>> 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. i guess they have been damaged, so they will be removed. for 701 lombard, there is an inherent conflict of interest. the project planner work under the department of public works director. he is the one who signed the order to demolish the trees. in december 2010, dpw urban forester reported the three ficus trees did not warrant removal. we are requesting a fair,

independent public process to evaluate the trees in compliance with the urban forestry ordinance in article 16 of the public works code. the order needs to be overturned, otherwise, this president would allow all mature trees to be removed -- precedent would allow all mature trees to be removed for convenience. president hwang: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, members of the public.

i'm the program manager for the branch library improvement program. i will focus on the library project. i will be placing several slides on the overhead projector. this one is the master plan. as background, the new north beach library and playground had been the subject of an extensive process. it began to thousand eight in order to create a cohesive for this portion of north beach. it began in 2008 in order to create a cohesive portion for nothis next slide shows the

overall site plan showing the existing condition and the proposed trees to be removed. there are a total of five trees, 2 that are uaopposed. the next slide will show the site plan showing the proposed new library. and trees. as a result, of the extensive outreach involving public meetings and hearings since 2003, both the project and a master plan have been reviewing all these aspects in great detail by various agencies and groups and has received overwhelming support from the community. the project -- it has undergone

a two-year eir process. the ceqa findings were adopted by the planning commission in april of 2011. both the eir and ceqa findings were upheld. the landscape plan that you see was developed in conjunction with the recreation and park department and the department of public works. i would like to address the point on trees. in continuing the tree line on columbus avenue, but with a different species, the library project seeks to clearly mark the presence of a new library. the overall master plan project of the new library and park will lead to many more new trees. resulting in a significant gain

in the green space for the entire neighborhood. i would like to address the issue of the new address for the new library. since the new library would have the main entrance on columbus avenue, the address is 850 columbus. there is no entry on lombard street. this next slide will show the new library exterior elevation on columbus. this is the last appeal for a permit to this project. all the other required permits for the new library are already in place. it is in the city's interest to have all the permits ready to minimize delays down the line. petraeus we removed as part of

the construction process -- the trees we removed as part of the construction process. the new library project is ready to start construction in the summer of 2012 independently of the lawsuit. further delays do not serve the public interest and would result in implications for the city. as permit holder, dpw would like to respectfully request the board to uphold with no new conditions. we will now address the issues specifically to the trees. >> thank you. carl ashort, urban forester. this slide shows some of the issues that are -- some of the factors with the ficus trees. all the trees have sustained some limb loss. these problems are typical to

the species. it makes them prone to losing large limbs. two of the three have sustained some major root loss. significant trees are tree is located on private property, or on a dpw-owned property. they must meet any one of three sides criteria. street trees are in the trees located in the public right of way. all street trees are protected. the protection is not different between street trees and significant trees. the code requires that the director look specifically at seven criteria when approving the removal of significant trees. street trees, that is not called

up for street trees. this is a very common mistake. the real problem with preservation of the trees is that it is very hard to protect trees during construction. in this case, the necessary -- regardless of how careful the project is, the necessary impacts to the trees would be significant. this slide in sharing the footprint of the building. we can go to the next one. the next slide is showing the necessary infrastructure that would be installed adjacent to the trees that or result in a very large impact to the canopy of the trees. there is substantial removal of groups of the tree as they need to excavate to the property line, and probably a little bit further. president hwang: i do not

understand that last slide. >> this is a schematic, but in showing that the building is being billed out to the property line. -- built out to the property line. this is clear the building would be relative to the tree. president hwang: what about the [inaudible] >> they will need to excavate all the way out to the property line. a little bit under the sidewalk in order to reform that foundation. but many trees, the root system extends far beyond just the canopy of the trees. my concern is that with the construction, there would be substantial en route loss adjacent to the property side of these trees -- root loss adjacent to the property side of

these trees. the vertical line is representing the building. can you put a slide back? thank you. that is just showing the height. president hwang: the building is going to go there. what would happen to those branches on that side of the tree? >> i ran out of time. the next slide is showing the amount of the tree that needed to be removed. president hwang: can live like that? >> that has been done over time. removing half a canopy all at once would put the tree under tremendous stress. it is hard to predict whether the tree would survive or not. it is very possible it would kill the tree. >> can you talk about timing?

the eir is being challenged. when is the plan to begin construction and removal of these trees? >> all the approvals have been in place for us to start construction. we usually start with removing the trees as part of the demolition process. >> will you wait until the eir appeal is completed? will you do that with the eir appeal and outstanding and being litigated? >> at this point, the project is moving forward because all the approvals are in place. the eir is a legal challenge that will take its own course. >> i have been involved in projects where there is an eir appeal. typically, there is a risk that the lawsuit comes back and says the lawsuit comes back and says something about recirculating