the most disease. that would be the first. the second part would be we would ask that the trees not be pruned, and that they be allowed to create an ongoing canopy that will be able to leaf not three months out of the year, but nine months out of the year. the last would be for the city to consider possibly putting a sidewalk garden around the trees also. there is a good 35 yards in front of the building. it would be an opportunity for the city to support the sidewalk garden project, which we are actively promoting. it would help the environment. it would help run off and do a great job to help alleviate the

streetscape environment with that tall building. thank you. >> ms. swanson, do you have any rebuttal? >> again, i am the housing manager. i originally did take a walk to look at some trees on the other side of the street. we talked about it with my director and the executive director of the housing authority. i am not an expert on trees. i did not know if the trees were dead. i was told there were dead. that was the first time they had been cut since i have been there. i understand that the same person who cut the trees cut them every year and they come back. after we found out the trees

were not dead or diseased, the housing authority decided to keep the trees because the tenants who live there enjoy the trees. vice commissioner garcia: thank you. >> ms. short? >> carlos short, department of public works bureau of urban forestry. i just would like to make one comment in response to the last public comment, which is that any sort of trees or sidewalk burdens that would be installed adjacent to this property would be a maintenance responsibility of the san francisco housing authority. if there is a compromise that is worked out, whether it involves removal and replacement of some trees or installation of some other facility, the housing authority would have to be on board for long-term maintenance.

it is not maintained by the department of public works. commissioner fung: do you know the orientation of that building and the trees? >> i think so. it is the north-facing side of the building. commissioner fung: the building faces north? >> that frontage faces north. commissioner fung: thank you. commissioner hwang: what is the impact on the canopy after this improper pruning? >> it is a good question. we did have one tree that began to leak out after it took place, which is stressful. that is why it should always happen once the trees have dropped their leaves. i would say i think it