Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  March 11, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm PST

4:00 pm
>>[gavel] >> welcome to the march 9, 2016 of the san francisco board of appeals. presiding officer is board president darrell honda and joined tonight by vp frank fung as well as commissioner and the lazarus
4:01 pm
brick suite swig and bobby wilson get to my left is debbie city attorney tom hollander will provide with the board with any legal advice tonight. at the controls was carried and i'm cindy goldstein the board's executive director. were also joined tonight by the city dept. who have before the board this evening.. he's with the san francisco dept. of pub. works bureau of mapping and were also joined by christoph urban forrester with san francisco purpose urban forrester and the board request to turn off or sounds all phones or other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings could please carry on conversations in the hallway. the boards presentation are as follows. each respondents are given 7 min. and 3 min. for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within the 7 or 3 min. period. members of the public
4:02 pm
not affiliated with the parties of up to 3 min. each to address the board with no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes you're asked but not required to cement a speaker card or business card to boards that when you come up to speed. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. their customer satisfaction surveys on the podium for your convenience. do you have any questions about hearing request, the board schools were hearing schedule, fees speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 615 mission st. suite 304 between devoe st. and south venice attitude this meeting is broadcast live on sfgtv and rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm on channel 26 good dvds of this meaning are available for purchase from
4:03 pm
sfgtv. now we will swear in order for all those who intend to testify. please note, any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the right under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at tonight's hearing in which of the board give your testimony evidentiary weight we stand and raise your right hand and say, i do, after you've been sworn in or from. the standout if you plan to testify tonight. raise your right hand. do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you very much. item number one is general public comments. this is an opportunity for people to speak to the board on matters within the board subject matter jurisdiction but that are not on tonight's calendar. is anyone here would like to speak on general public comment? seeing none,, then commissioners, item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. >> i would like to send my sincere condolences to some friends of mine. the nasa and admin. they lost their daughter lost her life yesterday at age 10 to cancer. as well as
4:04 pm
another friend hamid who lost their doctor yesterday also to cancer. it was a rough day. i just want to say, cancer really really sucks. thank you. >> thank you pres. honda could any public comment on this item ? seeing none,, item 3 commissioners your consideration of the minutes for the separate 2624 2016 meeting. >> do we have any changes, additions or corrections? may i have a motion? >> a motion to adopt the minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, on a motion, vice president fung >> aye lazarus aye, wilson, spike the commission carries
4:05 pm
5-0. appeal number 4 appeal number 16 007. jesse is the appellant here for that item, item number 4? mr. prudhomme, yes, great. this is daniel google vs. the san francisco pub. works bureau street and mapping. the properties at 536 mission st. doing with the denial on 20 to summer 29th 2015 doing with ritchie truck denial of permit application because the proposed location is rounded by restaurants and additional food trucks in that vicinity will create more traffic. this is permit number 15 0023 and will start with the appellant. you have 7 min. to present your case. >> good evening. i am the proud owner of preachy food
4:06 pm
truck. the name of my wife who is a peruvian chinese descent. this is a family operation and it's the collective energy of a 20 year dream of 2 parents, my 2 in-laws. also, the collective life savings of all of us. we set out on this journey last september it together, we create delicious food could this is the product of passion and dedication. i am here tonight to ask you to grant us discretion in our favor to give us an equal opportunity to market our product in an area of the city that will give us sustainable business. there are currently permitted, in san francisco, exclusively off the grid, all this food truck broker offers an opportunity to showcase a
4:07 pm
new trucks trust a product that is not a sustainable business for new trucks. we realize that soon after opening in last september and we also realized this from all the seasonal trucks that warned against relying on them as a sole means of income. all the successful trucks, these gourmet trucks, if you will, without exception of key permits within the financial district. many of these trucks have a whole week of uninterrupted business. these permits are now grandfathered in and when they expired these owners have the first right of refusal for these permits. essentially, everybody is locked out. any of the off the grid markets are simply additional revenue, but they are not primary. to that
4:08 pm
end, we require this permits to remain sustainably in business in the city. this is not discretionary. we have lawfully abided by all the health codes and we consistently received high scores on the inspectors. we operate with integrity. we operate with honesty. we honor all of the dpw codes and we are honoring all those codes with this permits in question tonight. route will will undoubtedly provide the list of findings that ultimately led to the denial of this permits. i want you to point out that these findings were not at issue throughout the permitting process. also, there were no objections from the surrounding businesses during the objection period. this permit went right to the system. almost 3 months
4:09 pm
later i get the denial. i also want to point out that the location in question is perfectly permitted by another food truck running the opposite days, but also as one of the widest sidewalks in the city and that was no mistake on my behalf. i really went far and wide to find a spot there wouldn't interrupt traffic flow because i know that is a major issue with these operations. the legislation it should be noted is to provide equal opportunity, and i'm asking again for that opportunity here tonight. the summary of findings are indeed discretionary, as this permit does not violate any of the guidelines set forth in ordinance 119 13. i would like to go through these and in
4:10 pm
summary, because i know though, in more detail so i don't think we need to go through them too many times over the course of the night i'm a but in general, the first finding is essentially reminding us of the one we hear all the time. the ordinance is to encourage opportunities to diverse locations that are underserved. i need to point out that this is a liberty that an est. operation can take an exercise. as a new talk, i can afford to do an area where might get 20 customers a day. this is something i can afford to do that multiple trucks, and there are, indeed opportunities for those who are est. to take this measure. for me to be in business i need to be in a part of the city that actually is getting to me the business to pay the bills to keep this thing running. finding-the 2nd
4:11 pm
finding is that there are several trucks permitted in this area. i have to point out that some of these are grasping at finding the relevance. one of them is there at 6:20 am in the morning and these at 6:40 am in the morning. my permit i am requesting starts at 11 am in the morning so, there are things i got. there's also another truck that is there for an hour from 11 am-2 new budget it's a little dessert truck. it's in and out of there before the real hit comes the bulk of the business is going to be noon-1 pm. it's interesting there's another truck here, lobster truck. this was on your docket in november. they were here because of a-someone was concerned about the fire hydrant. this truck seemed to not have a problem getting through the system, and another
4:12 pm
finding that is following this is all about the restaurant. this truck did not seem to have an issue with the surrounding restaurants nor did it have an issue with all the other proposed or apparent food trucks that are cluttering this area. so, i think there's a discretionary call on the part of the number of trucks and if there is too many. if we counted all the relevant during the overlap it is too.2 period the first finding or i should say the 3rd finding, is again all these restaurants. i'm having a hard time seeing the competition when one of them is a high-end fine dining seafood restaurant and the other one is a little bar that serves really nice food. these are places where people are sitting down. anyway, i'm going to end at that no good i think i made my my point. if you have questions i can adjust the amounts. i have one now. how many trucks
4:13 pm
do you have, sir? >> this is the one truck speed are there any plans to increase to another truck? >> not unless we have the markets. we need the markets for the business >> then, in the breeze you apply for multiple locations and one of those locations has been approved, correct? >> it has been approved. that will give us monday wednesday friday. that's in a less populated area. it's hard to say how sustainable that will be but it is at least an area. >> thank you very much. >> mr. shaw. >> good evening commissioners. public works. i'm just going to go into a brief history and then i'm just going to give an overview of the findings and our rebuttal to the appeal that was filed. so just to briefly start off the applicant filed an application with public
4:14 pm
works in march of 2015. at 2 location. both locations were general compliance with article 5.0 in terms of location and their quest operation terms in hours. therefore public works decided to move forward with the application and move forward with a notification. within that 30 day notification 1p's issue was received and therefore public hearing was scheduled on october 7, 2015. subsequently, i believe that objection was ultimately-withdrawn but that hearing was still took place. after that hearing the hearing officer mentioned the determination, made the recommendation, to upper management. your manager to the city engineer, deputy director and the deputy director the recommendation was to prove this based on the findings that did meet the general location
4:15 pm
requirements set forth in article 5.8. however, after review by the city engineer, it was determined that i quote, the proposal patient on mission street is surrounded by restaurants. in addition to trucks enough is in a will trade or traffic and congestion. therefore the ordinance 119 13 was utilized in this discretionary decision. to provide, under the statement, stating that the intent of the ordinance is to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities and underserved and less congested areas of the city at different times of the day and evening. so, though this proposal does attempt to schedule and work around other permit hours that statement of the ordinance needs to be taken into consideration. as this does not
4:16 pm
appear to be an underserved area and it does have a large amount of foot traffic and the hiccup or traffic compared to other areas of the city. making this work congested area. if you take a look at exhibit c one which is taken from google maps, you can see a least 20 restaurants with approximately a 2 block radius radius with it in the-this is not a underserved area. there's also currently 5 permitted mobile food facilities on the 500 block of mission street and if you take a look at item 2 of the public works brief elvis all their times of operation. the one permit that the appellant referred to which is in the same location, though does not overlap with the days and times of the proposed location for the truck it would mean this spot is taken by a food truck i got a 7 days of the week and cannot be utilized during those hours for any of their parking. in addition to
4:17 pm
this, creating more than 5 food trucks on this block will allow-will not allow parking to be utilized in the manner that was intended. i sfmta. this kind of creates-this block would have very large amount of days being taken in very a lot of spaces taken by mobile food facilities throughout the week. so, this was taken into consideration by the deputy director and the director and bureau manager. section 18.88 of the public works code states that the director has the discretion to make a decision based on the facts that there more than 3 permitted food trucks at the location. one other thing that should be noted is that the light foods
4:18 pm
is not taken into consideration when reviewing an application in making a decision. claims by the appellant they do not compete by the other trucks appeared to be taken in the context of similar foods and not in the context of competing businesses, and to the point of restaurants have filed any objections, i want to keep in mind that in order for this to even go through to a hearing, the mobile food truck has to be at least 75 feet away from any restaurants in the notification is required by code is 75 feet radius. regardless of public comment, the basis of this denial was based on the ordinance 119 13, and not any objections that were filed with public works. so, just to kind of reiterates, it was brought up that this was more of a discretionary permits and all the code requirements were
4:19 pm
followed. that is true in terms of the proposal location and the hours. however, it should be noted the codes specifically says it can-the decisions are made at the judges discretion. this was a discretionary call while following the ordinance. that's it, public works request to uphold the decision that public works has made. i'm available for any questions >> i have a question. i spent a lot of time in downtown san francisco. areas around pine bush, which are the worst from a topic standpoint, cross streets, battery and sansone, montgomery, the worst. everybody's been caught in traffic. every day between the same hours that there is a food truck on several of these blocks. by comparison, the block in question has liked traffic, and what bothers me is
4:20 pm
the inconsistency and the discussion of where indiscretion that is sometimes made with these food trucks whereas, in high-traffic areas i'm using your words- significant the hiccup or traffic, small sidewalks, from 10-2 pm or whenever the time is monday through friday, there seems to be trucks, yet what concerns me on this one is the indiscretion or in discretion not to give this one even though 2 blocks away 5 days a week it happens the same way. so, how are those discretionary calls made? >> that call is not made at our staff level. actually made after the hearing officer's recommendation. if after the hearing of his or has reviewed all material and also after the city engineer as well as the director of public works and
4:21 pm
bureau street use and mapping manager has all the material. so the statement came directly from the city engineer. but if i don't speak directly for him, but i would assume that much of this was because the existing permit booted trucks in this area that have to be a limit set at a certain point. >> but if we see, my point is-and one of the things i like about this commission, and how their behavior is, we try to be consistent and consistency is important for all departments. you try because, why is that guy getting it and i'm not in him following the same rules. so, in the same area in a much tighter, much tighter area, in the middle of downtown with much higher traffic levels, i see what is being practiced there is completely in
4:22 pm
conflict with what you are offering to this commission tonight, which is, something can be there 5/7 days a week to serve an area. probably a less dense area. so i'm just time to find out how discussion is created? because some reason about monday? off with her head. or where are the metrics? >> to be honest, this was done at a higher level than staff level so this was the statement the deputy director provided us the city engineer >> i don't mean to pick on you. it happens to be some of these livelihood could as well as the public good. >> yes. >> thanks for answering that. >> mr. shaw, the standard of existing restaurants was not applied evenly. these restaurants i'm sure there was these other food trucks were permitted good if that's the criteria, why did it not apply to them? canady again, it
4:23 pm
could've been the fact that previous ones that went through cannot go to a hearing and therefore that was not taken into consideration. once they met the general requirement that no objections were filed with the afford within approval. so some of these are the ones most likely to not go to hearing and keep in mind a lot of these food trucks on this block, delete at least 3 of them, were approved prior to the new legislation. prior to the 2013 legislation, which set the limits on the restaurant, which set the limits on the restaurants locations and proximity to existing restaurants. >> okay. >> although, mr. shaw, we've heard for appeals on this block. food trucks, one handcart. admittedly, the first couple was under a different criteria of light foods was the predominant argument. it's interesting this block is has
4:24 pm
had that but you have confirmed that there are in an existing 5 permits for this block on that side? >> yes. on both sides of the block >> both sides? >> yes >> parlor with our standard on this? de novo? >> i have a question. what to policy, so, since the standard now for new food trucks is off new legislation, my question goes to was it required that the previous permit be grandfathered in to be able to hold a spot 5 days a week? >> yes. the way the new legislation was they did grandfather the older permits to remain as is >> to me, before trying to introduce new-again not picking on you but if we are trying to
4:25 pm
introduce new different and new foods would say not underserved but to these areas, given to the same trucks i mean were creating another where the value of the permit is going to exceed the cost of the business. that, as the potential permit holder explain, it's not going to love new people to be introduced. i see, it must be a very profitable business because i see a lot of the food trucks that was not brick-and-mortar. so what they complained about initially in the beginning several years that i've heard, now they are the other side trying to stop this. maybe we should request the department to give an expiration of how that policy works or how that came about because like you said, consistency and we allowed several the thing could i get on the board since many of these have come before us and basically to buy but yet as my
4:26 pm
commissioner swig . this is much underserved than the other locations but yet they are the ones being denied. >> sorry, that was not a question. i apologize. if i could just that it's a little important to understand the way the code is written, it does allow for discretion and it is written in gray area terms. there is a lot of gray area in the code and i believe this is something that requires gray area. because of the amount of trucks that will like and will eventually apply. so, there has to be some sort of discretion allowed on the permit inside in order to determine the feasibility of the amount of trucks and what the public right-of-way is being used for throughout the different days of the week. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment on this item? if
4:27 pm
anyone wants to put speak the support. seeing none, we have rebuttal starting with the appellant again. >> you have 3 min. for rebuttal. >> beyond the letters that were submitted from fellow customers among the basic point of, we will miss you if you do not serve in the city, the point of these letters and my customers are trying to make is that this is a benefit. it's a win-win for the city. it's a win-win for the customers. it's a win-win for my in-laws to have an opportunity to share their passion. i believe it's a win-win for the legislation because the single phrase that keeps coming up about this underserved area, etc. etc. if
4:28 pm
you look at the very next line that actually says that by limiting a single facilities days to use a particular location during the course of the week will encourage and provide for greater opportunities for diverse food facilities. on a rotating basis. so, how do you get that rotating basis if a truck is allowed to be there monday, wednesday, friday but not on a tuesday and thursday? i'm asking for the tuesday-thursday slot. anyway, again, this is discretion. apparently there 5 permitted trucks. i count 2 that are truly there. you can count 5 depending on how you look at this. the restaurants, i mean, what am i dennis a? i don't think i'm going to
4:29 pm
compete with the restaurants to be honest. i think they're doing just fine. if there is a bigger problem, that's mine if i don't get the business. but i do ask for your discretion and the opportunity to have a chance on a fair chance of this. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. shaw, any rebuttal ? >> just to reiterate, this is a discretionary finding and i wonder reiterate the code and the ordinance allows for discussion in these types of cases. >> thank you. because commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i'm inclined to be flip about this and exercise my discretion. i find this discriminatory. i don't find
4:30 pm
any really solid basis for denying this permit. >> i agree. >> i may be a little bit of a different opinion in the following way. it's hard to find a nexus between what numbers should be there or should not be there. i think what we're seeing is this, a little bit of a turn in terms of how these permits. in the early days these permits were conissuedantly. the nature of them am a sometimes created appeals could of course, there were different criteria there in terms of what was the basis for those appeals. however, the
4:31 pm
process of one we are probably seeing is a turn of the cycle a little bit. you know, at this point i don't see how the arguments made for their own business needs as addressed the nexus of how many should or should not be here, which was determined by the department. >> i would take-i'll go back to the consistency view. i have a real-as i expressed i think last week, when we had 2 meetings ago when we had a food truck issue with her was a food truck that was really positioned in a high-volume situation where there is traffic. from 6 a until 6 pm
4:32 pm
and they were occupying the very narrow street and this was a real traffic problem. in this case, and in that case also, that truck was paving, or pioneering new territory putting a truck in place. there were no other trucks. in this case, this is from 10 am-2 pm. the street in question is a much wider street. also, there is a a truck which is occupying the same space on the other days, which are-on other days. and, the times of the operation are not during prime traffic times, which i would mature initiall put immature immature
4:33 pm
early whatever rush hours. so this inconsistency by virtue of the fact there isn't a truck that's doing business without problem on other days and this is doing anti-gaps. i don't like the discretion. i find this discretion in in this case. a mistake in this case. >> i'm leaning toward board vice president i've been on the board nearly 4 years. i've been consistent in the fact that being from hawaii the food truck capital of the united states, i think there's a definite need for them. i always felt that it should be for underserved areas and should not be in competition with brick-and-mortar, who support people and have employees and pay workman's comp and the whole 9 yards. i think the reason why the legislation-my question to be department was more on the fact of, why these est. food trucks
4:34 pm
have been grandfathered in and now they have a gold card, but there's a line here, evidently that's been drawn in the sand in regards to the amount of food trucks in a certain amount of neighborhood and when does the straw break the camel's back. the next time, next person that comes up to us on a smaller street,, but exceed the amount of food trucks, what do we say? i'm very sympathetic with the permit holder, but i can't support an additional food truck. i think that's a reasonable. that's why the legislation was created and though it's a less serve neighborhood and what we tell the next guy that comes through >> commissioner wilson, you are in the hot seat. >> reminded commissioners reviewed and overturned the department you do need a vote..
4:35 pm
>>, commotion and then i moved to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal and grant the permit on the basis of that it could have been issued and meets the criteria of the legislation. >> so we have a motion by commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit. on the basis that it meets the criteria of the code. on a motion, ice president fung >> you want me to pass on you? >> unprepared to vote. aye >> thank you. president honda nay, wilson nay, swig aye,
4:36 pm
>> that motion fails with a vote of 3-2. without any other motion made then the departmental denial will be upheld by a default. seeing no other motion than that department decision is upheld and the permit is denied. we will move on to item number 5 appeal number 16 008. made sunset neighborhood association vs. san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. this at multiple locations along irving street appealing the issuance of made sunset neighborhood association vs. san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. this at multiple locations along irving street appealing the issuance of december 31, 2015 of a tree removal permit to move 33 street trees the placement of 7 when oil palm trees as part ofrvin the i streetscape project. we will start with the appellants on that case. >> you have 7 min. to present your case to the board. >> good evening and thank you for hearing our appeal. my name is-and this is my husband. we
4:37 pm
where residents, homeowners and tenants in the central sunset at 26 avenue and irving. we are here representing the mid-sunset neighborhood association is priced at 70 households in the central sunset. [inaudible] like to read her personal message. here it is. as an officer of the mid-sunset association and involve neighborhood of the area for the south were years i'm very grateful for the time involvement and allocated funding for this project. i was at the initial irving streetscape meeting those that follow. when the project began the neighbors and merchants were told our neighborhood was vital because the city wanted the project to reflect our unique neighborhood and are concerned. these were our concerns in terms of the choice of trees for irving street. one was creating a commercial area that was softer, greener trees were provided a canopy and a
4:38 pm
luscious in contrast to the cement and quasi-. we look forward to the embrace of trees arching over the commercial corridor to this was and is important to us. another issue of concern is being environmentally sensitive. making trees that absorbed urban dioxide. finally, we all want the choices that reflect the character and the-the mid-sunset. this avails none of our hopes. we are specifically reviewing the planting of the windmill palm trees. along the irving streetscape at 3 19th ave. and 27th ave. we are against the window countries as a tree species that will be planted in place of existing trees once they are removed. we would like the current trees to be one or more types of conventional street trees provide canopy shade, better absorb carbon dioxide and other
4:39 pm
air pollutants and preserve local identity of our neighborhood. here are our arguments. the mid-sunset neighborhood association feels that during the community mailings the community was never given-was always given very limited choice. the options were limited to bushes and grasses and palm trees. we were-the committee was never given a choice of a shade giving street tree. most of the other similar projects in the city, for example we learn avenue project, have had conventional street trees approved and planted. for example, we learn avenue project is urban of adult baskets several shops and overhead wires and it has 63 new conventional canopy trees planted. our community feels unable it deserves no less. we understand the weather conditions might divert but however, community members consulted with certified arborists and conducted online research using dpw and friends of urban force online resources and we know that there are conventional tree species that are suitable for the stretch of ripping that would satisfy all the requirements. there is an
4:40 pm
argument that the windmill palms are acceptable because i'm not score shop signs but there are number of conventional trees with similar height and similar qualities as well as similar characteristics for wind drought has an maintenance requirement. therefore we consider this argument in valid. on trees require more frequent maintenance, every 2-3 years as opposed to 5-7 years for conventional trees and considering that the maintenance has to be paid for by the business owners there is a concern that this will result in a the auto. on tries on trees absorb less carbon dioxide than regular trees get there from the group of trees that's closer to grasses than a regular tree. considering our cities aiming to be the leader in environmental sustainability police we can do is plant trees and most efficient at carbon
4:41 pm
absorbing and absorbing greenhouse gases and other pollutants. imagine how much more environmental benefits 6 date canopy trees will bring to our neighborhood and the city as opposed to 60 countries. palms pose a potential safety hazard as well good they may not be able to handle the strong winds along the irving street corridor. we believe also windmill palms were not fit the look and feel of our neighborhood that's loose cloak. located slope closely to the golden gate park. on trees comprise only 3% of the city trees and only 3.84% and the whole outer sunset. that is less than 4%. the majority of the trees in our neighborhood are medium and small broadleaf evergreen trees that are currently no palm trees along this irving corridor subject to this project. therefore, we believe 15 palm trees will significantly change the character of our neighborhood. our additional argument for
4:42 pm
planting conventional shade trees instead of palm trees are the following: shade providing street trees prolonged payment life and reduce repair cost of to 60%. she providing street trees make local businesses more attractive and conventional canopy trees contrast, traffic and make neighborhoods safer. in conclusion to everything listed above, we would like to note the planning department of san francisco its most recent urban forest plan that was put together in collaboration with the dpw and friends of the urban forest cites insufficient and shrinking tree canopy and the fact that san francisco has one of we the smallest tree canopies of any major city. it also states its number one recommendation is to maximize the benefits of street trees. we do not believe that windmill palm trees are such trees. there are far better conventional trees that will achieve the goal of maximizing the benefits. vote for neighborhood and visit. we are asking the board to support us rather than the mid-sunset and
4:43 pm
put conditions on this order that dpw should once again meet with community organizations members and come up with a different replacing tree species. for the irving streetscape project that would be a conventional tree remix of trees. we are okay with palm trees being in the mix as well. there will also be desirable if friends of the urban forest rate or other independent third-party arbor selected by the community advise on the tree selection in this process. thank you very much >> either any questions we pick >> you had a couple specific trees you would like to see their? >> we do. there's a black [inaudible] that was in dpw's that was presented. but up for a vote. there is a-that's already present in the neighborhood and there's in our grief we included a whole list good i don't know if this is working but we have a and exhibit here with a whole list of trees that are suitable,
4:44 pm
have-do not cover the signs and that are suitable for the conditions of our neighborhood. >> that was a matrix that was given to about 11 options? >> correct. not that many of them were canopy trees. >> so that is a problem we have with this process. >> do you feel a mix is preferable to having a single? >> of course, the mixes deftly referable. because it's such a long stretch in 60s 62 duo mix would definitely be much better. a lot of merchants want it to be said they want uniform book. also maybe perhaps there can be a compromise. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder, now. which is
4:45 pm
[inaudible] representing the department of public works and then we'll hear from urban forestry after. >> thank you. i do want to thank the appellants for providing a thorough documentation to us regarding their argument. i do want to just put on the overhead >> do you want to identify yourself? >> yes, i will. my name is mike agreed to get on the project manager for the irving streetscape improvement project with the san francisco department of public works. just to give a little bit of background about the project, the irving streetscape implement project is part of the voter approved 2011 street safety bonds. it was allocated $3 million by the bond could the project runs from on irving street from 19th-27th ave.
4:46 pm
originally we just spoke to 26 based on community request we extended it to 27. the scope includes new sidewalks on both north and south side, pedestrian buildout at 22nd and 20 fifth avenue, decorative crosswalks, upgraded led streetlights from 19th-22nd ave. the repaving and her improvements and of course street skeet. the committee process was fairly extensive of this but it started in june 2013. we held 5 publicly noticed community meetings to gather public input on the design. at the 5th public meeting we provided the choices for plants or the community to vote on so they can provide input. we wanted community input but we also utilize our staff netscape architects and
4:47 pm
arborists to provide selections based on the climatic conditions out on the site as well as existing documents a commercial corridor. that's obviously a big factor in the decision. after the public meetings i personally attended, 5 different meetings with different neighborhood groups, mostly with the outer sunset merchant professional association that will provide updates. since the final public meeting of february 20 14th and our team was working on design documentation construction documents and that's why the one congressional public meanings but i try to console data by meeting with merchants and also a couple of those meetings the mid-sunset neighborhood association was present along with the sunset residents association. did you request from the sunset residents association, i met separately with them in the mid-sunset neighborhood association, to review some concerns they had including the
4:48 pm
palms. one of the ways we felt we could meet them halfway is to provide-trees which is a polar canopy tree on side streets off of reading. so, we located 15 of those along the project corridor just to try to meet some of the needs they were discussing. then, one of the things i want to note that the first public meeting we asked for what people wanted to see as improvements on this project, and cleaning was one of the number one requests. currently, the trees on site are in very poor condition. most of them were a lot of them are dead. a lot of them have been t. you can't specifically say why this has occurred. there's some thought that maybe merchants might've cut the top of the tree, so that it did not
4:49 pm
plot their awnings but however they're in very poor condition. it is also very difficult environment to grow a big canopy tree due to the high winds, the salt air, and also just been a very busy urban environment. we also look at what the potential for a larger canopy tree would be in terms of elevation, how that would look good we found that the palm tree satisfied the request from a lot of the merchants that this is not blocked but also provide cleaning in the area. also, the overhead power lines, while the palm does have the ability to reach the height of the power lines, as a much smaller canopy so it will create much less conflict with those lines should it reach that could also, with a growing environment it probably would be potentially 10-20 years before it ever reach that height. so, the windmill palm
4:50 pm
met a lot of the criteria that i said it it out console required a lot less water after its establishment as i urban survivability, wind and salt tolerant minimal maintenance, really i think the expectancy would be trimming on fronds that die over the years just from the bottom. suitable for many soils. ideal in a constrained space. canopy is less conflict with power lines during a much lesser canopy tree. keeps businesses visible as was a request and about a 6 foot average canopy diameter. so, again this logic shows the trees we offered to the plants on the side streets the 15 additional canopy trees. were able to do that on a side street going north-south and they do not receive that high winds that irving street does
4:51 pm
being east west so they are protected. so you can grow a larger canopy tree fairly easily on fairly easily on the n. south st. this shows the matrix of those 11 trees. this order landscape architects developed looking at all the conditions on site. we broke into various categories and found the best species that would have the highest survivability in this corridor. the windmill palm met all of the categories that we had divided it up into. this slide shows the comment card those provided at the 5th community meeting to the meeting attendees for them to vote. about 54% chose the windmill palm as their first choice. the next choice was the purple pussy bush which received about 13% of the vote. the last thing i like to note, just in
4:52 pm
terms of maintenance the otto currently includes one year of contractor on term plan to establish and to the contractor who builds the streetscape will maintain those streets for a year after installation survey can establish from there after he goes to the funding property owner and not the merchant. >> mr. reader, you mentioned in a number of community meetings but during the course of your presentation you brought forth that attendees or people you presented to were among the merchants associations and these 2 neighborhood associations. get other residents attend? >> well, to be honest i was not a project manager during the public outreach process. the project manager the public works subsequently left the apartment and i attended the 5th community meeting taken
4:53 pm
over the project. so, i was able to gather input on those first 4 meetings via project notes files that were left and also other staff that attended. i would say that the attendance was not what we would have liked completely but that's why i think they have 5 meetings total. usually we do about 3 for streetscape project. we try to cover as much as we could in terms of getting people attendance and getting input. >> at the meeting where you took a vote it was attended by 2? >> it was a mix of residence. there were certain merchants there. there were residents. i think one of the things we asked was, and certainly the majority lived in this neighborhood. >> my question is somewhat of a follow-up question. i
4:54 pm
actually just had a committee meeting are to coming to be hearing this evening. do you guys to sign in sheets? >> we do speak roughly how many of the public-evidently you the assignment sheet. how many of the public attended this past meetings? >> i would have to verify the number but for the streetscape it was not hot. >> 1-2?. i would estimate average of 15-20 per meeting. >> that's not that good at those meetings, did you notice evidently were not there but with the same people at the meeting? >> when i reviewed the sun in sheets there were some of the same folks. but obviously given the fact there were 5 depending on who should could show up. >> thank you. >> is there is there a sense of urgency to complete this permit? >> yes, there is. the project is under construction. construction operations of not
4:55 pm
begun currently because the contractor is just getting their traffic control plan approved.. if we did change the tree there could be potential cost implications. i believe this conduct includes a contract grow agreements and so if the contractor is oriented she did that contact grow with the nursery, there could be a potential cost to change that. >> i would be counted. it becomes so they move on the contractor's part to get the permits is under appeal but that would be [inaudible] >> once we receive the appeal notification we told the contractor not to commence with the operations related to the tree >> what concerns me here what i'm hearing from the brief from the appellants is something that is not really as aggressive as we often hear,
4:56 pm
which is off with your head, yes or no, black or white. this is an outreach for saying, we don't mind the palms, but we don't feel we were heard and we don't feel there's a level of compromise. where i'm going with this is that if there is the opportunity to continue the conversation for a regulated period of time to reach a better compromise. i see mr. buck is in the audience and he is obviously an expert here and i to ask him a question are you going to be up as part of this are you available for questions? >> he'll be speaking next. >> soap i will be asking a question but that's why i asked the sins of urgency questioned it in case there is the opportunity for continuance with a regulated period of time for the purpose of reaching a compromise, which just seems it's not really mean-spirited
4:57 pm
but they want a little bit more and a compromise. which i don't see a occurring when it's like all palms. >> the points i'd like to just respond to that are that there are obviously, people participate in the community process that are not here tonight and i think we would take issue with going against what others collectively decided on in the past. i also feel that he did have some good faith efforts in reaching out to the sunset resident association to the mid-sunset neighborhood association to provide additional canopy trees where they would be best suited to grow. we have very limited choices on irving street given the conditions. there was a very large request for cohesiveness and whole corridor. that's why we chose a single species and with the small rubber trees that would
4:58 pm
survive out there, that is how we came to our decision, but also including the public in that we felt we did do that. >> what i was with you until you said that you had a predecessor and you have no idea what went on at those meetings, and that's what threw me into a 10 area of gray. if you would've been at all 5 meetings in handle this from point a to point whatever, that would be more comfortable but unfortunately that's the level of doubt that's on my mind. >> so, the maintenance of the trees only for one year by the-and then acted out be the responsibility of whom? >> the property owner. >> that's fine. that's fine neighborhood. i'm there a lot. those trees are really sad. no,
4:59 pm
they are really sad. i mean there's a couple trees between 25th and 26 on the north side that if you, on the south side, unlike 22nd, they are just gone. they are just stops. i believe-this of their sponsor ability of the i guess what mr. buck spohn >> i would say the palms we had proposed to be installed would be installed at a 10-12 foot brown trunk height. they would look mature in silly on insulation which i think would limit the amount of abuse they would receive and they're very well make low maintenance. from what i attended up into many of the merchants meetings since the project finished the public outreach and they obviously have a preference to this tree as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. buck. >> good evening,
5:00 pm
commissioners. chris up urban for street of public works. i try to keep this under 5 instead of some general observations come a food for thought just to put out there. i would say to start off, the consistent thing here is public works. public works is been at the home the whole time. project made managers may change hands but public works in our outreach and a level of professionalism remains the same. if there's a consensus does establishing and building momentum prior to my brother mike taken on the project that information was critical information within a pass on as a project manager. in terms of the character of the sunset, i would say it's a challenge character when it comes to
5:01 pm
greenery. i think the most controversial thing that happened at the sunset in the last few decades is when under mayor newsom 10 years ago we initiated the trees for tomorrow program and said will maintain trees in perpetuity and route their marking the sites and people are out there scrubbing off the markets. so when we went back to see the utility markets, those are there better tree site markings were gone. the challenge here is that a lot of merchants don't want trees anywhere near their signage. we don't have the funding to maintain these trees beyond one year and i prefer large trees. i will with the education coordinator for 5 years for [inaudible] and i are asking why doing a plan larger trees and he looked to me like you've got a lot to learn, some. he said, well, beasties are to be planted voluntarily by property owners who are going to maintain them for a long time and they're concerned about the ongoing maintenance. so i would love to get more trees in the sunset this could
5:02 pm
be a catalyst for folks in the neighborhood to organize the way that friends of the urban forest avenue since 1981. organize the community plans. given force plan does call for more treeplanting across the city. there could even be about the initiative this november that allows public works to take on the maintenance of all street trees in the future. that's where we hope the city is going politically. but i think my main feedback is, it is very difficult to build consensus and i'm concerned that we are not going to get there regardless of how many additional meetings are held. the palms, they provide-there is going to be storm water diversion in the cutouts when the palms are placed in the ground. they are going to be new permeable surfaces created. citywide, were not treeplanting ponds all over the place. but when we have a commercial
5:03 pm
district where a lot of the property owners and merchants are same, we want green but we wanted to be in control in a way that we can maintain it, i understand why the windmill palm was selected. i think it's going to be difficult to convince a lot of the property owners along irving to take on larger trees. what we would call or conventional canopy trees good if we had 10 merchants out here saying we really want that the-has a bigger canopy. could we pepper some of these throughout. i think we would be willing to do that. if the appellant was a property owner along this corridor we could say i'm a workable arche sticking points? maybe we could put a couple in here. so, just in general feedback. i think it's very challenging to build consensus and i worried that continuing the dialogue about the species
5:04 pm
is not going to actually help us achieve any more of a consensus that has already been created. those are just my general feedback items. i do think the windmill palm is probably the one that is one of the lower my least maintenance required species we have. so, it's a real low maintenance tree. there is a must zero public safety concern regarding the pruning of the fronds. from that, and feel very comfortable about the recommendation. but a public safety issue. very low maintenance. and again, right now all we can pledge is to maintain the trees for the first year and we're still working out how to get the water to them for 2 additional years after that. so those my general comments. >> mr. buck, i have several questions. were you around when
5:05 pm
the discussion was heard on the embarcadero? >> i work for davy tree. davy tree removed all the trees along the embarcadero. so, we removed the trees >> was it an appropriate replanting and debate that occurred in that period? >> i wasn't within the city at that time. i know that palm trees are-can really get people's ire up. it sort of love them or not >> let's go back to-they will are windmill palms on-you have a list of what is appropriate street trees. urban forestry is >> yes >> is the windmill palm on our list we picked >> it is. we have about 5 palm trees that we generally approve. that is one of the palm trees. >> last point is, usually,
5:06 pm
from an urban design point of view,, when one sees in a lady of trees, it's usually reflective of either a processional movement or an urban design, or some type of consistency of character architecturally or otherwise. there's nothing consistent on irving street. >> the consistency there is portrayed maintenance. it's really very inconsistent. >> we all agree on that. >> the proposals 33 tree removals with no protest because there's nothing to protest. the trees have been excessively. despite a lot of our reach on our part to ensure proper pruning. then, there is -that's wreaking havoc on a lot of trees in the sunset. supervisor in that district allocated money in our ad back to how hopeless removed those
5:07 pm
trees throughout the sunset. so that's our current challenge right now. were moving a lot of my offering trees so, it really could use some green and like mike stated, this can be almost 10 feet vertical sort of trunk wood of these poems that will really add a punch to it currently does not have a consistent look and feel to it. >> thank you. >> i have a question. i am concerned, one, the toefl community but i understand your issue related to reaching consensus. i kind of look to more reaching compromise instead of consensus could but also, when there is a neighborhood like irving which is consistent in its
5:08 pm
inconsistency, architecturally, etc. etc., then putting one type of tree all the way down block after block after block after block, weeks of urban mall. as opposed to-and also i'm concerned that the spirit of creating a canopy won't be there. can you shed some light on the creation of a consistency that yields urban mall and then also what we do about fulfilling the vision of having urban canopy? >> sure. i think one thing at the moment is that the project scope is about 19th ave.-26-27th ave. it's really not through the entirety of irving and that would be one comment i would say in response to that. a lot of the feedback i than two thirds of the street trees across the city are maintained by the fronting
5:09 pm
property owner and that's why we have such a diverse mix of species could on one block, no one got organized for say it's a mix of species good i personally find that to be perfectly acceptable. a lot of folks, whether organized replanting in a community is a great desire to great identity and a consistency. whether it's a row of kinko's in eureka valley or the palm trees. so, there really is a strong desire among the public to have, to create this section permits create a look and feel for it, but i agree that there is not a lot of consistency out there and if there's a way to find a compromise that challenge would be, i think for mike, how to approach that. would be too easy not to property owners to say, are you open to canopy more canopy trees like a-good i think it can be a little bit
5:10 pm
challenging. overall, we don't have a single monoculture of species in the city and people love the chinese own trees on fulsome street from 22nd right up until bernal heights. it really sticks out. people always ask, what are those trees. i think the palm trees were likely to get the same thing. roll call. what are those and will still provide that wow factor and give it some identity i understand what you're saying but ideally the compromise would be a wonderful way to go here and i don't think in this case he was the clear answer is. i wish the public works could state that we can maintain the streets in perpetuity after november we may be able to say that is true. but we are not there at this point >> about canopy? we feel overreaching trees vs. palms?
5:11 pm
>> i think palms have their place in the mid one city and i feel like this project does that. it's 19th-27th ave. that is not the entirety of irving. we preferred large stature trees that provide greater benefits, but we also, being san francisco would love the diversity and idiosyncrasy while the different neighborhoods. so, that species is not providing the full range of benefits that every tree has the potential to provide doesn't concern us on the small-scale. we understand that critical feedback from the appellants. we do. were not concerned about it spreading and taking over throughout every neighborhood in the city. >> given your views, which i celebrate and like, when you look at the matrix of offerings that were provided to the neighborhood, do you think that was enough of a diversified
5:12 pm
offering that provided the opportunity for diversity and an compromise between one tree or 2 trees were another? >> i do. the runner-up the purple hot seed i should take a closer look at what we are proposing for the public. it's really almost more of a bush could. friends of forestry is to plant a lot of them and then we were doing that tree care visits there were establishing a good group structure. to it to keep these states on these trees really really long. so even the runner-up in this case isn't informative to me. it wasn't the more conventional canopy tree. it was still really the sort of boutique tree. that was another thing that i noticed in the species voting that the runner-up was
5:13 pm
not one of the more conventional canopy trees. so, it seems like the options were there i personally think selecting a species is really difficult and stressful because everything is in play until you make a decision and then everything else is not in play. when people approach me and say, we have consensus here, it's a windmill palm, i may wrinkle my nose at sunday the community will speak out these large trees, but i also feel a little bit of relief. i'm glad is the microclimates. the son prevailing winds and fog and the salt sea spray really challenging. there's not a lot of great species that we can put out there. one of the ones i recommend highly as the most sidewalk damage and it's the one is the new zealand christmas tree. i feel like for
5:14 pm
whatever reason it's the most common species that comes back to you when we denied it for removal and people are just like, so tired of the sidewalk repairs. so, when i saw the results of this i felt like based on the microclimates and the reluctance of the community to embrace large stature trees, it kind of fits with what i would expect. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment nebular like to speak please step forward. because good evening my name is kathleen kelly. this is my husband thomas homered and we reside at 2020 per, in the sunset right on the corner of 26th ave. we happen to have actually 5 purple-we are the same east-west access. they are not without issue but it's much prettier tree and sort of indigenous in our humble opinion that was being
5:15 pm
proposed. we are design professionals and we have been designing environments for over 4 decades. tom is an architect and him and interior designer. so if some strong feelings and professional experience. as spokespersons for the sunset resident association were here to respond to specific read this tree issue. we feel that dpw don't reflect the entire communities desires.. for these reasons. the polling method used by dpw for tree selection will be created to we think was a false sense of choice and you can see exhibit their office here. >> overhead, please >> this is an example of the kinds of choices that were
5:16 pm
limited. as you can see, the voters on this voting form cross out the windmill palm and went to the purple hot seed. while this might be a minority point of view, it doesn't reflect the fact that there were equal choices to be made here. >> the meeting also number to the meetings were not publicized. i mean the fact there were 15-20 people there is, well which is a wasn't well-publicized. we feel the nature of the polling, the choice was a lesser 2 evils because the way they were put out to the public. >> for example, here they used [inaudible] selected the windmill palm, but the person also said, keeping the street clean is more important than changing the landscape. this
5:17 pm
was pervasive point of view that didn't get hurt. >> outside our verse disagree with dpw's position that there is no other choices. i think you have in your support e-mails and letter from master arbors james allen and some others. there many community members that feel this choice is turning irving street into sort of a los angeles kind of disney world look with the selection of the palm. and many recognize that an indigenous tree would be more appropriate. you can see exhibit c here, how really the canopy tree was discouraged in the way this thing is represented. the lines through the canopy. >> your time is up. do you want to have a finishing statement there? >> yes. so it's really our hope the board of appeals will amend the dpw order request the
5:18 pm
friends of the urban force may become arbiters with dpw and the community for selection of a good tree. >> the date of iphone question. of the 5 meetings, did you folks attend any of those?. yes. i was in attendance at g numeetiner 2 and alsomeeting number 4 and 5. >> then, what was your take of how the meeting went? >> my take was that it didn't go >> could you speak into the microphone. >> my take was that it didn't reflect the perspective of the entire community and the choices that were offered to us , there were no equals across the board. it was just one candidate that was superior than the rest, so is a very limiting choice that we were provided with. >> thank you.
5:19 pm
>> i've copies of ouexhibit if you'd like to have it for the record >> if you have speaker cards it would be helpful if you submit them as well. >> next speaker, please. >> i plan on speaking at try to find mr. swig and also get on patricia-neighborhood margins and we also i also had a group called pads which is 22 neighborhood merchants associations. in the marina how we are a similar issue. they came in. they said we want to plant all palm trees in the whole neighborhood. the italians did not like that very well. but we did. we said let's take the choices. we put the pictures on bank windows, places all over down the street. the choice was the neighborhood of the merchants. contrary to
5:20 pm
the first speaker from the department of public works, it is east-west. they do grow. our big problem is that merchants do not want trees in front of their house regardless. it's a very interesting tree. even though it grows slowly, it has a small trunk and you can hide behind it. when it gets to 25 feet the canopy is almost 13 feet above the signs. it was grown to develop the to be on highways. it can take the stress of high winds, software, etc. it was our neighbors, our merchants, devoted on the pictures. over i think over i think 4000 voted this way. after was voted on, it was never appealed. all of a sudden,
5:21 pm
the dept. of pub. works and friends of the urban forester, which are not very pleased with, decided they wanted palm trees. all of a sudden palm trees started showing up here and there and we put a stop to it because the public had spoken. i'm really curious where this push for palm trees is coming from in the political connections, to tell you the truth. i want you to think about this very well. it's happening with mta. it's happening with dpw. and friends of the urban forestry come to one half and save what you want. they don't talk to the neighbors and refused to talk to talk to the neighbors, infected they just had this incident. so be very careful in what you do. i think in every neighborhood has the right to have their look. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, we will have rebuttal from the appellants. you have 3 min.
5:22 pm
>> i just want to clarify that were not protesting the removal of the existing trees. which is protesting the window palms as a tree species that we planted in t t. yes, people voted on the green but palm trees are they provide any cleaning value due to the limited limited canopy. yes there were numerous community meetings the public hearing on this issue. however, not once was a committee given a choice in a natural canopy tree. as you can see on the same card, the options were blue arrow juniper, [calling names] and window palms. not one of them is a canopy tree. a lot of people voted on the window palms because it was the most best option on the menu so to speak. it should be the case that people voted on palm trees but also given a canopy tree, we probably not be here appealing this right now. the
5:23 pm
urban street matrix was also very limited. even so does have a canopy tree which was the black-but was never put up for a vote that. to reiterate, kim members have consulted with certified arborists and are canopy trees that are suitable for weather conditions of the urban street corridor that would satisfy dpw's and communities requirements. both the neighborhood association and the sunset residents association consistently objected to window palms at the committee meetings, ejected at the public hearing, and [inaudible] dpw and the voter appeals every object again to window palms are the reasons i mentioned in our brief. we believe that they're better tree species suitable for this area that will also provide a better environment and aesthetic value for neighborhood. you also provide
5:24 pm
preserve a local identity and there hardly any palm trees in the central sunset warren san francisco for that matter. yes, there's a concern of shop owners not maintaining the trees but it's the same concern for palm trees as well. because they require more frequent maintenance. because they're still clearly a lot of discontent with limited window palms from community residents we hope the board of appeals will rule in our favor and all we want is dpw and the committee to work out a knife turn of choice or mixer trees with third-party arborists. that would satisfy all the requirements. if we plan these 50 window palms adobe therefore 50 years provided almost no environmental value against global warming. with such a great opportunity here to plants escape you vote canopy trees soaked defining our neighborhood and providing aesthetic environmental value for on this plus years to come. which means a small victory against global warming. thank you. >> thank you. any questions?
5:25 pm
mr. reader. >> thank you. so, just a few items i want to reiterate. we did have a public process and begin receive consensus on the contrary. i do feel that if we were to go back out to the community reopen the issue it would go against the decisioncollectively during the public outreach process. we also risk the potential of merchants potentially, if they feel a larger canopy tree that will block their business they may lose support of the project overall, which we currently have support. i do want to mention that-was offered at the
5:26 pm
5th committee meeting as a choice which the very large canopy tree which the appellants mention. that was one of the choices for selection. so we did offer a large canopy tree. the other point i like to note is that friends of the urban forestry provider letter to the board of appeals and i think within their letter they noted there is no perfect choice for this corridor. however, i think the climatic conditions in urban environment conditions minutes of the choices were very small. that's always indicated by the matrix we put together. we do not offer plans that we knew would not work in the corridor. we offer plans we thought would have a high survivability.. we have the other thing i like to mention about the windmill palm, it actually contrary to what the appellants 2nd would have a very low maintenance requirements. they're extremely drought tolerance. then extremely extreme tolerance too bad soil conditions. overall, maintenance release just going to apply to trimming the fronds of the die off over the years.
5:27 pm
the last point i want to make is that while we'll would have loved to provide a large canopy tree that provides both benefits that the appellants mention, with carbon conversion, i think it should be noted this corridor is one block from golden gate park and there's obviously a very large growth of carbon converting trees just one block away. there are no free winds through this neighborhood. i believe that's it. >> question. at the very back of your brief is a i guess this streetscape map with existing business. are those the only businesses? >> no, no. that map was a diagram rebar landscape architects and they noted just a few of the businesses so people could orientate themselves >> thank you. >> my question is are there any other districts with large
5:28 pm
plantings planned in the near future besides earning from 19th-27? >> so are streetscape program at public works, we had 24 streetscapes as part of the 2011 over paving bond. we are nearing completion on most of those. in terms of multiblock streetscapes, most of those from the bonds are completed. we do have the potrero streetscape which is currently under construction. that's premature from 22nd-25th >> what percentage of palms being planted? >> i don't know that number offhand but we did plant palms on the streetscape completed last july that is from 46-48. really, i landscape architects proposed palms when they feel the climatic conditions will support them. also, these are
5:29 pm
many reasons behind the offering of the palm in this corridor. >> then, what is your response to comment from the public in regards to the marina district merchants corridor that dpw had recommended palms and that it got switched over to ever tree that was? >> i can't comment specifically. i wasn't involved in the process good i will say that in the marina there is protection from ocean wins that is not a street that union or chestnut in-those would not be receiving the high ocean wins and salt wins that irving would be >> are direct that question to mr. bob. thank you. >> thank you. mr. bob. >> good evening chris buck with san francisco public works. i should address that question >> it's your time so-
5:30 pm
>> really no general rebuttal. i did double check the list of trees provided on the matrix. this is one my favorite street trees. it is a large canopy tree , so i didn't verify just a few minutes ago that was on the list could integrate very large street tree. so that just confirming that was such a tree offered on the matrix. i don't know the history behind the marina commercial corridor. i would need to verify on chestnut union street. doesn't sound typical. what happened there? again, i was education chordata for fans of the urban forest for 5 years. so my introduction to civil servants in san francisco is really good tree otto a certified arborists of course. i am the
5:31 pm
examined administrator for cancer was to become certified harvested am heavily involved in the industry and we sure all the species information with friends of urban forest did you ever and forced to counsel and really a lot of colleagues as we do want to continue strike pushing new different species out there. so, i do really believe that we've got qualified arborists were evaluating this information with her landscape architects and to our own department at urban forestry. >> are you finished? >> yes. >> if we were to throw this back in your lap and say hey what's a more community input, can you give me a landscape picture what that would look like? good, bad, indifferent? >> sure. i probably will defer to do a brief reply and my one week to speak to that because that's wanted about in my mind well how would we were without
5:32 pm
look like and how would we move forward. to be a single meeting, all or nothing meeting where we put out the information have multiple meetings? do you give more credit to voting member who's going to be living along the frontage, whether it's a property owner or residents or attendance? it's going to be challenging. i do believe that in the end, i think oregon and back where we are. with a preferred species. san francisco is all about due process and the ability of the public to >> we know >> you can be a german tourist and professor tree removal in san francisco. we don't question it. i just worry about how far this would go in this love streetscape projects we are planning large stature trees . masonic, cesar chavez is completed but those are large stature trees. valencia,
5:33 pm
potrero, barlett, van ness, ravenna commit to very large stature trees bid is no pattern by public works on looking for the easy way out. >> thank you. >> the question that's a little bit tangential but i'm curious, how was it-we see this all the time. i caught dueling arborists. the 2 certified arborists will look at a tree and come to very different conclusions? >> reasonable minds will differ. that's just not what lawyers say but even arborists have learned to say that. as long as the basis for what you are playing your staking what you're advocating for the mets a reasonable statement. i do feel that public works as an independent third-party. no one
5:34 pm
here is going to benefit financially from a specific species, other than the phone calls were going to receive for years based on these decisions we make. so i think we are the most independent party out there and work on the answering these calls. people want to know every tree complaint to imagine were going to receive about any tree. >> we are aware of that. >> thank you. >> chris., would your organization consulted on this at all? >> we were. >> can an artist be somebody-was he part of your department or separate? >> i think more recently when the species issue is coming up our current inspector for the area, stephen keller, was brought into the mix it he's the one handling removal process and just generally speaking, we do meet with a landscape architecture on a regular basis to hear about what projects are coming up and understanding
5:35 pm
what's proposed and if we have any issues with it. we typically pipe up and say, can you do a large stature species here. we would-if there's a lack of a full-bodied conventional tree canopy we would say we love to see one on there. so, generally we were close. i would have to look specifically at who reviewed it but generally it some something that happens all the time. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i guess i will start. i understand commissioner your concerns as a resident of central for a long time now. inner sunset. in a visitor of her street probably once a week, maybe twice. trees need help and a lot of my friends are merchants on that block. i can see-i was emergent in the sunset for 16+ years and had to maintain that for street trees
5:36 pm
on a regular, regular, regular basis. i could cd pw's dpw's challenges getting everyone to vote on a tree that would block . personally i think was a tree has matured those neighborhoods a much more attractive. you look at several districts in san francisco that a picture trees streetscapes and canopies . i don't think that it would be hard-pressed to get think i think of be very hard-pressed to get the merchants of irving to that same consensus, to be honest. they willing to wait 15-20 years that to happen. i don't think so. so, i am definitely leaning towards denying the appeal and upholding the permits. >> it does appear that the merchants drove a lot of this decision-making that wasn't quite stated that way, but
5:37 pm
testing some of the aside needs me to that conclusion. let's go to the nature of what is being designed, and yet what is being opposed. i think i'll approach it from the following way. that is, we had a case up in diamond heights where a small group felt they had a right to determine the visual nature of that street. the property owner, who didn't want that is, didn't get her way to the property owner lost at this port. i found that to be not acceptable. similarly, if one
5:38 pm
looks at the words that are being used, it's difficult for me to accept this is consensus when you are talking about the great club hourly of 54% with 15-20 people. to me that's not a consensus but that's not a plurality. however, i also understand the difficulties of getting consensus in our town. i understand we are where dpw is coming from in wanting to put in trees that have some ability to be able to last into the next generation. there is no doubt that palms resist droughts. they resist salt air much better than many trees. i would propose the following. i would propose to continue this for one week and i would ask urban forest tree, mr. bock emma and ms. short give me-give
5:39 pm
us, excuse me, 3 non--palm recommendations of what they would like to see that they think would be appropriate for that area. >> how about dpw? >> they party given those. >> but then what? >> i'm curious. i think-is not necessarily my trees. obviously, the board can vote enter. it was my choice i would take all 3 and put them in there. i would prefer, as a citizen of the city, a diversity. it doesn't make sense to me to see the same tree over and over going over 12 blocks >> 8 blocks. >> 8-12, you know there's no correlation to the buildings
5:40 pm
there, to the activities there. >> i find in your direction.. i'm not sure i agree with the action step. but i'm with you on the position and strategy, but not so much on the action step. i would like to place the burden-i would like to recommend a continuance could we agree. i would like to recommend a continuance for a longer period of time. it might be 3 weeks or a month could i would like to place the burden on the residents association, the merchants association, in conjunction with dpw and urban forest tree for history reach
5:41 pm
out for greater consensus and what bothers me the most is that there really wasn't a broader variety presented on all of the ballots. as was stated in the 5th meeting, a canopy tree was presented. that means the other for meetings that diversity was not presented. so, i would like to ask the major parties, which are the neighborhood representation, associations, to meet with dpw and urban forest tree and month from now come back and with our findings and recommendation. it might be the same thing, but in consideration of a broader matrix of canopy trees. >> i'm a little more inclined to want to know what the residents and business owners
5:42 pm
want. i don't know if there is a mechanism to go back to the predominant occupant, where each of these trees is. and say, here's a couple choices, here are the pros and cons. what would you like? i don't know if that's feasible, but it seems to me that since barring something happening in november, there can be responsible. i inclination is that we allow the property owner to have some say about it. i don't know if what you're talking about gets us there or if we can get there. >> so, one week, 2 months indefinite. do you have input? >> a month. >> one week one month or indefinite?
5:43 pm
>> it can't be indefinite. >> i know. >> since we have to vote on this maybe we can get a consensus >> bill consensus. >> build a consensus >> prior to that i think we should talk about it a little bit more. commissioner fung >> i think i said too much. >> i am willing to stretch it out but not very long. at all. >> for what purpose we picked >> i see where you are coming from. >> lemaster project manager a question. this appeal is of the pre-demolition permits your other improvements, have you started construction on the buildout and the sidewalk
5:44 pm
replacement? >> no, that has not begun. >> that's not being appealed. i can continue. that could take quite a long time. i just want to make sure everybody understands. this does not impact the schedule, but i think it does impact the long-term visual aspect of the streets. >> that's why my first question was where is the sense of urgency and you are validating the sense of urgency may not be as dramatic as represented >> i've not heard any disagreements with the sidewalk. buildout for greater safety or any of those things. that can continue as far as we are concerned. >> some utterly on having entities contesting removal of the trees either. just want to go in and said >> d- i bring up the pounds again and asked her question. so, you are the quandary of stuff you're going on. if we
5:45 pm
were to give you more time will you do with it? >> i think we want to consult bring in the friends of the urban forest to advise us on the process and perhaps have another meeting, community merchants, everybody, dpw. friends of the urban forest to discuss it. come up with a turn of options and vote again where we have a broader range of options up for vote >> in a perfect world, time with it take for you to get a college? >> it's hard to say. friends of the urban forest, in standby mode they said they would advise us if this would be appealed. so, we can definitely get there--them, their advice, could i do know >> 30 days, 60 days, 90 days? >> probably-what with the
5:46 pm
sunset association think? 2 months. the person involved from the beginning >> you do live in the central sunset correct? >> yes. we walk on that stretch like 3-4 times a day. it's important to us >>. abusing a lot of your free time for this. >> is there a separate merchant association as well? because there's a merchants association and the neighborhood as well. they were involved in the process so we could advertise and bring them in. we could put notices on the merchants of doors if necessary to get as much engagement as possible for the meeting. because i think maximizing engagement-because the commissioners want to see involvement other than 15 of the same people on a regular base. thank you very much >> we should ask the discussed supervisor's office wants to be involved in this. >> is a represented from katie
5:47 pm
tang's office here? sorry i did not see you there. >> my question is, does your office want to get involved in this? >> i don't expect to speak today but if we have more community community meetings, believe we will be willing to participate and help out to facilitate the conversation >> this alternate may be better by your office then dpw. >> we will be happy to do that >> i wonder katie is watching? >> should identify myself >> these >> ray law from katie tang's office >> thank you. >> i would not support dragon is on. for too long of a time. i think the issue are well-known. i think the people all know it but just try to see one last step we can take to create something that is a bit
5:48 pm
more acceptable. i don't think were going-we would never get total acceptance >> what do you think? >> not more thanth >> i agree >> it forces the issue for the merchants association come in the residence are passionate about it to mobilize that is not interested in mobilizing the come back in a month and if it has some move forward we will take the next that >> we will know the answer, then. >> yes >> just to be practical looks like april 20 desire for a little extra time which is fine those old meeting the first 2 weeks in april. >> celebs over to april 20 >> is there a motion? >> i would move to continue this case to april 20 if it's acceptable to both sides as a date for perhaps not only the department and the residence
5:49 pm
and the association, but also the district supervisor's office to convene and see if we can get this closer to a decision point. >> so we have a motion for the vice president to continue the appeal to april 20, 2016 to out time for the department, community residents, neighborhood association and supervisors tang's office to convene a meeting to see if it should i say additional consensus can be reached?. yes >> on a motion, commissioner lazarus aye, the honda aye come he wasn't aye swig without objection that motion carried
5:50 pm
5-0. this no further business >> thank you. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]to order. roll
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
>> commissioner willie adams, here. commissioner kimberley brandon, here. commissioner lesley katz, absent. commissioner aleenan kounalakis, here. commissioner woo

13 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on