>> good evening and welcome to january 17, 2024 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president swig is the residing officer and joined by lopez--also present is deputy city attorney jen huber who provides the board with needed legal advice. the board legal [indiscernible] i'm julie rosenberg the board executive director. we are joined by representatives from city departments presenting before the board. we expect chris buck urban forester representing san francisco public works bureau urban forestry and larry kessler, manager of retail tobacco smoking program. jeanine young senior health inspector with department of

public health and marion cost, project manager capital improvement division for rec and park and kevin johnson disability coordinator with san francisco public works. the board request your turn or silence phones and electronic devices. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellate permit holders are given 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliatedmist include the comments within 7 and 3 minutes period. members not affiliated have 3 minutes each. mr. longly will give a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. 4 votes are required to grant appeal or modify a permit. if you have questions about

rehearing e-mail boardofappeals @sfgovtv .org. we have the ability to receive public comment. sf govtv is provided closed caption. go to cable channel 78. it is rebroadcast friday 4 p.m. on channel 6. public comment can be provided in three ways, one, in person, two, via zoom, go to the website and click on hearings and zoom link or three by telephone. enter webinar id81704836368 and again, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. to block your phone number when calling, dial star 67 and the phone number.

listen for your item to be called and dial star 9 which is equivalent raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you have 2 to 3 minutes depending on the length of agenda and volume of speakers. the assistant will provide a verbal warning 30 seconds before you time is up. there is delay between the live streaming and broadcast, therefore it is very important people reduce or turn off the volume on the tv or computers, otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if any participants need disability accommodation or technical assistance make a request in the chat function to the board legal assistant or send e-mail to board of appeals@sfgov.org. we'll take public comment first from those physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all who intend to testify.

please note any member of the public may speak without taking oath pursuant to rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, raise your right hand and say, i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. if you are participant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. item 1 is general public comment. this is a opportunity for anyone who likes to speak on a matter within the board jurisdiction and not on tonight's calendar. anyone here for general public comment. okay, mr. klipp. >> thank you commissioners. on february 8 last year this board hammered out a resolution to appeal number 22-079 as part

of the resolution the permit holder ucsf agreed to plant over 60 new trees and pay quarter million dollars to public works representing a part of the value of the trees it was removing for construction. in response to my concerns about the money going toward tree planting public works promised to engage in a methodical property securing a contractor locating sites and planting trees and insure the quarter million dollars is utilized planting 103 trees in the southeast part thof city. at your request public works agreed to come back to the board and provide a annual update on this effort. it has been nearly a year so request public works schedule to provide the promised annual update to you and do so in public since it was the public that forced this resolution. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for that. can you calendar that for public works and as it (3 and agreed

make sure you-- >> sure, you like to agendize the item? >> i don't think it is necessary to agendize because it was already a public item and already voted on by this board and it is expected action step and no harm sending a little reminder note. >> for clarity, do you response with update? >> i like exactly what was asked for and when we resolve the issue at that hearing a year ago. we are just- >> you want a update so i can contact ucsf and buff and get updates on that case. we don't need to agendize it at this point. >> no. >> if you-- >> but they should be addressing us with a letter to the board that says, per the resolution when we had this hearing we promised a annual update and here it is. >> okay, we with post that as general public comment.

>> exactly. >> there won't be discussion. >> yes, it is matter of expected business. >> okay. >> appreciate that. >> we'll do that. any further general public comment? anyone on zoom? i don't see any, so we will now move on to item number 2, which is election of the officers. article 1 section 1 of the board rules requires the annual election of officers at this time of year and i want to thank you president swig and vice president lopez for your help and service this past year. we will first start with the office of the president. are there any members of the board who like to nominate a colleague or themselves for office of president? >> yes, please. first of all, i like to thank the board putting up with me for the last year. it is a honor to serve in this position and think we did great work together and appreciate your support very very very much. with that, i like to nominate commissioner lopez for the office of president of the

board of appeals. thank you. >> okay. are there any other nominations for this office? okay, we have-- >> commissioner trasvina. >> i don't have nomination for the office but did want to comment. i'll wait until comment is appropriate. >> okay. so i should check, vice president lopez are you willing to serve as president if you do get elected? >> i am. >> okay. thank you. why don't we start with a motion. i'll ask if-we have that motion. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i dont see public comment so we have a motion from president swig to elect vice president lopez to the office of president. on that motion, vice president

lopez. >> i had a comment. i was waiting for the- >> i thought you said you wanted to wait for commissioner comments and questions. >> thank you. i just wanted to express my two points. one is, my support great support for the nomination of president swig, and also thank president swig for tremendous service as the sort of like during the fdr era, the only president i have ever known. [laughter] it take as lot of work to lead a agency and he certainly--commission and he has done a tremendous job educating me and i think i can speak without fear of contra diction from colleagues i greatly appreciate your efforts and continued service on the board. >> thank you. just remember julie and alec will be at every turn so thanks to them. >> absolutely not true, but thank you. i'm going to read out that

motion again. we do have a motion from president swig to elect vice president lopez to the position of president and we already had a vote from vice president lopez as a yes. commissioner trasvina, aye. commissioner lemberg aye. --motion carries 5-0 and congratulations. now the pressure begins. and, the gavel has to move over here now. >> yeah, he just moved it. okay. the weight of office is on your shoulders now. we will now move on to the position of vice president. any members of the board who like to nominate a colleague or themselves for office of vice president? >> yes, i like to make

nomination. before i do i also like to thank commissioner swig for his service and the last year for his guidance and support of all of us on the commission. i think he inherited more junior panel i think then we had in prior years and made a deserted effort to educate, not just members of the public, but also us as commissioners as we became more experienced and senior on the commission, so i thank him for that for all his guidance and support and very much also thank you for nominating me for the position of the president. thank you for your support and trust. with that, i would like to

nominate- >> thank you. >> commissioner lemberg for the position of vice president. >> okay. before taking the vote, commissioner lemberg are you willing to serve? >> i will be honored to. >> any public comment to elect commissioner lemberg as vice president please raise your hand. i don't see anyone on zoom. the motion from now president lopez to elect commissioner lemberg to vice president-- [roll call] that motion carries 5-0 and congratulations. we will now be moving on to item 3. commissioner comments and questions.

>> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you all very much for your vote of confidence. it is very much appreciated and want to congratulate president lopez in his ascension to the president. very much looking forward to your leadership and also wanted to thank commissioner swig, which is going to be weird to say for a while, but you have lead this panel honorbly and consistently and in a way i think has brought a lot of honor and a lot of privilege from my perspective in serving on this board in the last 18 or so months, so i want to thank you very much. that is all i got. >> i'll also jump in briefly to officially also congratulate vice president lemberg and look forward to working alongside you in this upcoming term. i also want to thank the entire

board for your trust and support and look forward to this year together. >> okay. thank you. any public comment? i don't see any public comment, so thank you. we'll now move to item 4, the adoption of the minutes. commissioners, before you are the minutes of january 10, 2024 meeting. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i move to adopt the january 10, 2024 minutes. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes? seeing none, on that motion- [roll call] motion carries 5-0 and minutes are adopted. we will move to item 5. this is a apeople 23-063.

geary street petroleum versus department of public health. property 4501 geary boulevard. appealing the issuance on november 9, 2023, to geary st petroleum inc, of a notification of tobacco permit denial (denial of a retail tobacco sales permit because the establishment is located within 500 feet of two schools and within 500 feet of two other establishments that have a valid retail tobacco sales permit; no exceptions under the health code apply).application number 121505. we'll hear from the appellate first. is mr. homdy here? do you see him on zoom? >> i can give him a call. unless you want it go out of order. >> why don't you give him a quick call.

he did not submit a brief, so-- >> you have an appeal hearing go on now. give me a call. thank you. >> they didn't answer the phone and went right to voice mail. >> okay, checking in with dph, did you hear anything from the appellate prior to this hearing? so, president lopez, do you want to just change the order of the agenda and maybe give

him one chance? maybe you can send him an e-mail too? >> i can send an e-mail. >> let's [indiscernible] with apology to the department for the slight delay. >> i did send him a zoom invitation this morning and tried to contact him, but no response. >> but he never gave indication he wasn't going to appear? >> he never filed a brief. >> but when you spoke he said his arguments were in the preliminary statement. >> that is true, he indicates his points of view are in the letter of the statement of appeal. >> thank you for your patience department public health. we'll switch the order so going to item 6. appeal number 23-058. joshua klipp versus san francisco public works.

1701 post street. appealing the issuance on november 3, 2023, to sf recreation & parks department (rec & park), of a public works order (approval to remove two trees (flowering cherry trees) at 1701 post street with replacement in-kind on the 1500 block of laguna street; rec & park applied to remove the two trees by recommendation of vision zero in coordination with the capital improvement project for japantown plaza; the goal is to prevent plantings from blocking critical driver safety lines or creating other safety issues). order no. 208816.and thank you. welcome mr. klipp, you have 7 minutes. if you can send an e-mail to the appellate. >> i'm sending it now. can we have the computer, please? there you go. >> [indiscernible] hard time seeing the timer. >> i'll give you a 30 second warning. >> what's that? >> i'll give you a 30 second warning. >> is that computer okay there

because you can shift down and use that microphone if that's easier. >> let me try that. usually i have a problem with things being too tall. just a moment. okay. good evening commissioners. i already submitted a brief as to why these two small chery trees on post street don't deserve to be removed. as part oof the peace plaza renovation. i like to focus on the issues presented by rec park in the brief in support of removal. key issue number 1, 3s within view cone defined by vision zero obscure visibility. rec park graphic shows a 10

foot cross walk at a intersection but the cross walk is mid-block, 40 feet long and 6 traffic signals. this implies a tree canopy 8 feet across. removing trees within this cone aligns with vision zero. however given the discrepancy between the graphic and realty i dug into this more. here is what i found, the graphic on the left is sfmta original graphic and the right is rec park marked up version adding big green circle to represent a small tree. this is a important distinction because sfmt uh graphing is intended to demonstrate a vision zero concept called daylighting. daylighting is a simple concept that safety is improved by removing parked cars next to cros walks. the sfmta notes california new daylighting law effective january 1, 2024 address

vehicles stopping standing or parking in proximity to cross walks. the graphic has nothing to do with trees, they just added the green circles to make it seem that way. here are a few recent examples from town that demonstrate a lack of daylighting. in the lack of daylight i pointed out in my brie1f including the photos of vehicles illegally parked. rec park brief fails to address this. rec park supports key issue one with manipulated graphic. rec park frames key issue 2 as tree canopy block visibility of traffic signals by approaching motorists. the brief includes these 2 photos in support of this, both show the pole [indiscernible] not blocked by the trees. the tree brief fails to note the fact the single cross walk has a total of 6 traffic

signals to the average member of the public it is hard to understand how these two small cherry trees prevent the driver seeing anyone of the 6 traffic signals. here also is a rendering rec park provided of the cross walk post renovation. based on this, it seems after construction there will be no traffic signals at all at the cross walk what so ever which leaves the public how is the tree block a signal that doesn't suggest or the rendering accurate or what else is inaccurately represented? here are photos going back to 2014 that show obstructions. in my brief i provided photoand video example delivery trucks u-turn taxi and shuttles. the cross walk is treated as loading zone because it is there only spot with mow metered parking. can benefit from a dedicating

loading and passenger zone especially for seniors and those with disabilities. rather then deal with that realty, public works and rec park engage in the magical thinking illegal parking will disappear after construction. even though after this cross walk looks more like a loading zone once the trees are gone. moving to issue 3, claim these trees are visual clutter on the sidewalk. here are three photos and the sidewalk showing things like mail boxes, newspaper boxes and [indiscernible] garbage can. also two photos of rec park vehicles on the sidewalk at the middle of the cross walk access point. public works proposed moving the trees rather then kill them, but someone decided this would obstruct a path of travel. i am a ada accessible consultant and are attorney specializing in the ada a

access specialist. there is no disability law requiring a 6 foot wide sidewalk anywhere in the contry and probably the world. despite saying the trees obstruct the path of traivl with people disability the people [indiscernible] in the same path of travel based on community preferences. next is rec park exhibit f which offers the truck [indiscernible] tree health is compromised due to the vehicle pattern of large delivery trucks. if these trucks were not parked illegally, the trees wouldn't be compromised. it is pretty ironic the rec park to support vision zero argument with a photo like this. finally, a note about any proposed resolution. the current decision impose the bear minimum requirement of two in lu fees and rec park wants to do absolutely no more then that. our city climate action plan calls for policy by 2023 for preservation of trees during

development and replacement if removal was unavoidable. it is 2024. there is zero evidence rec park looked for ways to preserve those trees and if there is and they fail to turn it over in response to request or raise in the brief. additionally, there is zero evidence these departments considered replacement. our city department should not seek to do the least amount possible. they ought to lead by example and implement simple critical strategies such as this, period. in conclusion, here is what i ask from this board and these departments. first, preserve these trees and address the real problem. if a tree cannot be preserved move them rather then throw away two healthy trees. if the trees cannot be moved, then at least implement the climate action plan replacement policy. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina has a question for you mr. klipp.

>> thank you for your testimony and your brief was pretty comprehensive. i had a couple questions about the current status of the trees. i believe on page 20, page 13 of the brief you showed a photo >> okay. just pull up my brief real quick so i can look what you are looking at, if you dont mind. >> well, if you can take a look at that, but my question is, do you have a current-what's the most current photo of the tree you have? on page 13? >> that is exhibit 1. basically just using that to show approximately when the tree was planted, but the current mostcurrent photo would be- >> the one from [indiscernible]

2023? >> i have photos of the trees in my exhibits. you would find that at- >> there is one on page 19. >> yeah. >> is that one of the trees we are talking about? >> yes. >> so that is what it currently looks like? >> correct. >> do you have any view about whether that actual tree can be moved someplace else or is that a question for the city? >> well, i would just say rec park has another project at jackson park in potrero where there are two 100 plus year old olive trees planning on moving as part of their capital improvement project over there. i don't know how they will do that but if they can move a 40 foot tall olive tree over a hundred years old they can move a 15 year old cherry tree. >> are you familiar with the 2019 japan town peace plaza vision goals?

>> noi can't say i know everything about the city. >> because city seems to rely on it and i was trying to get a idea where it says you can't cut down trees. >> sorry, where does it say what? >> that the plan anticipates cutting trees down. >> that's in rec park documents linked as a footnote in my brief. i think it is cutting down 58 and preserving 2 and planting 16. i could be off by a couple numbers. >> the last thing i want to give on the record is you talked about director order 187246, existing trees are not to be removed per this order. >> right. >> that relevant to this? >> it is cited in the decision, so i presumed it was and why i refer to it. >> so, the order is existing trees shouldn't be removed- >> sorry, i didn't hear that, what?

>> your point is that the order is don't remove any trees and are this is removing two trees? >> right. the order has to do where to plant but specifically says you don't remove if they already exist. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner lemberg. >> thank you mr. klipp. i initially didn't have any questions but i'll ask one because i feel i missed something, which was, at the verynd of your presentation you mentioned the climate plan replacement standard. can you repeat what those standards are and under--by your analysis what would the replacement plan look like under that plan? >> yeah, so that is under the healthy ecosystem page 120 of the 2021 climate action plan and what it refers to is the city developing policies by 2023 to preserve trees during

development and then only if they cannot be preserved to implement what is called a basil equivalent replacement which my lay person understanding is you put in as much tree as you take out. here we got a 7 inch diameter and 9 inch diameter tree for total of 16 inches of diameter. if you put in 24 inch box trees which average 2 inch diameter you would plant 8 of those. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. no further questions. we will now hear from rec and park. welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. give me a minute.

>> can we have the computer? thank you. >> tell me when? good afternoon or good evening. president lopez and vice president lemberg. can you hear me okay? great. my name is mary cos, i have a

little cold. the san francisco recreation park department project manager for the japan town peace plaza renovation and here with two other staff members from public works and are they will be speaking after me. it is kevin jensen our disability coordinator with more technical and also chris buck with bureau urban forestry. i ust and want to set the stage. this is curb to curb renovation, super excited about it. it has had approximately 60 public meetings we meet monthly and invite everyone from the community to join the japan town task force peace plaza committee that meets tuesday, the 4th tuesday of every month and through the community gathering and focus groups and committees and surveys and all these, the community developed 5 goals you see in your briefing and i won't go through all the goals but one was to make post street

visually open and inviting and so this is part of that goal that we are looking to meet. in those meetings, i have briefed the community on all the developments that happened and i did bring up to them mid-year last year the removal of these trees. it was either mid-year or into the summer. we did get the support because of the technical information that kevin jensen will provide for you. i are just want to say that the peace plaza is the cultural heart of japantown and a key destination for significant cultural festivals. you probably go about the cherry blossom. we do get a lot of people here that use both the mall and go through the plaza.

they use it for informal gathering and huge festival events as well. anyway, i think with that i will pass it on so you can get more technical information and happy to answer afterwards. i'm sorry, i guess i didn't go through. i did just want to say that, what you see up there is the commission approved 2019 vision plan slightly updated based on information that we received from the community, so what you are seeing there right now is a graphic representation of the way that the plaza would look after it is completed. of course, all those simple elements are not always in there. with that, i'll pass.

>> good evening commissioners. my name is kevin jensen the ada and disability access coordinator for public works, role i fulfilled for 21 years and 7 years prior to that with board of san francisco. i'm a architect licensed in california. i served on the california architect board as well as

committees and task forces with the division of state architect for state of california and caltrans and serve on a caltrans committee related to pedestrian and bike program issues. the reason i'm here today is to help explain why these trees are really very problematic here and i don't make that recommendation lightly or without merit. the vision zero program is very all encompassing and comprehensive and proactive in intent and scope. it has a lot of other names and similar parallel programs, complete streets, safe system s and so forth. currently part of the u.s. federal highway administration, u.s. department of transportation, [indiscernible] including vision zero safe system goals and caltrans is

the state wide transportation jurisdiction has similar prioritization and goals for vision zero and safe systems and complete streets as does now mta and san francisco. there are many technical factors to take into consideration with vision zero, but essentially one of the key aspects is visibility. visibility between pedestrians and drivers and necessary reaction time for those to relate to each other in a way that is safe and ideally avoids any injuries and certainly deaths. some of the key principals behind these considerations are that deaths and serious injuries is unacceptable and human make mistakes and need to design for people who are acting imperfectly and if they do so tragedy doesn't result

and that includes persons who consider themselves or would be considered either disabled or non disabled. humans are vuliable and we have to take that into consideration as priority as everything we do with project planning and all the work we do whether it is vision zero specific project or not. responsibility is shared for safety, so both pedestrians and drivers, we as regulators and designers all have a role to play. redundancy is critical, so the issue of multiple traffic lights has come up where there is 3, high and low. that redundancy is intentional and critical for safety. any of those are blocked, it can result in none being seen because sometimes there is vehicles that can block other lights as you are approaching. there could be where the lights are out on one side and not the other. a variety of things so you don't design for perfection,

you designs for things flawed or not perfect put still function and provide the level of safety. it is the view you see here is taken from google street view. the camera sits up this high not down here when driving my vw around and taken from the middle of the street not the drive isle next to the parked cars. the trees absolutely block those mounted lights and any visual obstruction add up to create visual clutter and obscure the vision connection between pedestrians and drivers. the vision zero plan for san francisco has other plans also prioritized area that are frequented by seniors and persons with disabilities. >> thank you, that is time. >> high density and high

incidents of injuries. >> thank you. you have more time in rebuttal. we do have a few questions from first from commissioner swig then vice president lemberg. >> i'm trying to hold myself back from laughing. i will be disrespectful. would you put up the first slide please you put up there? >> yes, sir. >> computer, please. >> second slide. with the two comparisons. the real reason you want these two trees done is the top slide. because somebody designed a beautiful mall and beautiful plaza and it doesn't include those two trees, so then you go back and say, how do we get rid of those two trees. is that not the truth? you think how foolish i am that i can't look at that and see mr. ginsberg got all excitesed

about a beautiful plaza, but what do we do about those two trees? sir, who asked you to put together the most contrived convenient presentation about this? you know how many y times in 72 years-not 72 years because that wasn't done until japantown came into being so half that time probably. that is it the widest boulevard, the biggest cross walk, the highest visibility and a 9 inch tree is not going to block anything. what is going to block is what mr. klipp pointed out which is those trucks and buses and those illegal pedestrian cars who block the cross walk and also the setback from the crosswalk. can you please tell me the truth guys instead of--i mean, i am upset how dumb you think i am. can you please tell the truth

and tell the real truth, which is you need to get rid of two trees because your design does not include those two trees and what you just said, come on, give me a break. i know your licensed professional, i'll respect that but you are up here to justify cutting o trees that are this big are really going to block somebody's view, versus all the things that--why dont we address the real problem in the room that department of public traffic doesn't give tickets. that the streets are misaligned and should have red zones to prevent. and come on, i have driven by that. it isn't blocked by two trees. some on sir, tell me the truth. will you please? >> i have sworn to truth and telling you the full truth. my years as a professional

designer who spent many years studying these things, there is reams upon reams of design guidance from the department of transportation federal highway administration and caltrans regarding these issues. don't believe me, there is mountains of evidence and-- >> how wide is that cross walk, about triple the size of a typical crosswalk? >> the parameters that matter are not the width, it is the blocking of the view of critical things. in this case, blocking of there trees of the traffic lights, which mta has removed trees for that very reason in cases that are worse then this. >> where is the tree blocking the traffic light in the middle? >> the canopy of the tree is blocking it it grows. >> did you go out there and see that are you just taking pictures? did you go out and see that? >> yes, absolutely. i have sworn to tell the truth.

i am telling the full truth. >> don't you see coincidence between the top and bottom graphic where those two trees are not in the top graphic so they were destroyed and you had to walk up and give a contrived answer? >> no, this is coming from my review of the project and review of the existing conditions and based on my professional judgment and applying the vision zero principals as i understand them to be came to this conclusion. >> let me ask-- >> i'm trying to cover for upper level management. >> you are going to give the answer you want and told you i am about to disrespectful. the other question is, you run golden gate park, don't you? department of park and rec, right? now, golden gate park you bend

over backwards to save trees. you bend over backwards to do no plantings, then why is there no real plan to protect the canopy of the city of san francisco where we have the lowest canopy in north america? we are taking out more trees then putting in. why does department of park and rec not have a good plan, reasonable plan and over the top plan to set an example to even replant those trees in a can answer a little bit to the question about the design and how-- >> don't be-- [multiple speakers] why doesn't department of park and rec the protector of trees in san francisco just by giving a example of every park in san francisco and especially golden gate park, why is there not a defined plan even if you do want to take down the trees,

not to replant them in a abundant fashion? that is the question. nothing do about design. >> i can't respond to golden gate park. >> i didn't ask about golden gate park. department of park and rec-listen please. department of park and rec does a wonderful job in golden gate park. mr. ginsberg does a magnificent job of being the park keeper. i respect him, like him a lot. why with that level of zealousness and also responsibility for taking care of the trees in san francisco is there no plan good plan to take these trees and replant them or take the trees and do a over abundant job replacing them and protecting the tree canopy and rest of san francisco? >> we are replanting not this specific tree but we are replacing the trees within that

neighborhood. there are empty street wells along laguna street and we are responding to that. i would like to speak a little bit to the trees of the project because the trees within the project were removed because of we have to do the curb to curb renovation and take care of the water proofing on the plaza. the trees there now are in a very small planter and actually not healthy for the trees, so the drawing you see right now, which is--let me go back. this one. you can see the greening of the plaza, which doesn't exist right now and so rec and park is committed. one of the questions, one of the requirements from the community is really bring the greening of the plaza and therefore we have these larger planters in order to promote

the healthyness of the trees there based on capacity of what can be supported by the structure below. so, that was our intent in the project all along. the reason you don't see the trees in the front were not because it was designed initially this way, it was because we had in mind public works actually is working on a project right across from the crosswalk in order to unify both of them, so i hope that answers your question. i can't speak to like golden gate park in particular, but i can speak to this project and all the effort we did in order to preserve the trees that are there. so much that one of the three of the banzais there are removed because it is significant to the community and being cared for for a year and a half and then replanted again with the hopes that these trees will survive that as well.

because replanting trees are not necessarily always successful. >> quick question in your own defense, how many trees are there now and how many trees will be there after the renovation is completed? >> very sorry, i don't have that number. >> are there more trees in place or less trees? >> there are going to be less trees but larger trees, because the community one thing that they-one of the 5 points, the 5th one is the cultural significant features of japantown and cherry trees are one of them as are japanese maple. the trees you see right there now, if you go through the plaza there is a lot of infrastructure obstruction and very tiny planters for the trees now. very shallow, so what you see here are the planters are not only where we can go deeper and

also higher in order to give them the breath they need to be able to branch out. in doing that, we can't provide the quantity of trees that were there because the plaza right now sits on two levels of garage space and so we had to figure out exactly through the community and through our monthly meetings what are the elements most important to retain and the elements we have to compromise on because of the infrastructure. >> i'll let commissioner lemberg continue. thank you very much. >> opponent point of clarification. did the 7 minutes include mr. buck's time? >> he's separate. >> okay. just wanted to make sure. thank you. so the way i heard this tonight, i want to make

something very clear which this appeal is not a referendum on the overall japantown peace plaza redesign which looks pretty nice. i haven't seen a rendering prior to reviewing the materials tonight. looks great. i often go out of my way to go to the peace plaza one of the nicest public spaces in the city and looks like it will be nicer. what is before us tonight is removal of the two trees with proposed in kind replacement i interpret two 24 inch box trees which are smaller then these particular trees and that an actual in kind replacement according to what mr. klipp said is more like 8, 24 inch box trees, so my first question for you is, number one, why can't these trees be moved?

>> i'm going to leave that to somebody that knows more about trees. i'm an architect. >> has that been considered? >> when considering, i will differ to chris as well more on this, when we were trying to figure out how we replace it was determined the cherry trees in that location do not fair well and so it is better to replace with gingo trees appropriate on laguna, so that is all i can answer. i do know from past experience working with rec and park that smaller trees actually have a better establishment when they are introduced in the site as a younger tree then if a older more mature tree. we had more success with that and many grants are requiring younger trees to be placed because they know the helt of the tree is going to be better. with the technical question you

asked, i will differ to an arborist who knows more about trees. >> okay. follow up to that would rec and park be-ultimately we often hear tree removal cases that are on private property that are held by either a resident or any number of different things. from my point of view, the fact rec and park is the sponsor doesn't make much a difference in the long-term. we have to follow the laws and rules as they exist. looking toward a resolution here, is rec and park willing to kind of pony up for lack of better word as to planting additional trees after a determination is made whether or not these particular trees can be moved perhaps? kind of expanding the

replacement scope of these two trees, which are as you mentioned culturally significant to japantown community and also just kind of part of the overall number of trees we have in the city, which as commissioner swig and mr. klipp and many others stated, we have one of the smallest tree canopies in the world of any major city in the world. is rec and park willing and able to come to the table with a little bit more robust of a replacement plan then what has been provided so far? >> the answer to that is yes and i can take responsibility for that because we do provide additional trees. we may not always be able to provide them in the same location and as restricted here but we do provide within our park areas so that we do increase the overall canopy of san francisco. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

we have a question from commissioner eppler. >> yes are. i have a couple questions on the traffic issue, the vision zero issue. if you can pull up the diagram showing the cone of visibility. >> tell me when i get there. >> yeah. no. the mock up. there you go, that guy. so, as pointed out, those green circles have been added to the general diagram from the sfmta showing what daylighting is supposed to look like, right? >> yes, and i think i'll differ to [indiscernible] to say that. i do know that we do sometimes show an image or add to a image in order to clarify how it

relates to our project so i can see that this is one of those situations. >> sure. >> i don't know if you ask the question i'll know- >> you can have the gentleman--please come back up because i think you will need to answer the next couple questions if you don't mind. you mentioned you look at distance and reaction time, right? and of course those are related. proportional to each other. in these diagrams, it seems to me like the importance of the vision seems to stair straight at the place people are crossing and probably the curb cut there where they are doing the crossing, right? what you are showing is we don't want to put a tree that obstructs that part of the visibility and also mentioned infrastructure and i think commissioner swig talked a lot about how visibility the infrastructure is, but also concerned about pedestrian crossings and visibility? >> visibility as pedestrians

approach or mass at the edge of the cross walk alignment within the sidewalk and also the crosswalk itself for the full width of the crosswalk and stragglers who might cut the corners. >> can we go to a image of the existing conditions showing the crosswalk? do you have that in your presentation? if not, the mock up and the southern view is fine. there you go. so, i guess my problem with the vision zero argument is i see if i'm in this lane going what appears to be eastbound on post street i see the curb cut in front of it the tree. i see a curb cut further down significant further down which i think would be favorable in terms of distance and reaction time.may be able to cross mid-block but that is further away. well into what is a crosswalk.

how do you reconcile the diagram which shows the visibility to where people would be crossing to the far distance and near distance not obscureed by these trees? >> the diagram is a very simple graphic illustrating a key issue with respect to a very common and simple measure to improve vision zero. that is to remove approach side parked vehicle. red curb. very simple effective way to take care of the problem but not the entire picture and the diagram doesn't delve further into that. there are reams of more information about this, but the idea is that the leading cause of pedestrian injuries and fatalities is within crossings in the street.

the vast majority of those are persons with disabilities and persons who are seniors can be very catastrophic. >> generally they are using the curb cuts? >> not necessarily. the curb ramps are intended particularly for people with mobility disabilities. people with wheelchairs and scooters, but the cross walk is available for free for anyone so someone with a visual disability and persons with visual disabilities are disproportionately impacted in terms of fatalities and street crossings. one of the most dangerous things people can visual disabilities do is cross the streets. a key goal in the public right of way under vision zero as well is just that. so, the biggest issue here is the blockage of the streetlectomy by the canopy of

the tree. that is the worst violation of vision zero principals that could lead to a collision. secondarily it is the tree trunks. >> was there consideration or thought given to the trees on the opposite side of the street that seems to obscure the view of the crossing on the north side there? >> that is also our thinking and another project. >> okay. >> we have improvements planned for a paving project as well. three capital projects that in whole make this a vision zero cross walk is our plan. >> okay. alright. thank you for that. >> thank you. we have a question from president lopez. >> thank you for your testimony. does the department have a position on the argument made

by the appellate with respect to director order 187246 specifically the provision that states that exting trees should not be removed pursuant to the order? >> rec and park is the property owner and we really respect the expertise of our colleagues at public works, so our position is to stand with the recommendation they have made. even though we don't necessarily have authority in the right of way. >> okay. that's it for me. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. for your testimony tonight and your colleagues who are every time there is a storm they are the ones out there taking care of people and the 19th avenue with the tree falling yesterday is you and your colleagues do great work for the city.

on this case though, i have a couple questions. i are think i can be brief. you noted and colleagues noted the problems with using google photos because you are taking at a different angle then average driver. are there any photos the city has that shows the obstruction from a driver's standpoint? >> i differ to my expertise here. >> okay. >> in terms of preparing and actually having done the analysis before they presented it to us. do you have any--sorry, kevin? kevin jensen says he currently doesn't have any. >> okay thank you. enterms of the driver pedestrian visibility issue, i believe-my first question to mr. klipp is about the photo from 2011 which apparently is when the trees went in or at least been around since 2011.

does the city have any data about accidents or complaints about pedestrian safety for this intersection? >> public works, this is where your response-- >> in your package of materials there are links to vision zero data and those include maps and plans that includes this image. >> you want to put it on the overhead mr. jensen? >> yeah. >> overhead, please. >> this is one of the maps that shows the various layers that

are from the vision zero plan and san francisco. this is showing in the dark blue census tracts with a high concentration of seniors and persons with disabilitiess. the lighter blue bubbles are areas of senior activity and senior attractors. the orange segments are senior and persons with disabilities high injury corridors and if you make it out the streets that have a light lavender are cities overall corridors for high injury and you notice that the blocks surrounding this site are all on the high injury network, including those on the senior high injury network and because of the proliferation of senior centers and medical facility and community centered nature of the facility is areas for high frequency for senior trips measured by frequency of

paratransit vehicles and so forth so a high priority for vision zero for pedestrians in general and specifically seniors and persons with disabilitiess. >> right. with all the traffic of seniors, i think [indiscernible] other facilities, is there evidence of problems with this intersection related to injuries, accidents, complaints that the city has? >> this data is showing the data collected that there are areas of high injury surrounding this area and have a high incidents of seniors and persons with disabilities who are inherently more vulnerable then most pedestrians for this problem. the metric one thing about vision zero-- >> we have a 13 year history of the trees and this

intersection. >> one of the principals of vision zero and safe system isn't waiting for injuries and the tragic data to be collected where people are injured and killed but required to see and remedy problems when we see it. >> believe me, i'm not at all suggesting advocating contemplating to wait for a senior citizen to be injured or hurt or anybody in a accident. we know when-we dealt with the trees near here and people have said they are dangerous, but i'm looking for statistics. it sounds like there aren't any and if there aren't any there aren't any. the general area has a lot of senior citizens and it is the plaza has shops that people go to. i get that, but not hearing any

data for this intersection. >> there is data here is the disturbing rise in pedestrian fatalities. >> at this intersection? >> nationally. >> okay. >> and also- >> we are talking about these trees. not talking about--so, i know that. we know that. >> this is a matter of public safety, which is submit a very serious matter. not to be taken lightly and dismissed as something that's frivolous. this is serious matter and we are genuinely concerned about the safety of this intersection and we can see clearly how we can make it better. there are certainly ways where the city can provide trees far better locations where the trees will thrive more but i'll let chris buck speak to that.

he's the tree expert, not me. in terms of vision zero and principals this area is clearly deficient. >> okay. i will let your comments stand, but i hope you are not directed that to anybody in this room because that conclusion is not well founded. my final question is, will we-does the city have or will we be-do you expect us to hear any testimony from the community in support of this decision to remove the trees? >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> is there any community support that we can expect in terms of either letters or testimony tonight in support of removing the trees for the reasons that the department offered? >> i didn't reach out to the community specifically on this

matter, but i can get that for you. because i brought the community through all of the different challenges we had with the project and this was something i brought up to them several times in the--it was the summer or in the middle of the year, and we did not receive any objection and said we would plant along laguna street and then what the type of tree that would be planted because it's-certain trees do better in this location then others and cherry trees in that particular site does not do as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have a question-- >> can i have the architect up again please? sorry, i forgot your name.

[multiple speakers] >> disability access coordinator, please. what is your name, sorry? >> kevin jensen. >> kevin jensen? >> yes. >> good. i wont miss it again. sorry mr. jensen. so, are you a consultant for park and rec or do you work for [indiscernible] just out of interest. >> all our client departments use- >> it is yes or no question mr. jensen. come on, please. get straight with me, please. are you a consultant for park and rec or are you on the pay roll of city of san francisco, that's all. >> park and hired us to-- >> thank you, consultant of park and rec. thank you. let's have truthful answers. let me ask another question because you are insulting me. i'm really insulted tonight. you are asked to direct question by commissioner trasvina about a incident of traffic deaths or traffic

accidents at that particular crosswalk. do you have any knowledge of serious injuries, accident or otherwise that prevent-offer anybody concern about injury at that particular crosswalk? not the area, that particular crosswalk. >> it isn't my role to collect the data. it is collected by department of public health. >> okay, so you step up here and say because i heard you, did you all hear him? that there is high risk, high incident of injury and speed to senior citizens blah blah blah in the area. but when you are asked about that crosswalk you don't know nothing. i'll tell you where they happen, they happen on geary and laguna. they happen on geary and fillmore. they happen on geary street where people drive 55, 65 miles a hour and it is caused by speed, wrecklessness and other bad behavioral and inability to

hire enough cops in the town to stop the speeders. that is where the problem lies, not post street. would you please stop. we do this every week practically. we hear from very very smart people like yourself who are not only educated but skilled with great legacies of professionalism, but when you come up and try to give us national figures, blah blah blah blah, it is a insult. would you please try not to do a dog and pony show, please? that is a question. and would you please tell us the exact answer to specific questions related to this crosswalk, this situation and don't act like a hired gun you are acting, please and try to sell us a bill of goods. please, that's a polite question. thank you very much. >> i heard you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> i'm done, sorry guys, but it is too much. >> no further questions you can be seated mr. jensen. thank you. we will now hear from bureau urban forestry. >> good evening commissioners. chris buck, urban forester. i do want to acknowledge that i have a foot in both serving as bit of respondent and cosigned with the respondent's brief to assist colleagues with rec and park and public works preparing their brief. but also wish to try to as well serve as permitting agency. with that in mind, i'll try to spend less time overall on advocating for the project, but more trying to answer questions of policy around the permit process. just want to acknowledge that.

i am totally surprised and little shocked at the tenor of this evening meeting. i just want to state that kevin jensen mr. jensen is a full time employee of publics works and mine as well be director. ment carla short is the director of public works. kevin jensen is incredibly respected colleague. a full time employee over a decade of service. when i saw that the project sponsor rec and park and public works had him quoted in the brief i thought this is wonderful. they are already doing their homework. when they told me they were bringing kevin jensen here, i thought this is amazing. this is amazing. mr. jensen is incredsbly well respected and apologize to mr. jensen with a colleague at the treatment he received this evening.

i say that with so much respect for all of you. but i'm not going to let it pass. i work for the city 18 years coming here trying to represent the public best we can. i represent the city as a person most knowledgeable, a pmk in claims. every time someone sneezes the attorneys crawl over the intersections and they look to paint a picture of the city, which we need to defend. public safety and visibility is incredibly important. this is a mid-block cultural epicenter of japantown. i completely respect and trust mr. jensen's guidance on this. he reviews everything from sales force towers to other major infrastructure projects city wide and again i want to apologize for what i think is rather rough treatment.

mr. jensen rarely advocates for tree removal. how do we know that? because he is never here. this is a rare case when he has come before us to say interest of public safety these two small trees planted a few years ago might be better off removed. that's the hearing the public works had, the director of public works recommendation to support that position. this is public safety only. this is not about covering for a plan by rec and park. i'm shocked at that assertion. the director's order that regulates the planting of trees in public right of way talks a lot several pages about cone of visibility. yes, the director's order on

the planting and maintenance and placing of trees in public right of way says just because the tree doesn't meet the guidelines doesn't mean basis for removal. there are traffic signal upgrades which we have been here before discussing on second street or mid-block between fillmore and western addition. when tree removal becomes necessary. the concern of public works is we are focusing tremendous resources and capital to this site. when there is a trip and fall claim i don't know if i have the right phrase, mr. jensen can possible speak to, but there is design exsemption that protects the city from liability. mr. jensen is applying best management practice and if people don't understand that or believe it or think there is some other al tearier motive

here, no one wishes to go before mr. klipp at board of appeals. it isn't a pleasant experience. but certainly don't want your credibility attacked while doing that. so, these are very real public safety issues and i just want to try to bring it back to that. regarding replacement value, the trees appraised for below the in lu fee. the code says we can require replacement value. yes, there are climate goals. it is great when we have funding to realize them in our own ordinance but it isn't in our ordinance required to place with basal value. i think public works is caught off-guard. we thought these are two relatively small trees. we thought the case seemed straight forward. the appraised value is less then in lu fees so planting 2

trees around the corner seemed a reasonable mitigation. i just want to speak to some of the issues and again, i'm just a little shocked at what i thought was a relatively straight forward case and i want to thank project sponsor and colleagues at public works to take the time to involve mr. jensen and help have him attend the hearing because that is not an easy ask. his time is very very valuable at public works and respect it greatly. i'm available to answer any other follow-up questions. >> okay. question from commissioner swig. >> so clearly your comments were just directed at me. i apologize are to mr. jensen for my alleged attack on him. but--sorry mr. jensen if you felt that way. i know i was rough, but chris,

how many times have you been in front of us? in front of me? how many hundreds of times? >> many. >> in the first-i came to this commission with a great descentivity, lack of care and compassion for the tree canopy. you along with mr. klipp gave me a great education about our tree canopy, the abuse of our tree canopy, the importance of the environment and how we have to treat every little leaf in this city as a sacred piece, is that correct? >> correct. >> thank you for that education. i appreciate it. i have seen countless trees come in here that i sure as hell thought were disposable and you have fought for those trees and we backed off and

said you are right. you are right chris. we are going to keep them. so, i have been trained by the best that would be you to defend the trees as much as possible. now, i look at that plan and i say somebody created a plan and those two trees didn't fit in. i am familiar with those trees. they are little--they are insignificant 9 inch trees that vision zero i'm support of vision zero, but for us to be--i'm also for safety. i live on the marina man. you know the speed limit on marina? take a guess. >> like in theory 15-25. >> thank you. you know what the cars go by at?

try 35-45 and i'm being kind. we have a speed problem. we don't have a tree problem, we have a speed problem. so, this is why i don't-okay, from a safety point of view, i don't see the issue for all the reasons that i think were questioned here so far, but what i-we are disposing of trees arbitrarily by park and rec the preserver of the trees along with yourself and we are replacing the two in kind trees of 24 inch box. come on, you guys are not setting the example. are you the developers always battling against who are exploiting our trees ripping them out to s hp reds and not replacing them? no you are not you are city of san francisco and even more

park and rec and buff. so, why is there not a more liberal plan with regard to the find replacement in those trees along that street and why it is so convenient those trees are disappearing because they dont fit into the plan and why-we are not talks about it tonight, but it is side bar, why are there less trees going in and not replaced on the streets of san francisco? let's start with the two because i don'ts want to get in the swamp and talk about things we are not talking about but it is influencing my judgment. why isn't there a more grand plan to replace these two trees even if you think they will kill people which so far nobody has been killed in that crosswalk. >>you commissioner. again, in terms of replacing trees on that site, rec and park is the site manager but it is a roof top garden.

it is not connected to the either earth so they have serious limitations on the site itself. as you said , these are dinky trees. two trees in the wrong place, so we are talking wrong tree wrong place. they are in the middle of the intersection, right where we have critical massive public safety. the question was why not a more robust plan? i don't think that rec and park in their work with the community clearly got a message from the public saying wheres polk a more robust replacement plan. so, i think all parties involved are caught off guard in regard to replacing these two very small trees. public works believes are wrong tree wrong place, not a great site and problematic as stated.

i think we are caught off guard and didn't see that coming. we would advocate for retaining existing trees when those trees have a great value. these are two very recently planted trees. not providing great benefits, so that's where we are on this. >> thank you. question from commissioner lemberg and president lopez. >> thank you mr. buck. i have a few questions that are unrelated to each other. number one, usually when we hear from you about how a city planted tree is--when it is no longer in a position that--having a hard time formulating what i'm trying to say. when it in a position that basically where the science changes over time and you

explained well several times--a tree was planted somewhere and many years later say planted in 1950 for sake of example and many years later this tree becomes problematic for any number different reasons. these trees seem a little different to me. for the reason they seem to have been planted 15 ish years ago. can you enlighten how and why these trees were planted in the locations they were planted in in the first place? >> that's a great question and i asked that myself. i don't know how those trees were planted there. i do recall there has been a number of efforts with the community to increase ironically the number of flowering cherry trees, plumb trees primarily. flowering trees throughout

japantown to increase the identity of the cultural significance. it raised enough question in my mind that i was-there was a moment i wanted to look that up myself, because to me it shouted where were we 15 years ago and how did they get planted 15 years ago so i don't have that answer. i wish i did because i have a similar red flag in my mind of like, was there-what was skipped? i can say likely wasn't receiving the level of review that the project is now due to the capital nature. >> that makes sense. thank you. i know you might not have a answer to that question, but i appreciate the attempt. circling back to vision zero because that was stated as the one and only reason for the removal of these trees in this

report by dpw. number one, has vision zero been a valid rational to remove other trees in the city? >> in a very limited extent. we have had other trees that have been permitted for removal when it is typically when new infrastructure is being installed. a little less so if an existing condition, zero changes. we can typically prune a tree to make it work for a site and avoid removal so very rear and usually when new and or amended-there is a bulb out. other improvements occurring at that intersection but it has occurred some examples are howard and folsom street where there's suddenly near yerba

buena center for the arts and convention center, they add a mid-block crossing where we say okay, we can't bring attention to this site and then not control it in a safe manner. so, there are examples when that does occur. those advocating for removal of those trees are typically a mta traffic engineer and they come before us and look at the cone of visibility and what the conflicts are. >> given your answer to that question, is there a better fit for why these particular trees need to be removed opposed to traffic safety, which i'll-i think were some of the upsetness is coming tonight. it is presented we are supposed to take face value that these trees are removed for traffic

safety issues, but we haven't been presented with direct evidence of traffic safety concerns about this particular intersection apart from kind of a single diagram that doesn't really even represent the conditions of the intersection. can you walk us through maybe what your analysis of this tree removal would have been without the vision zero capacity? >> sure. it is difficult to do that a little bit. i have an uncomfortable relationship with vision zero in general. it is catching on with the rest of the city and the state and governor talking about daylighting intersections, but i will say that it is a sore point so for me to advocate for vision zero as commissioner swig mentioned, it shows my evolution up until very recently you could still park

box trucks up to the edge of intersection but no, mta engineer came to pubplic works and said no way can we allow these trees here. this is way too dangerous. i was like, i'll remove our tree when you remove that box truck. mta is catching up. that double standard or whatever you want to call it is-we had a pedestrian fatality in port land so you see red zones. when you are small business you advocate against that and do not eliminate a single parking spot, so i come with the vision zero issue with a lot of baggage and misgiveings on it. that said, one of the answer to your question is experts need to know better. in these matters when public works and the city family is attracting and drawing greater and greater pedestrian activ to

this intersection, the city knows better. the experts know better. it won't be up to the public to answer why we didn't want to mess with something that is green and beautiful and sequestering carbon. public works knows better. the first question is can we move them back, what can we do here and mr. jensen said, then we are dealing with issues of path of travel with pedestrians. those are feedback points i have. it is-i personally believe outside of my job that what's happening is people speeding and wreckless are not held accountable. that said, the city still has to defend itself on a single blade of grass or tree slightly obscure somebody going 80 miles a hour half a block away and we

will still be liable so when we know we have a situation coming we have to achieve the best standard possible and that's where a lot of the feedback is coming from the city agencies on vision zero. >> i appreciate your candor on that. my last question is regarding where i think a lot of predicting some of the discussion by this body will go as to the replacement plan. does rec and park replacement plan meet buff standards and if not, what--we already heard from mr. klipp what he thinks. what is your perspective? >> beigeed on the feedback this evening and sense of seeking greater mitigation it meets the code, it meets urban forestry article 16 when a tree is removed it should be replaced

with similar value not base layer but value. we are achieving that with replacement trees because it cost x amount of money to plant replacements, but that is a suggestion that i think based on the strong feedback we received from both mr. klipp and the commission about equity and holding private developers to the same standards that i think basal area is where the conversation deserves to be at this point so i would be open to hearing feedback from marion with rpd, not being a expert on the overall budget but i do think that is a very reasonable--technically it meets the permit or code. it can be better. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.

president lopez. >> thanks. thanks for your testimony. thanks for also for referencing the director's order specifically the provision about not removing existing trees. you also mentioned exceptions we have seen before with respect to upgrading traffic fixtures and structures, signals. based on your understanding of the plan, is that happening here, are changes or upgrades made to the traffic signals? >> thank you president lopez. my understanding is that it is existing facilities and that our conflicting with the trees, so not adding signals being--there are not signals added that conflict. my understanding is that it is about the existing conflict between the trees and the

visibility. >> got it. just to close the loop on as a follow-up to one of vice president lemberg's questions. you said earlier wrong tree wrong place, and you answered a question about the history of the trees origins. do we know for a fact whether the city planted these trees or could it have been private actors or do we have anything on that? >> it wouldn't be private actors without any oversight, but i don't recall--there are a of scenarios. it could be they could have been planted by a non profit partner. there are couple non profit partners where we work extremely closely with them, they know our guidelines, we had instances where mid-block

crosswalks. there is a education on that like in the last 10 15 years. there is a lot more emphasis and focus on public safety around that, so it -it is within the realm of possibility a non profit partner whether through japantown or tree planting organization planted them with the support of japantown community believing that they met all applicable guidelines. primary one being intersection approach just a 4 way stop is a classic example requiring more clearance from the approach to that crosswalk, whereas, i at the clearance, so it may not eliminate all the trees but may have knocked a couple existing trees across the streets out of planting contention. so that is a little bit about

the background of how trees get planted within the public right of way. i don't believe the trees were planted directly by public works. >> and i guess turning to replacement issues, if we go further down the path of asking for more robust replacement, if we are looking at that block that street, are there other areas we can look to that would provide a opportunity for more robust replacement? >> i did i think that should be considered. some of dynamics is we have rec and park projects we have public works involved with guidance on landscape architecture and design within the park itself, and the public right of way is not necessarily

a area that rec and park is experts. meaning experts inthey if they had to be but they are not typically extending beyond the footprint of their park. they are like two different universes, so i will say that i think the applicant, the coapplicant in the case rpd, not aware about so much of the requirements for replacement in the public right of way. of course that is my job to bring them up to speed, so i guess it hasn't been seriously considered in terms who would-the answer is yes, there is always available planting sites nearby. we can find sites nearby to come up with a replacement. let me just keep it at that. >> and then to close the loop on the potential to move the trees, if we think about wrong

tree wrong place, if we attack the wrong place prong, would these trees potentially be eligible for just being moved to another location? >> good question and that came up earlier so thanks for bringing that back up. whenever you transplant a tree there is very serious impacts to that tree. you have to take great great care to do that. it can be done. it is done all the time by a lot of different entities. that said, there is-you start the clock all over on watering those trees again and not just watering once a week with 30 gallons of water, you have to add more water because the trees are bigger and a larger root mass. my professional continue and

consistent these are not worthy of transplanting. transplanting is resource intensive. if we look at the amount of carbon that is spent on digging up and removing and what all that entails, i would be surprised if that carbon is going to be a sink not a net. so not in favor of requiring transplanting of these two trees. i just don't think it's worth the effort. i would be much more behind and support basal area diameter replacement and planting more trees that can establish more quickly and require fewer resources to establish. >> thank you. >> thank you. no further questions. any public comment on this item in the room? any public comment? is there any public comment on zoom, please raise your hand? okay. i see one hand raised.

mr. john nulte, please go ahead. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes, i can. >> great. i want to make a couple points. first, post street is not part of vision zero's high injury network. the map says it is not. that part is not. in 2022 and 2017 the map showed that is not part of the vision zero high impact area. the san francisco department of public works also says zero capital improvements--there is 3 projects involved so i have a problem with. probably overlapping. there is no fatality from 2014 to 2023 at that intersection.

period. [indiscernible] also, brought up by buff, plant any tree in san francisco you need a permit from buff so buff should know and have records of the planting of these two trees so that is counter to the process of planting trees in san francisco. the cherry tree again is the significant cultural thing for japantown so it should be considered to stay where they are at. lastly, [indiscernible] two way street, so all the drawings go one way, not two ways and it is two way street so therefore, the trees are on one side, it doesn't talk about the other side of the street and also so

not effecting the other single. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> okay, thank you. we'll hear from michael nulte, please go ahead. >> can you hear me? >> yes, i can. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, i would be in support of the replacement of trees for total of 8. if they are going to be removed these two trees. i have been to this location multiple times in my lifetime. i am there usually annually to celebrate different events, and i think it is very important that it is a cultural location and just because the project manager has said multiple

meetings, when we had the first public hearing about this there was nobody from japantown discussing-there is cultural people. they were not at the hearing in front of public works, so you know, this is [indiscernible] because there has not been much community input saying anything about the trees. i'm sure you can have a project and you get the stakeholders involved and people are usually when-i have been to many hearings in the past when the city has projects they want approved and most people just listen to the so called professionals and they agree because they are not usually given any alternatives, unless you have another professional in the room giving a

alternative plan so a lot of times people nod their head and say this sounds good and this is what we we'll do and this happens over and over again. a good example is the brt down geary which is screwed up the businesses along geary street. i am sure most people know how the trees have been removed and along van ness brt. look at the trees--anyway, i think people kind of understand sometimes what happens when projects happen and thank you for your time. >> thank you. we'll hear from bunny, please go ahead. >> hi. can you laer me? >> yes. thank you. >> i just wanted to echo the previous callers point that when the members of the public are listening to issues we are

relying on a lot of thrust and accuracy in the information presented, and straight answers are also very much appreciated, so while maybe the delivery of the comments were perceived rough i do appreciate commissioner swig's attention to director answers. another point on that clarity is just from as you bring up about the role of bureau urban forestry in conjunction with rec park in this case project being chris mentioned a little bit of dual role he was playing in terms of being part of the project, but advocating for the trees and i want to understand more maybe or make sure this is clear in future what the role of the different agencies are and how they are not being conflicted. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment, please raise your hand?

i dont see any so move to rebuttal. mr. klipp, you have three minutes. >> thank you. the current permit calls for a net tree loss and just promise to plant in parks does nothing for the degradation of street tree and unenforceable if there are mounds of evidence to support this that could have been included in the city brief. this sets a dangerous precedent for tree removal and if you don't believe count to van ness and count how manyy trees can be justified for removal.unbelievable we are not addressing the real issue and arging the trees are in the way of illegal parking. chris said best, remove the box trucks before you removing the trees. i don't pretend to be a vision zero experts. i didn't want to make things up because i simply wish them to

know true. you will not find a single vision zero document that says tree are the cause of pedestrian injuries and death. you will however find dozens of vision zero materials that say trees are a way to calm and slow traffic because trees create a narrowing effect just like everyone slows on the bay bridge when you approach the tunnel. the lanes don't get narrow, humans just perceive them to narrow and so we slow down. conversely, all the science says the more you widen the roads the faster and more wreckless people drive and that is what will happen. we will visually widen the space and take out the trees and create the perception there is more space. we will encourage speeding. that is a scientific fact. we are also going to encourage even more illegal parking in the crosswalk and make it even more dangerous for pedestrians and specifically people with disabilities at this crosswalk, so mark this date tonight because as of tonight this crosswalk is not on high injury

network. but let's see if that is true a few years after the construction is complete and the trees are gone. we reduce pedestrian safety ignoring the climate action plan and killing trees in the name of disability access while city trucks park on the sidewalk. large trucks park illegally in the cross walk in front of the curb ramps people with disabilities need to cross that street. yet we won't move stones in the sidewalk that might trip people with visual disability or offer protected passenger loading for seniors and people with disability. that is what the city ask you to bless tonight and i request you do not. >> okay. thank you. we'll hear from rec and park. >> hello commissioners.

rec and park is committed to renovating the plaza that is culturally significant to the community and we have been transparent with them throughout every step of the way. i myself make myself available beyond the monthly meetings we have and meet with members regularly throughout the week. in addition to having our cultural advisors, we bring up all these issues with them and i have to rely as the property owner the representative i have to rely on our staff within public works to give us a guidance and so we support what they have been able to guide us through. that being said, we are committed to making this whole and you have brought up some recommendations that we will take to heart and hopefully we can arrive at something we can you know, all be proud of.

>> thank you. we have a few questions. commissioner swig and vice president lemberg. >> we heard public comment a very important thing for me, and again i'm going to be calmer because i over-stepped my bounds so will be calm quite and direct, but again, lack of facts. you say we talked to many community people yet you cite none. you say just now you said we've talked to cultural advisors. in your meetings did you take-were you at your meetings by any chance? >> sorry? >> were you at the community meetings? >> yes. >> okay. >> i took on this project in 2020 and from that point on been at every community meeting with the community on a monthly basis. >> okay. what community advisors with

regard to--because--i had too much experience on the commission. been brainwashed. one thing about japantown and i got when i serve said on the redevelopment commission. tradition, tradition, tradition is the backbone of the japanese culture and there is ferocious, ferocious energy around tradition. with regard to tradition and with regard to maintaining the cultural significance of japantown who were the community advisors that were involved in the decision making as opposed to the business developer who owns japantown, who in the community was at those meetings and list everything you are doing there? >> okay, so the community

meetings i attend are a subset of the japantown task force and so the executive director and the chair attend every one of the meetings. the subset is japantown peace plaza committee, so they meet monthly on the 4th tuesday of the month between 5 and 6 in preparation for those meetings i meet with them the week before and sometimes even the week before that. during that time, we basically bring them up to date in the development of the project and the challenges we had, or the reasons why we have taken certain positions and request their feedback. i make myself available to anyone within that comes to those meetings which are entirely public, for any

questions beyond that. or clarifications or concerns or additional information. in addition to that, we have hired at the request of japantown a cultural advisor who has been guiding us through all of the elements of design from the paves, the patterns, the tree selection, the depth of the planters and this group of people have also supported and been able to work in concert with public works who is our city consultant. >> okay, so the only person that i heard you--i asked what persons in the community who are interested in japanese culture were at your meetings and you didn't answer my question, and accept to say you had a hired gun who advised you

on cultural matters and that person advised you on the garden. now, i got to stay out of the swamp so- >> may i answer your question? >> just one second. i don't want you to be in there with me. the peace garden is not the subject tonight, it is two trees so let's not talk about peace garden, let's talk about the trees. did you receive from members of the community who were represent cultural preservation entities were was there any discussion specifically on those trees? let's keep it tight and stay out of the garden because that is the swamp. >> okay, i'm trying to understand your analogy. what i understand now is during every month i meet with the i

say community because it is public meeting held by the japantown task force, right? and so within that group we have the executive director who attends all of them, emily [indiscernible] it is john the chair, there is rich [indiscernible] those are like--thank you. >> i'm getting over the same thing. >> i'm concerned i have that and it has been going on. thank you so much though. and then we also have--i can't pull up everyone's name, but we have a group of about i want to say definitely 6 to 8 people there all the time, right?

in addition we have other consultants that help claireify technical questions they may have, so this is the core group i meet with regularly and every intival i bring them up to speed what is happening. at times that particular group grows lorjer larger and other times it stays to that level. we did not have any resistance to removing them when we explained what was going on and why it was. i didn't invite them to this. i have been inviting them to so many public meetings. i regret now not having but i can definitely bring them in if you like me to follow up with a e-mail and i can give you the dates and multiple times i brought this case up to them. >> i have to ask the obvious question which is, if you don't have cherry trees how do you have cherry-if you don'ts have

cherry trees how do you have cherry blossom festivals which is key to the traditional piece of japantown. >> do you mind putting up the image? i didn't have a opportunity to give you and happy to do offline a briefing on the entire project, but what you see here--what you see here is just a aerial view on the rec and park site. we have more images that actually show all our intent with it. what i want to show there is the trees and the greening of the plaza was a significant component. the cherry trees are cultural aspect of it. the community requested that we have the tree, the cultural--the cherry blossoms closer to the pagoda because that is where all those the

images of like the japanese culture is invoked when they are flowering. the trees in you see green are japanese maple so you have the color. one requirement for them is make sure that we have the color pallet that allowed us to have the colors that were significant to the culture. in addition to the undualation of the ground cover and how the different bolders are incorporated in that. that is what we endsed up with based on what we were able to support from the actual plaza itself. because of the structure below. >> thank you. commissioner lum burg. >> does that answer your question? okay. >> thank you. as we move toward the end of this hearing i wanted to

specifically ask you if you and the rpd team would be amenable to the replacement plan discussed previously, which is a total of 8, 24 inch possibly cherry but i differ that to somebody who is more culturally aware then i am about the needs of the specific community, possibly the japantown cultural district or one of the other teams you are working with. not to get too bogged in the details. willing to commit to a 8 tree replacement plan else where in japantown for-to resolve this? >> right. i i want to say we are open to it because i like to know the locations. a lot of times one thing we talked with bureau urban

forestry is there were 3 wells along laguna street, so we were saying okay, we are required to-committing to two because that is our requirement but open to 3 in those locations. the other locations we haven't defined and i feel hesitant to say yes, we can do that without actually knowing where these would go. mainly because of access, mainly because of the maintenance we have to support over i believe three years, right? but we are definitely open because our whole-with the design we put here, we wanted to green the plaza and we believe in trees in the environment, so we are committed to figuring that out with you. the short answer is yes.

i'm concerned i don'ts know where these places are, how we fit that into the contract with the accesses the viability of it. >> okay. i'm trying to think a better way to do that. >> can i also add that the size of the tree is dependent on what is the appropriate size to be put in there for the health of the tree over the growth. sometimes larger trees are not better because they don't grow into their full strength. >> okay. i might ask mr. buck to weigh in to see if there are specific spots that we can maybe identify tonight if that's possible. just so we can potentially get a resolution on this tonight rather then kicking the can down the road. i did have one more question for mr. jensen unrelated and i

did want to ask you with the acknowledgment we really can't-i'm aware we cannot address this in the hearing tonight but i did want to ask how the design of the replacement crosswalk and all that does address the ongoing traffic safety concerns specifically in regard to the illeg parking that is very compelling presented tonight at the specific intersection, how the redesign as presented addresses that particular issue? >> there is two other capital projects i alluded to. one is the reworking of the pedestrian mall, buchanan street right of way to the north, and then repaving project coming down through post street after all that.

the repaving projects don't typically get to adding pedestrian loading zones. those are typically requested by the adjoining property owner and paid for them and permitted through public works. that said, i am a strong advocate for pedestrian loading zones. we work closely with mta, mayor office on disability to create a new technical standards for accessible passenger loading zones, so strongly advocate for pedestrian loading zones for the reasons stated here. >> again, we have no power over any of this in this body but i'm just--as far as i see it, if no loading zone is added here and there is a need for one at this intersection there is a lot of businesses within a

close range and we have several photos of trucks blocking parked in the crosswalk. i don't know what my question is. i just wanted to be on radar i guess. >> i hear you. the parking program is administered by mta and so we partner with them because we permit everything on the sidewalk and have joint standards, so i would certainly say there would be a good conversation to have at it the time we do the paving project to perhaps bring in mta and the property owners along the corridor to see if there is support in the community putting in passenger loading zones and where might they be and i love to be involved in such a process because it would greatly benefit the area. as you know, there is always

trade-offs with parking versus passenger loading, but for the greater good loading zones seem to be needed. >> very good. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from bureau urban forestry. >> good evening chris buck san francisco public works bureau urban forestry and i appreciate the robust dialogue taking place listening closely and always important for folks like myself who work for the city a long time to just not forget that even if we are aware of a particular issue that that may not be clear and perhaps to do more robust brief that really outlined the director order around viz bltd so that feedback is received with respect and i appreciate that. couple things i want to point out and couple questions i'll get back to. i did want to just for the

public record as the project team and applicant approached me and my understanding it wasn't rec and park that pursued removal of trees, it was during the public works review where that was recommended so just to clarify that. i do think that at this point in time moving forward looking at if public safety is as important to all of us. if it is as important to public works, public works itself as the agency that essentially started advocating for removal of the trees needs to commit to a basal replacement based on public feedback and feedback received from commissioners. as a way to proceed i recommend there is a specific trunk caliper based on 24 inch box

size tree. i commit to verifying the diameters of the two subject trees. we heard 8 suggested. it could be more, could be less. i work with mr. klipp establishing the trunk diameter with there replacement would be and that public works and rec and park internally need to determine how we go about planting and replacing that basal area. that is something we can address internally between our two organizations. it is new conversation but one we can have based on all the feedback we received tonight. one other idea i had is, it is clear that from google street view there is a lot of illegal parking going on here. one recommendation for the project team would be feedback back to the committee about tree removal and that outreach

to the businesses, some of the trucks are clearly--it is a habit. the business owner can educate and inform so i love to see the project team working with public information officer and mta to educate the community and then specifically the businesses around the public- >> thank you, that is time. >> thank you. >> commissioner lemberg. >> just a quick follow-up. do we know how many mta tree basins there are in the japantown area? >> we can find out very quickly. it sounds like there's three around the corner and we can find more. >> okay. >> i think we can find the amount necessary to meet basal replacement. >> okay. that's what my question was. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, why don't we

start with commissioner swig. >> you wonder why i got so emotional and so upset. i have seen a pattern which bothers me sometimes. i see that we are losing tree canopy. it is all mr. bucks fault if didn't educate me so damn way and made me a tree hugger i wouldn't have this problem. chris, you sealed your own fate with help from mr. klipp and mr. carnes. i look to--i really think that the japantown wants a peace garden and made a beautiful design, i have no problem with design but the design doesn't have the two trees and therefore get rid of the trees because it doesn't fit in the design. that is tail wagging the dog.

that is why i feel insulted. same thing happened at the library. same thing. somebody came up with a design. all these trees would go away. why? well, that's our design. no, no. that's not what we do things for to protect the tree canopy in san francisco. correct mr. buck? we protect the tree canopy by working around the trees. we protect the tree canopy by maintaining every single tree that we can and the contrivance of with all due respect mr. jensen of vision zero, the problem is you heard it tonight. you had testimony tonight. it is speed. it is again, i would make you a bet and i have the same facts you do, which are none specifically, because you didn't present any, sorry, with all due respect. i would wager you that there

have been traffic problems significant on laguna and geary. i would wager you there are significant traffic problems injury on geary and webster. i would wager you that along geary street in the japantown corridor. i drive laguna all the time. it is horrible. traffic congestion speed. have nothing to do a block away on post and where that crosswalk is. and it is a wider crosswalk. with all due respect, i felt you contrived excuse on behalf of vision zero to take down the trees. sorry, that's just my opinion. and so i'm in the tree protection business. also in the--i also really would like no fatalities, no

injuries on san francisco streets due to traffic safety. my advocacy on that again is let's slow the cars down and with great reexpect to mr. klipp's advice, you do slow down cars with trees on boat sides of the street. let's plant more trees. that's why i react in the way i do. let's not cut down trees because it fits into a nice design the public likes and that the business owners want. let's take into consideration the max row view we have the worst tree canopy in north america in a major city and we have probably a dozen empty tree basins around japantown, so if we take the trees i advocate you give us direction how many empty tree basins there, do measurements and replace the trees with as many trees it takes to fill the tree basins and i bet you according

to the law and according to the compliance measurements you do that we'll have plenty room to plant that many trees and basins and just because park and rec is a department in the city of san francisco doesn't make them any better or worse then any developer that we often see trying to exploit the tree coverage so you-park and rec should be held to higher standard of protection of the streets of san francisco and the tree coverage. that's why i got so upset. so, if we lose these trees tonight, i don't want to, i don't see a reason for it, i think it is convenience as described, i would at least like if we don't uphold the appeal, that we deny the appeal on the condition that the

permit to remove these trees is conditioned on replacement with recommendation by buff which is going to exceed two trees. that's my point of view. i'll pass to mr. trasvina. >> thank you commissioner swig and i am prepared to grant the appeal on the basis the order lacks adequate factual basis of public safety and inconsistency with city policy and goals to increase the tree canopy. i am very troubled by the lack of preparation by the department, who ever put this together. ask simple questions, challenge the mr. klipp's photos of google. no attempt to provide any alternative photos to show the actual public safety danger. i asked about data and rather

then just saying there is no data or don't have it, you tried to give a answer of national--very specifically saying these trees, this intersection and the answer became an attempt to get by it, the answer is, the city has not provided any data about these trees and the intersection in terms of public safety. third is about testimony of a public community support. we talk about the cultural significance here. i don't--i'm not that familiar--not heard in the japanese culture there is a cultural need to get rid of trees. we are talking about eliminating two trees. we can talk about design of the plaza or putting more trees in other places, we can do that-i

don't see how removing these trees prohibits the plaza projects going forward or the city and buff to come and say there are opportunities for more trees in the area. as to theisk sp the specific of the trees and we asked who is supporting this-you mentioned [indiscernible] i have know emily [indiscernible] as another high school graduate on the alumni board. she is veteran of the city and knows agency and hearings. she was on the school board. i would think that she and others if they really stated that their organizations or important to the community to get rid of these two trees they would be here. we don't have anybody saying that these two trees should be eliminated so rather then try to do the work of everybody involved and experts in the community et cetera to try to

come up with a plan on these trees i just send it back, grant the appeal and people can start over. have the robust public discussion needed. have buff at the table to say what's right or wrong about these trees. look for the data that exists if it does exist about public safety and that i prefer rather then us trying to not tree experts, not cultural experts, not traffic experts trying to come up with a plan for you tonight. >> thank you. my feelings on this and slightly different way align very well with commissioner swig 's. i think this is the first time i have read an appeal. my wife wondering by the time i was swearing at the ends of it. the reasons being is because i have only been here a year and taking a more practical approach to tree removal.

i understand it may have to happen time to time, but in the course of the year i have been very well educated to the tree cases we had about the importance of maintaining the canopy and the ways we go about doing that and i thought about all the cases with a private developer working the circumstance and i thought about the one case i had to watch from afar when we did have rec park in here on a tree issue, and there were very well articulated clear rationals for why those trees were removed and end up with a net tree increase instead of decrease in trees which is a different situation. i don't say that to impugn rec park. sthis this is a lovely pran and seems all the roithd steps are fallowed and go forward and great addition to the city. the point is we have these two trees treated very differently then any two trees i have seen before, and my background is in neighborhood stuff and i'm in

the potrero area one of the transportation and traffic guys and so, i'm very familiar with vision zero and the way we try to make the roadways safer and i have beaten my head against the wall over a decade trying to make the streets between two free ways safer for residents and businesses and then i saw the pictures what was for vision zero traffic calming today and it enlisted a little reaction. i can understand that from theed a ministrative viewpoint you have series of best practices and the best practice would be for the tree not to be there so as a result you remove the tree and i can take that in good faith and i know you are not the primary administrator, but public works does a lot of constructions of the things that make or streets safer if not regulating the pavement between the curb space.

that was deeply deeply frustrating to see that as the rational. the sole rational for removal of these two trees. while my questioning was more specific and not as heated i did feel this at a point in time in a way that surprising to me. that said, from a practical standpoint in order to maximize increase in canopy i could be willing if we could get the rest of the board to go with basal diameter replacement plan for the two trees, but i would not sync full grant of the appeal if that is the way the rest of the commissioners are going. >> thank you. my thinking is very similar to commissioner eppler's. my line of questioning were design ed to come to some sort

of compromise and because i assumed possibly eroaninously there isn't support for full grant of the appeal but being i heard 3 colleagues say they might be willing to support a full grant of the appeal i'm thinking that may be the better solution here, and rather then trying to step in and play cultural district and urban forestry, which is not my cup of tea, i you know don't think it is a terrible idea to kick it back to the community process for all the reasons stated by commissioners swig, trasvina and eppler. if there is such a motion i would be inclined to support it. yeah. still amenable to the kind of compromised position i have been illiciting the whole time but i can go either way i

think. >> commissioner eppler. >> i wanted to ask commissioner lemberg a question. so, there is a couple different ways to go about this. if we were able to get a plan to think about if we were able to kick this-there are two ways to do this, one is uphold the appeal and application and process and come back and they know how we feel.y to go about this would be to ask them to come up with a plan and come back to us and then we either uphold the appeal entirely or on the condition it follows the replacement plane they give to us. i pragmatically lean to the latter, but again open to all your thoughts on this. >> as soon you started saying that that might be a better solution as well and ultimately

if we--if no agreement is reached, we could come back and potentially grant the appeal because it seems we have the support to do that, but i do think it may make more sense to let the parties and community come to the table and try to come up with a agreed upon plan we vote in a future meeting and approve that makes everyone happy and also eliminates some extra process that would be throwing in the mix if we granted the appeal in full tonight. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i would be interested in supporting that, however yet to hear rational why the two trees need to go and i think all the good work you just described and think is fully capable by the department and community and others can be accomplished to address the canopy, to address the overall design and the work being done and we save the two trees.

i think the appeal is based upon there is lacking a basis to remove trees. i haven't heard anymore in term s of safety so say grant the appeal, let all the work be done and then if there is an absence of a agreement with everybody at the table they can come back to us, but dont think they need to come back to us in order to have something better and more creative. >> i agree with your analysis commissioner trasvina, i just do think--what i think about is what we did last week which is totally different context where corey teeg came back with the reasonable modification case and knowing where we were going to go with it and came up with a very well written formal edit that wasn't inclined to be before until we asked him to do so and i'm thinking this might

end up in a similar place if we were to do that, but that's just my thought process. >> i'll jump in and provide some thoughts. i think--i'm similarly not convinced by the vision zero position. i think you know the matter list vision zero in conjunction with the project between the two. i'm at the plaza all most every sunday because my mother in law lives close by and she wants to

see our twins and we are there a lot. i think even though it is sunday there are traffic issues and speeding issues there even sundays and i never once thought if it wasn't for these trees i feel a lot safer. i do think it is more about the project, but i also don't want to get in the way of that project. i do think there is a lot of obviously hard work that has gone into the project the last several years. i appreciate that i think there has been some open honest statements about how the reaction from us tonight was

unexpected and maybe the level of preparation that we expect because we have been so well educated by mr. buck maybe hasn't met the standards that we usually demand much more forcefully from developers, so i think if we were to continue and see if a deal can be reached on the replacement footprint i think it may meet those dual goals of having a higher standard in terms of seeing the canopy appropriately prioritized while also respecting the momentum of the project that we have seen to date and not wanting to disturb that momentum.

that's probably-it sounds is in line with what commissioner eppler stated a few minutes ago. that is probably the direction i'm leading in as well, so we can kind of get to one of the requested and proposed solutions by the appellate while also respecting the fact that we are in the middle of a significant project that has been underway for a while and we dont want to disturb that project we like even though there has been disappointment with the way this particular aspect of the project has been handled this evening. mr. swig, i see you up next. >> i don't see while postponing

a decision tonight effects the project in any way shape or form because there is a lot of to do before they get to this part of the project which is the street side, so i'm not-it isn't like there is a family moved to mill brae waiting to get back into their house. this is a long-term thing, so another week or two or seeks don't matter because there is a whole part of the project that can go forward without dealing with there trees so there is no deress there or no big problem. what i like to--i like mr. klipp and mr. buck to come to the podium please. because maybe you can help us. and you guys are good friends. also, i just like support commissioner trasvina's

position. the basis of-there is no basis to support this. i would go in a second ifition comer trasvina made that to deny to uphold the appeal. because there really isn't a basis. vision zero is--there is no basis because there was no metrics presented. there is nothing that says this is dangerous. nothing that says 47 people go through that stoplight every day and risk of killing people. there is nothing. it is just contrivance so i--but in the spirit of what the other three commissioners says, moving this project forward and getting it done is more constructive thing. guys, the situation is we have two trees and if those two trees were to be removed your

view mr. buck first about filling tree basins and adding trees in the immediate japantown area, just off the cuff what would you-what direction would you be leaning? >> i would support that to move forward to address the concerns. >> and what do you think--i know you don't know how many tree basins are empty but the tree population isn't hundred percent in the japantown area and say that is 4 or 5 or 6 block area. >> exactly. >> alright. so, do you think if two trees were taken away and you would be happy with us saying they should be replaced with whatever number of trees you come up with and i'm guesstimating 6 to 8 to 10 trees? >> it is in that range and very clear and straight forward it

meets guidelines both parties feel comfortable with establishing the guideline. i can canvas the site within a week to understand where those basins are to start the conversation. >> mr. klipp, how do you feel about that? >> well-- >> i don't want to see the trees go, but if the trees go how do you feel about the alternative plan? >> i still have concerns there isn't a basis presented for removal and the precedent that sets and concerned this does make this crosswalk worse for pedestrians. if the city wants to take that on they can see how it plays out. that said, my concern is always been for the preservation and growth of our urban canopy and as reflected in the climate action 3 years ago calls for this type of replacement plan and so i would be amenable to

working with the bureau urban forestry on that, because i always think that a joint resolution is better then a litigated conclusion. that's what i stopped litigating because i didn't think it was very effective. but the other thing i would add- >> five lawyers sitting up here. >> i know that is why they laugh because they know wlaut i mean. what i would also ask for is the same thing that i asked for in the ucsf resolution, which is there be some milestones and guidelines. i don't want this to linger like other resolutions have. >> within 12 months? >> that would be a question for the urban forester because i can't answer- >> if you all went away. i see where we are going. we go with commissioner trasvina, which i support, and that is there is no basis, so of course the appeal is upheld and then i also see a good-i

like more trees planted in the neighborhood, so willing to give up the two trees to get 8 or 10 back. thats doesn't feel horrible to me so i think that is what we will base a direction on one of the two paths, but that is what i'm asking for you all is that so with regard to you, what would you be asking mr. buck or suggesting to mr. buck as to the time parameter of replacing two trees with call approximate 8 to 10 trees based on your tree count in a 12 month period, does that work for you? >> it does and if it can be done sooner then better. >> what would that reasonable-you know how fast the city works, not-- >> his team is under-staffed.

they got a lot going on. >> 12 months, 8 months. >> chris is saying 6 months. >> we should hear from rec and park, the permit holder here. >> yeah. >> we are the permit holder but agree whatever is decided here and we are a city family and if you are not within the city you still love the city like we do, so we are supportive of it. >> okay. >> thank you. >> there you go commissioners, why i got both--we have come to the fork in the road. one says trasvina street on it and there is no basis for this and we uphold the appeal, the other is that we deny the appeal on the condition that the permit be issued with

replacement or or differ and kick the can and ask them to come back with something that we can replace 8 or 10 trees in the 6 month period on. that's where i'm at. somebody take it from there. >> commissioner trasvina, your hand is up. >> thank you. what i have not yet heard is why all this great work depends upon getting rid of the two trees. if rec and park are willing to put up additional trees in the area and they have money for it apparently then why don't they do it and leave the two trees up? it saves money because we don't have to spend money taking out the trees. under my view, door number 3 which is we send them back, they come up with all the great ideas, if they agree they don't

need to come to us. nobody needs to file appeal to come back and save time and accomplish great new ideas with the community, with the tree community, everybody involved deciding coming up with a plan and we save two trees. i yet to hear why the trees are an obstuical to the entire project. it isn't like the ucsf example where ucsf could not prove the trucks on to build the wing over on parnassus and we have the benefit of world class institution for health. yet the trees were literally in the way. here, i don't see the trees in the way of anything. i would say i would--if it is my time at the moment i would move to grant the appeal based on the order lacking adequate factual basis of public safety

and inconsistent with city policy and goals to increase the tree canopy. >> i'll jump in and say before we entertain that motion i think i have a sense of where commissioner eppler and i are and not sure about commissioner eppler. and i hear commissioner swig's point about this isn't the nuclear option on the project and i understand that. i also think in these projects this isn't the only thing they have to do. just another thing. so, i think given we do have

what looks like an agreement in principal between the parties and avento check this off of the project list rather then essentially start over at least with this aspect of it, i would be in favor of that. i also--in substance i couldn't vote against your motion commissioner trasvina because you are right. but it is just a matter of do we want to decide on that basis or is there a potential for something that's you know, practical in light of the gestures we have seen here from the parties? can i ask you to weigh in

again? >> i'm very stuck in the middle because i agree with you in that i think commissioner trasvina is absolutely right and i think i would have a hard time voting against that and at the same time i also don't see harm in taking this off by a meeting or two to allow--and if mr. klipp or others come to the table and don't like what is presented or just feel like it, we can come back and absolutely would support commissioner trasvina's motion. i don't see harm kicking it down a meeting or two as a practical matter even though legally and analytically i agree. >> commissioner swig. >> i think it is a great point commissioner lum burg. what the hell. we can always come back and give direction to staff come up with a alternative plan and if

we dont like the plan, they can't work it out, hey, we uphold the appeal and we go from there because 1, 2, 3, 4 votes at least. i just heard that. not leaving out commissioner, but four guys just said i would support commissioner trasvina, but it may be a wiser direction to see if we get better benefit for the community by unfortunately sacrificing the two trees to make a better canopy in the japantown community. but, you know, i'll go either way. what the hell, lets give it a up couple weeks and see if they can sweeten the pie and make better for japantown. >> what i'm not hearing and i would be happy if anybody can educate what i'm missing is, if

we grant the appeal tonight everybody who will be working on this issue from the community to rec and park to buff to mr. klipp and others will be able to say we need to fix this and all the great ideas are going to be batted around and but we keep the two trees up. opposed to us saying, take some time to come up with something and come up with an agreement that presumably would include getting rid of 2 trees. i don't see the need. i haven't heard the need to gret rid of the trees and the earlier off the docket back to the parties and experts and stakeholders they can resolve it without ever having-without the need to come back to us unless somebody says we really need to get rids of the two trees. i would like to see a solution that doesn't get rid of the two

trees. i haven't heard it is necessary taget rid of the trees, and that's why i move to grant the appeal and all the great work that we hope and have talked about seem to be accomplished by the stakeholders. >> commissioner swig, are you still-- >> sorry didn't cancel myself. >> julie, what's the motion? personal privilege if i can make entertain a motion to be heard before the one on the table or do we have to vote on that first? >> i believe we have a motion on the table from commissioner trasvina, so we should just go in order. he can make a motion again. his motion isn't successful you make one. >> or you can with all due

respect to commissioner trasvina is suggest a alternative and if mr. trasvina is willing to step back and take away his motion then that's fine or you can request him to adjust his motion towards your motion. >> i guess that's what i'll do. commissioner trasvina would you be amenable having a motion on postponement before we hear your motion? or do you want to hear yours right now? >> well, i have expressed my views as to why i think granting an appeal would be faster. save the lives of two trees and would allow all the work we hope to get could go forward. as opposed to the postponement which still involves getting rid of two trees unnecessarily

so that is my preference. if in particularly since this is your first night as president, i would be happy to-you can move to substitute your motion to delay or to put this over and that could be treated as a amendment to my motion and we can vote on that. i certainly wouldn't stand in the way of making a motion substituting your version with mine. >> you can withdraw your motion commissioner trasvina for now if you want him to vote first but if his motion passes you won't have a opportunity to make a motion because it will be continued if he gets three votes. >> right. so, i guess that is my request is would you be willing to withdraw your motion for the timebeing while we entertain a

different motion? basically the thinking being that we've heard testimony from buff that there isn't anything particularly uniquely special about these two particular trees that they are in a sense considered by mark and my or by buff in my language not theirs to be not particularly uniquely remarkable and that we may get a net increase in a number of trees which may happen if they start over, may not happen, but we at least have an avenue forward potentially to an agreement that involves net increase to the canopy in a way

that we can continue to monitor without the possibility of if they have to start over, go through the entire process. it may lead to the preservation of these two particular trees, but it may not be a net increase in the canopy because they may just decide to scrap it and we have a net zero addition to the canopy. with the deal there is a pathway to net increase that we still have jurisdiction over that we still can monitor and in a sense bless going forward. >> if that's the rational then i would specifically reject it. three reasons. one is, i trust everybody here and zoom in good faith. if they say they can bring in

new trees then i would expect that they whatever we do they still are willing to bring in new trees. second, i never heard in all these schooling i have gotten mr. buck and buff that trees have to be special and unique in order to be protected. or that when we do the count for the goal in 2030 of the number of trees we have in the canopy that we are suddenly favoring some trees. trees are trees and we are short, so why we would-if we can save the 2 trees and there has not been evidence presented there is a vision zero issue here with data or with photos, so i would say that for us to not-for us to allow the trees to be removed for sake of

getting more trees is shortsighted and not the appropriate use of our discretion. i would say if you want to vote down my motion then that's the will of the majority, but i don't want to pull back for a solution which i think will-it is either based upon a fear and concern that what the parties are willing to do tell us they tell us it is possible it can be done and suddenly if we vote down this-grant this appeal suddenly say they can can't be done. i believe it can be done with the two trees and think we ought to let them do that. >> commissioner swig. >> i only have one question but now have a--thank you mr.

trasvina. how many times have we heard from mr. buck about healthy trees about unhealthy trees and mr. buck is there saying these are unhealthy trees because they have a crack, wart or split. two prong branches but when it is a healthy tree it is a staying. these two trees are helty trees. they have been identified as such so that rang true to me. thank you for that in support of your point of view. out of interest because [indiscernible] what would be your alternative motion so i know whether to choose chocolate or vanilla? >> my motion is continue the matter to future date to allow the parties to add detail to the agreement we heard and

principal following your questioning and i like to know what the chocolate and vanilla looks like and i like to for example if vanilla means more trees. i think i'm in favor of that math. >> so, now knowing the--these other guys know what the alternative is once we hear a vote on whether to vote on commissioner trasvina's motion so now we can go to mr. commissioner trasvina's motion. >> we have-- >> if he still wants to keep it, which i think he does. >> i was going to express a little concern and perhaps add just a little to what you are [indiscernible] the only

concern i have about just approving the appeal is we have now hoisted the two trees off to this project that will be done and what happens to those trees during the course of the large project they are doing, curb to curb renovation and that concern, something happens and we end up with no trees and could have had trees in the first place is worrisome and i think about a little bit of the-i heard commissioner swig used a phrase tail wagging the dog and feel perhaps we were given a justification they thought was a sufficient justification why the trees needed to be removed and perhaps we have not heard the only justification from a project basis the large project the trees are part of, so perhaps i might suggest along with the detailed plan for basal diameter replacement

planting in japantown would also get a reasonably short brief from rec park as to the project related reasons why these things should be removed. i come down hard on private parties and the reason is because they are private parties. this plan is a public project, had a lot of public commentary and so while we do have our rules, there is more of a democratic process at play here we might in other tree removal places. before i go about saying there is absolutely no justification i want to test that because we got a justification and focused on that. i heard other things about the nature of the fact we are on a parking garage, there is no grounds and curb to curb. it may be nice to have those teases out to make a more full decision if we do continue

this. >> commissioner tras vina is your hand up? >> only briefly to commissioner eppler. it seems odd to me in this case opposed to all the others, we never said maybe you have another argument particularly this is a city agency with a lot of people. it is not the woman concerned about the trees on laguna, it isn't a neighbor, not a person unfamiliar, it is a solution, the city. they should have brought up either the tree concerns or other concerns about the project. we are going on a limb so to speak to get rational for them. i think let them go back and work on all this. i would prefer to have a outcome from us where the two

trees are not at stake. the life of the two trees is protected. you can spckulate, we can speculate the construction maybe they won't survive, that's always possible but we haven't heard any of that tonight and my motion would be clear that we are not sacrificing the two trees for whatever benefits out there. those benefits can be achieved without sacrificing the two trees. that appeared to be the original brief. no basis for eliminating the two trees. maybe everyone with come back and city come back and say, well we still-we file another permit application to get rid of the trees, then we can have the discussion then, but now i want to save the two trees because i yet to hear from the

city why they need to be removed. they expressed willingness to involve the community, get more trees, and i think that can be accomplished without tonight-giving finality with this application. >> we do--i should have brushed up on robert rules before i took the position this evening. do you know, can i move independently to amend that motion and have that entertainer or do we have to vote on a clean motion from mr. trasvina? >> i don't know. >> you can ask with permission to the motion maker to plead for the amendment to his motion. he can arbitrarily accept or

deny your pleading. that is up to him and if not, we should hear the motion which is on the table if he does not accept your pleading for an amendment. >> i think i requested and been denied. >> yeah. it isn't really-you are changing the whole motion, so you can ask him to withdraw but it sounds like we have to go ahead. we have two other cases we spent a lot of timeoon this and people are waiting. >> just to be clear, unless we operate under different robert rules of order which many organizations do, my understanding robert rules of order and the reason i said i'm unwilling to withdraw my motion is because i believe you have the power as anybody does to amend a motion including through a substitute which would embody the approach you want to take. in my view, when i said no i

don't want to withdraw this, i did it knowing you could move to amend it. >> i see. >> that we if the vote passes we are done, if a vote does not pass then we can consider alternative motion, which is the way we operated. >> i don't want to do that because i don't want to vote against mr. trasvina's motion frankly, but i have one i prefer, so i'm going to--again, my understanding of robert rules aligns with yours mr. trasvina. i just the name of the motion and the word magic [indiscernible] i will on that basis turn it over to [indiscernible] >> i think you can move to amend the motion. it has to be seconded. there has to be a majority vote in favor of the amendment, and

then that amendment motion could be heard. >> okay. that's what i will do. i move to amend commissioner trasvina motion to state we continue this matter to future meeting to allow the parties to reach an agreement on replacement trees for the project on the basis that we have an agreement in principal here in the meeting room. commissioner lemberg. >> i would amend that amendment. i'm more inclined to support the amendment if it didn't automatically assume that the trees were being removed. i would support that motion if the trees were not being removed automatically as part of that continuance. >> accepted. so amended.

>> okay. i think under robert rules we need someone to second that. >> [indiscernible] second. >> can someone repeat the motion? the amendment? >> not understanding how the procedure is working at this points because we have never done this. you're asking the board to consider an amendment to his motion. >> yes. >> and that's permitted under the rules without hearing his motion? >> yes. >> so, i understand you're asking the board to amend the motion so that the matter will be continued to allow the parties to reach an agreement on the replacement trees in the spirit of the discussion had at

the hearing tonight. >> we are voting on the amendment and then hear the motion and vote on the motion. >> not e assumption the two trees will be removed. >> exactly. >> on the motion commissioner trasvina, no. lemberg, aye. eppler, aye. commissioner swig aye. >> so, that amended motion carries. >> the motion to amend the motion passes and now the board may consider the motion itself. >> okay. so, this would be a motion- >> amended motion. >> president lopez. >> that's my motion, so i believe i need a second but first i see mr. lembergs hand.

>> if we are voting to continue we neat to vote to continue to specific date so confer with the parties when they are available. >> we are busy in february, so possibly we can put it on february 28, march 13 would be better. >> no stst wanted to make sure we do that. >> check in with the parties. is march 13 feasible for everyone? mr. klipp. okay. we are just waiting to hear from mr. klipp. yes? >> yes. >> okay. so, we have a motion. who is this from? i'm sorry- >> this is my motion. >> we have a motion from president lopez to continue this item to march 13 so that

the parties will have-allow the parties to reach agreement on the replacement trees in spirit of discussion held tonight, and no assumption the two tree will be removed. on that motion trasvina, no. lemberg, aye. eppler, aye. swig, aye. >> okay. that motion carries 4-1 and continued to march 13. thank you. >> thmotion eliminated? >> it was amended by the president. >> and also by the way i like to call to everybody's attention, the appeal is still in play, so if we don't like what comes back, mr. trasvina i'll be right behind you.

>> same. >> i promise. >> point of privilege for 5 minute break. >> parties, thank you so much for your patience. we will take a 5 >> welcome back to january 17, 2024. we are on item 5, appeal 23-063. 4501 geary blvd. appealing the issuance on november 9, 2023, to geary st petroleum inc, of a notification of tobacco permit denial (denial of a retail tobacco sales permit because the establishment is located within 500 feet of two schools and within 500 feet of

two other establishments that have a valid retail tobacco sales permit; no exceptions under the health code apply).application 121505 and the representative for the appellate is on zoom, so welcome. you have 7 minutes to present your case. please go ahead, sir. >> hello everyone. thank you for your time. like to bring to your attention that we recently acquired this location at 4501 geary boulevard in san francisco. this is service gas station with mechanic shop and [indiscernible] consist of selling the goods of snacks and other convenience items along with cigarette and tobacco. our goal was to keep the business going the same operating the past 20 years. it came to our attention after acquiring it if you owned the facility more then 10 years you are able to keep the cigarette and tobacco license. we took that into consideration when we applied this property

and the business. apparently the same owners did a internal transfer from a sole propriety to s corp in 2016 and not identified us of doing so. the public san francisco mentioned to them in an e-mail which i recently came to know about after i got the denial letter that if they ever choose to sell this business or to transfer it or do anything with it other then that name or corporation that the cigarette tobacco license will go. this has been new news to us and all fairness we just like you guys to look at the current state of the economy and things are going and small business been difficult. we wouldn't say we wouldn't survive without it but we like to keep the same it has been.

there are two other businesses located next to up that sell it. we don't see that we want to promote cigarettes. it is a small section in our gas station, so we like to keep it for the sake of having the business continue the same way and all i have to say. i appreciate your time and thank you so much. >> thank you, i don't see questions so move to department of public health. >> good evening commissioners. larry kessler. the appellate mentions in the appeal statement that we filed for this with you at the board of appeals regarding the in 2019 thoriginal owner of the gas station was issued a

amended permit, not a new permit. we did issue an amended permit that was not considered a new permit in 2019. that is not considered a ownership change so simply amending as he stated in his over the zoom call there that it didn't-sorry, just really tired. i apologize. waiting. but it wasn't actually a new permit issued, so he just amended the corporation and did not issue a new permit. in his appeal he thought the gas station received a new permit at that time, which it did not. so, under article 19h, which is

in your information packet and i have an exhibit to put up. >> overhead, please. >> as he stated, there are two retail tobacco permits within 500 feet of his location as well as those are the orange ones, as well as two schools within 500 feet. article 19h prohibits the health department issuing a permit to a facility that is the situation within 500 feet of schools and the retail and the already issued retail tobacco permit.

because of that and we can go-i think all you may be aware of the density law and how many new permits can be issued. last time we were here went over that. only so many allowed in a district. the other possibility here would be if he was granted exception under 19h.6 and this specific case because he is a gas station, he's not a retail food stor establishment nor tobacco shop, those exceptions are not available to him, and we feel like we made it very clear to the seller that when the time came they would not be able to allow the new buyer a retail tobacco permit and back in 2015 when the law was passed by the board of supervisors it

was very confusing law to explain to businesses when they went to sell their business that the rights to sell tobacco may not transfer to the new operator. we went to every facility and gave a copy of the letter which introduced them to this new concept and so you see we did in 2015 at this facility and then in 2019 when the amended permit was issued we reminded the operator who is still the same owner, just different corporation that rule would apply as well, which is the x there also explaining the same situation that severely restricted whether or not a permit could be issued at that

location for a new permit. in addition, it is it not clear in our point of view this is not just having a candy rack or snacks, does not constitute a retail food store establishment, and in that regard in 2016 as you probably know the health department issued food permits for retail food store establishments. this does not meet the criteria for what the health department would consider a retail food store establishment. so, we never had this place under inspection as a facility selling retail food. the law changed and now 25

square feet. more then 25 square feet, which this facility does not have more at that time did not have more then 25 square feet of retail food sales, so it didn't meet the exceptionals under 19h.6. i welcome any questions you have. senior inspector young who worked on the case is here as well if qulou ons. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasvina and vice president lemberg. >> thank you. i was appreciative how you pointed out you explained to the previous owner the limitations on tranlzferring the permit. i have two questions, has the department have similar prohibitions on selling other products?

>> regarding transferring of the rights to sell that product or? >> well, there is tobacco policy. >> right. >> are there other products that- >> you couldn't-- >> are also under that same kind of limitation or prohibition? >> regarding-well, not specifically, there is a lot of criteria that goes into regarding how many can be approved in a superviseal district. we don't have anything like that. >> okay. >> the cannabis permits in the someday were hard to get and transfer. >> okay. second question i had is, has the department ever looked at whether this policy has had any beneficial impact on health and what the impact might be on small businesses from economic standpoint? >> i think we do have feedback.

did you want to speak on that? regarding the impact of this program on the general tobacco use. >> is this policy doing anybody any good? we hear from the people hurt by it, we had a previous case in district 3. wondering whether there is anything on the other side saying this is doing what we want it to do and maybe there is, maybe there isn't. just wanting to know. >> i think just from my perspective i'll let speak. we see reduction in the number of facilities selling tobacco which is expected. in 2015 with a thousand places. >> any impact on health? >> maybe jeanine who is more involved can answer that. >> good evening commissioners.

thank you very much for the question. so, we actually do have some data on health. the data tracked is youth access through a couple of different surveys, one is the california-apologize not knowing the actual name of the surveys and they also the cdc does take data around adult smoking we are finding the rates after implementation of these policies-before i say that i like to add helt data is interesting because when a policy passes you don't always see the results right away so it takes time. it is hard for me to share-i get excited when we see the youth access rate youth access to use of e cigarettes actually dropped because they only have

one data point, and it really takes us a couple of few years for us to actually say, yes the policy is working. the other thing the health department does is that the group that collects the data, they are connected to other jurisdictions. we had policies like this much longer so they look how are those other jurisdictions are doing and finding that jurisdictions with similar policies are actually finding drop in use and access and so we are hoping we will see that as well. i think in the future we will start bringing our data to share with you because we would like very much for the public and this commission to see how these policies are effecting and are really supporting the goals that what we are trying to do which is to keep flavor

keep tobacco products away from youth and to help drop the adult smoking rates too. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we have a question vice president lopez. >> you. my question is around the definition of what a retail food store is as far as classification of different businesses. i imagine that safeway is a retail food store as a major store that sells food, but i did note the appellate in this case received a "food facility permit exemption" which implies they are selling food, just maybe not their primary business outlet. i wonder if you can explain to

a lay person the difference between these things is. >> thank you for that question. the law actually used the retail food establishment based on the planning code. that section of the planning code was revised and then bh the planning code did exist it didn't have definition of retail food establishment. with discussions with the community they focus on grocery stores, liquor stores. the way to explain that to the public we created regulations that define exactly what a retail food establishment is so you will find the definition in the rules and regulation and we are always improving, always listening to our businesses and we are actually going to revise it to have the exact definition

of grocery store, liquor store, specialty grocery store so it is much clearer moving forward. >> to confirm what i heard you say, the definition of a retail food store was contained in the planning code at the time that this antitobacco law was passed butd now that definition no longer exists under the code? >> yes, that's correct. it was in section 790 of the planning code which changed to a different section and it really doesn't define-doesn't refer to the definitions and we are fixing that through the rules and regulations. the idea is that if you are not a market selling a variety of foods, dairy, produce, meats,

household goods, or tobacco shop, the exceptions only apply to those businesses and doesn't apply to any other type of business, so a gas station in the future when there is a new business owner a gas station will sell gas. >> really sorry to ask this question but have to ask. what is the basis for the department of public health ability to proemal gate rules and regulations binding on other agencies? >> so rules and regulations the authority is in the health code. the director has the ability to adopt rule s regulations. we went a little further so it doesn't find other departments, but it basically helps us to become very transparent about how we make decisions.

and what we took a step further that when we drafted the rules and regulations, we outreached to our businesses. we posted on the website. we really asked for public comment and when we amend the rules and regulations we will do the exact same thing, so we are really working hard on communicating to our businesses, getting feedback from the office of small business and other city departments to make sure that everyone is aware of how we make these decisions, so it is our commitment for transparency and access. >> moving public comment. anyone here for public comment? anyone on zoom? okay. i dobt see any, so we'll move to rebuttal.

mr. homdy, you have 3 minutes to address the board. are you there? >> yes. in terms of this as a service gas station and just to understand the food establishment permit, if we split gas station where gas station is gas and people fill on credit card and separate the business to strict tobacco shop and get two permits separated is that a way--i'm confused liquor stores are okay to transfer, tobacco shops but the gas station-how does that help public safety? we are for convenience, we are not here to promote tobacco or sell flavor. flavor is a state ban. i like to look at the statistics how the amount of

people dropped usage and say san francisco because i notice let's say we just stopped selling here today. people are going to go across the street and across the street is liquor store or whatever. for us bringing someone into our services gas station there is a gas station up the street. people with 711 and everything, tobacco, drinks whatever. we are not here to promote sell of tobacco just here for convenience. i am kind of confused why a gas station isn't specified. if it is needed to separate the permits or convert our auto bay to full permit establishment and get to permitting and do that we are all for it to hold this down, but i am just very confused. thank you so much. >> thank you. we have a question from

commissioner swig. no. okay. we'll move to the department of public health. yes, he will ask a question? okay. one moment. >> so, i'm going to ask the department to address your question because i'm not going to answer your question because they are the experts but you will find from their answer that there is no discrimination between a gas station and a liquor store or a market when it comes to the transferring of a license at the time of the sale of a business. it transcends the whole sector. you asked can somebody explain it a me and i give the answer

preparing the department to be clear on that in their rebuttal. my question to you is, it sounds like you were aware of a transfer of tobacco license and i got confused in that in the transfer of the tobacco license were you aware there were restrictions in transferring tobacco license when you bought the business or did you not do your homework on that subject? were you mislead or did you not do your full due diligence on the issue of transferring of a license to sell cigarettes as

you heard about tonight. >> thank you. i actually did my homework and found out that there was something that said if a owner owned the establishment for more then 10 years, i don't know the exact wording that you areentialable for the transfer and we went ahead and actually went and did our due diligence, acquired the facility. did the seller mention you cannot do that, ? no. i had e-mails from the seller saying that you can apply and there is no issues as i have been the owner more then 10 years. i was talking to the daughter of the owner and now we went ahead as soon took over filed for the permits and-when department public works said sus pend sale of cigarettes we took everything out. now we are at a point where is

there a way to just continue have operation done the same from before? this is all we ask for. thank you. >> thank you for that answer. and also because i'm not the expert and also because it isn't appropriate, i'm going to pass that question on to the department as to what happens when somebody owns a business for 10 years but really don't and then the successor buyer finds themselves in a pickle? thank you very much for your answers. >> do you want to answer his question and we won't start the time yet? >> sure. p% you can start the time. i think i can put- >> that is time. you don't have to use them all. >> i like to answer the question. it is very confusing to our businesses and when we have new staff it is a learning curve to understand what the laws is

says. i only go toog speak what was passed. i can't speak to what it could have looked like or maybe should have looked like. this law involved a lot of people. there was public comment. there was really driven by community because community members were saying there too many tobacco retailers in their community and wanted to see a difference and make a change and we were department very interested in the youth access to tobacco products and then also supporting driving down smoking rates. the first thing that hans when there is change of use because tobacco permits do not transfer so when there is a change-change of ownership when there is a new business owner

we must apply the density requirements. the density requirements say the department must deny a new permit under certain criteria if there is more then 45-permits in a district within 500 feet of a school. within 500 feet of another retailer that already sells tobacco. if you are a tobacco shop. if you are restaurant or bar or any other type of food establishment with on site consumption of beverages, food, and then if you are in a new location. a location we have never permitted before. so, it is under the health department may not issue a new tobacco permit if any of those conditions exist. we first apply the density law which is what you saw principal

inspector kessler shared the map then we look at the exception which says for retail food establishment and tobacco shops you may apply the session. what type of business was being operated by the permit holder and the permit holder is defined as the person on january 18, 2015. new owners can't try to change and become something different because they don't have the exception. the exception goes to that permit holder as of january 18, 2015. there is another criteria that permit holder had to have operated continuously at that location between january 18, 2010 all the way through january 18, 2015.

the entire period. and then if that food establishment or the tobacco shop meets those two criteria those are the businesses that qualify for the exception. now we can apply the exception and the exception says those businesses may sell to a new buyer and here comes the 10 year that confuses a lot of people. there is another opportunity to apply the exception to the new buyer. if the new buyer holds the tobacco permit 10 years then the health department can issue a permit to the subsequent and the density requirements we have to apply after the subsequent buyer. it is very complicated and understand why there is a lot of confusion of when to apply the exception and how long the

new buyer has to hold on to the permit before there is a opportunity for another exception. kwlrks >> the clear issue here is mr. homdy bought a business from somebody who had been involved with that business for over 10 years. the actual people people. >> yes. >> and but somewhere in the-we don't know the reason, could be a state issue, tax structure, any number of things that same person changed the legal structure of their business from one thing to another thing, probably a c corp to llc or dda to llc. but it was the same person.

i think this is where he's asking the question. i bought the business from the same person who owned it for over 10 years, but in the shift and speculating on the shift from dda to llc, the same person owning both doesn't the 10 year apply and i think that will help us, your answer here will help us with finding our decision. >> so, the answer to the question is the 10 year does not apply to that business because it is gas station. it isn't a retail food establishment or tobacco shop. when the business became a corporation, we hand held the

business and family and explained exactly the future of the tobacco permit. we really wanted to make sure that everyone understood what the outcome would be if that family decided to sell the gas station. so, in the comment i heard, he mentioned he saw one of our e-mail but there were multiple e-mails we gave to the permit holder to make sure they understood and phone consations to make sure they understand the health department could not issue tobacco department if there was a sell of the gas station. >> so, why--this brings up another question in my mind. so, when there was a transfer from one ownership structure to another, same people, there was

a transfer of the tobacco license from one entity to another. why didn't the law kick in at that time to say time out, if you change the name of your entity and in fact are transferring ownership from entity a to entity b, then the new law kicks in and you have more then 45 establishments in the area, you are gas station, why didn't the game end there and the tobacco permit--why was the permit extended at that point? same thing change of ownership. >> in the law the change of ownership is defined for corporation there has to be 25 percent or more stock ownership change. when they became a corporation they only transferred 20 percent to family members, so

by definition, by legal definition it wasn't a change of ownership which allowed us to amend the permit and this is what we explained to the permit holder. >> i love when you testify in front of us because i get such great education from you and you know your stuff so well. thank you very much for your testimony. >> you're welcome. if there is anymore questions we are available. >> thank you. you have 3 minutes if you want to address the board. if there is anything further. okay. thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> why don't we start with commissioner trasvina and go that way? as much as i'm sympathetic i

believe the department has faithfully and carried tions under the law passed by the board of supervisors and signed into law by the mayor. i'm pleased to know there is some recognition of the difficulties that small business owners have and some recognition of or at least hope this policy is having a beneficial impact on young people and other users of tobacco. for those reasons i don't find a reason to grant the appeal. >> i concur with commissioner trasvina. what i see here tonight is a law that perhaps isn't working for the people very well, but i also see a department of public health doing its job exceptionalally well and for

those reasons and i agree with commissioner trasvina that there is-we don't have enough basis to grant the appeal and that the case by the department of public health has been presented very thoroughly and in a way i think answered all our questions, so for that reason i vote to deny the appeal. >> i agree as well. >> just comment. >> it makes me upset that we hear these things and that in either in the-during the due diligence as this he may not have been told the entire truth or when somebody doesn't do due diligence they realize they

don't have a tobacco permit because this is a law. my observation through this and my compliments to the department is that they really are good about being very clear on the subject, very detailed, very transparent and very proactive. if you heard the testimony how many gas stations in san francisco, a lot less then 25 years ago, but still there are still a lot of gas stations. still a lot of liquor stores. we heard from the drug shop a couple weeks ago that--how often is it commissioners that we hear a member of a department come up and know exactly the entire case history and participated it in on a single gas station in san francisco? it is sad what will probably happen here, but my compliments

to you for at least trying and being knowledgeable and transparent and encouraging small business to understand what they are getting into and that-unfortunate for mr. homdy, but at least there is a department that tries hard for small business and gives the option to know what they are getting into so thank you for that. >> i'll chime in. i want to also commend dph and thank you for your testimony. thank you again for your patience this evening and are apologies for the delay. i really appreciate what you presented and i think your patience is a testament to your services. i think i want to also flag for the appellate for mr. homdy

that we are also at a bit of disservice this evening by not receiving a brief from you, which doesn't allow to prepare and surface the appropriate questions and issues ahead of time, ahead of presentation but i want to thank you for what you've surfaced this evening. i think we have done our best to grapple with those issues you presented orally and i do see the complexity and the various wrinkles to the various ordinances and various permutations of guidance from the department and do see how that could be extremely confusing, and whether the question is a lack of diligence

or being mislead, i think it leads us to the same place, which is that, what you hear this evening we don't see a grounds under the law under the clear delineation and guidance provided by the department for granting your appeal, so with that, i will make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the notification of tobacco permit denial was properly issued. >> okay. so on that motion, commissioner trasvina, aye. vice president lemberg, aye. commissioner eppler, aye. commissioner swig, aye. that motion carries 5-0 and the appeal is denied. mr. homdy, we are not taking questions and moving to the next item. you are welcome to reach out to the board office tomorrow to discuss further. we are moving on to item 7,

appeal 23-071. lance carnes versus san francisco public works bureau urban forestry. 1335 laguna street (listed in buf tree database as 1355 laguna st., tree # 2) appealing the issuanceon december 22, 2023, of a public works order (approval to remove one street tree with replacement. the tree's canopy is in severe decline and cracks have formed. the tree qualifies as a public safety concern and is a hazard).order 208967. we'll hear from the appellate first mr. carnes.

>> okay. sorry? >> [indiscernible] >> yeah. computer, please. thank you. lance carnes and i have case 23-071. regarding a single tree little south of where you were earlier this evening on laguna and geary below that. this case--the basis from earlier case, 23-031 which dealt with saint francis square

coop. in that case they listed a tree to be removed and the case was closed without that tree being removed. they took that out of the case. then they renoticed it for removal and i discovered it by figuring how mr. buck's mind worked. he listed it at the wrong address, but i knew what he was getting at. hope i'm not being too drool for the meeting. so, i appealed the case and got it an order i could appeal so i'm here tonight to talk about that. which key do i hit to go--here we go.

this involves two >> can you speak into the microphone please? >> sure. this involves a large tree and put a yard stick next to it so it is about 32 inch trunk diameter and small tree, which is about 16 inch trunk diameter. what i discovered is that mr. buck actually wrote to the board of appeals back during the 23-031 case and stated the following in his brief, he said, the correct trees were reviewed by staff and the laguna street tree was actually referred to as 1355 laguna street tree 2, which is the large tree we just saw.

the street treat is referred to as 1335 laguna street. a smaller tree. by saying these two are-he says these are the same. the large tree the same as the small tree which didn't make sense. just to give a idea where we are, geographically, this is 1355 site 1, so, the actual tree that comes into play, 1335 laguna site 2, the large tree and 1335 laguna site 1, which is the tree to be removed. just so you get a idea of where

we are. this is on laguna street just above the coop. these interest the three trees here. this is this huge tree here. tree 1 is very small tree barely see it but i'll show a better picture in a moment. i introduced this in a different hearing schedule, mr. buck got wind of this and he wrote back and said, hey, your--let's see--how can i see the bottom of the slide? he said well that's your

photograph. it isn't a dpw photograph so i dug up a photograph and showed him. this is the current public works photo data base of 1355 laguna street tree 2 and what is actually shown is 1335 tree 1 small. the replacement tree. mr. buck is a master at changing photographs to say what he wants to say, so he labeled the photograph as 1355 laguna street, but actually put a photograph in there that was something different. 1335 laguna street. sometimes when i check this stuff it is all online, so anybody can do it, but i think he's playing a game with me and i don't appreciate it.

that's his deal. so, this is the gold standard. a google street view of the three trees, and tree 1, tree 2 and this is the removal tree down here. i'm going slowly here. i can't get it to advance now. what did i do wrong? so--so, let's leave it here. this is-did you give me-did you stop it? >> i stopped the time.

>> thanks. this is the small tree photo file and i used a machine to track how it looked at one point and at another point. anybody familiar with way back machine? sort of a way to certify what a website looked like at a particular point in time. >> 30 seconds. >> i want to ascertain what the trees looked like so i put in a public records request for a group of trees. see if i have it here. i asked for these four trees photographs and this is my reference tree, 1355 laguna

street tree 2 and i got back the public records request had several photos. >> thank you that is time. >> my reference tree didn't have the right photo. >> we have a question from mr. trasvina. >> you are talking about 3 separate trees, correct? >> just two. i showed three on my first slide there. >> is there any tree that you don't object to being removed? >> don't reject to being what? >> removed. >> removed. i don't want any trees to be removed. >> so none of the trees you talked about should be removed? >> that would be my preference, yeah. there is one that was posted. it was- >> so just so i'm clear, it isn't a matter of mislabeling

the trees, it is you don't either to be removed? >> it is also- >> you haven't talked about a reason why the trees shouldn't beremoved so can you get on the record why you think the trees should not be removed? >> yes. see if i put that at the end of my talk i have some information on that. here is one thing that they showed a big tree and small tree. if you remember from the beginning of the--the order said that the removal of the tree is a [indiscernible] which is a red flowering gum and but the actual tree is a

[indiscernible] which is a also called a brisman box. >> okay. this is not answering my question. in your world view, there is a small tree and large tree? >> yeah. >> and what's the problem with removing the small tree? >> the small tree was mosted for removal. >> what is your objection to removing that tree? >> well, let me go on here. here's my photograph of--my question is, they are claiming this is a possibly dangerous tree and i doubt it. >> okay, great. >> i'm trying to push the tree into laguna street. >> on the other tree, what's your objection to that tree being removed? >> that is a mislabeled tree.

mr. bucks likes that label for some reason, but this large one here. so that's a tree that should not be removed. it is a healthy tree sitting at the top of laguna street and-- >> okay, so there are 2 trees and both healthy and should n't be removed? >> yes, i believe so. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the bureau urban forestry. you can be seated mr. carnes. thank you. >> okay. i leave this here? >> >> chris buck, san francisco public works bureau urban

forestry. i'll stick to my script what i submitted as part of the brief last week in preparation of the hearing. the appellate lance carnes filed an to insure that the correct tree is removed by city staff. the actual physical tree is not in question as it exists within the public right of way 1300 block of laguna street, nor is the asset or data base addressed among city staffmentf the tree specious to be removed is [indiscernible] shown in many photos and closest physical address to the tree is 1335 laguna street. on the physical on site post-ing notices refer to the site as 1335 laguna because that is the most helpful physical address to associate with the tree. however because we knew from public comments made in different hearing by mr. carnes questioning the tree numbering, we were very intentional to

reference both the physical address for people on site and tree record address listed in the tree management system/database. we did this to try to remove any perceived confusion from the public which tree was sought for removal by public works. the tree database, the tree is referenced as 1355 laguna street. tree number 2. this address numbering makes sense when viewing list of other trees on that side of the block. the unique asset id number for the subject tree is 140341 which is equivalent to that tree social security number. it sticks with that site. there is no confusion no mistake and no question by public works staff as to correct identity of the subject tree. public works provided this information on october 18 to mr. carnes in response to

related complaint filed against public works with sunshine ordinance task force. additionally, knowing mr. carnes had concerns or doubts about the tree numbering on this block and our data base as expressed in public comment we started the tree reproval process all over by separateic removal of the tree from the case which appeared before this commission in october. appeal 31. we posted the 15 day notice october in reference the physical address on site and address listed within the tree data base. the appellate believes the tree should be listed in the tree data base as 1335 laguna street tree 1 asset 140342. however this numbering would not be consistent with the number of the trees in the rest of the block. this is carefully addressed by staff back in october response to sunshine ordinance

task force complaint. also carefully articulated at works hearing we had back in november. a number attachments were included to demonstrate the tree removal process for the subject tree is robust and error free and there is no basis for the appeal and no basis for the separate complaint filed by mr. carnes the sunshine ordinance task force. we don't expect the public to become subject matter experts the way the trees are listed in the tree database. we have a powerpoint presentation to train new staff to understand the concept of numbering and sequence, we are prepared to get into the details if necessary. overall the health of the subject tree is severe decline with greater then 80 percent of the canopy already removed and our dead. there are cracks forming in the main stem of the tree. public works does assure mr. carnes and the commissioners

that the correct tree physically on site will be removed not a helty tree nearby. we hope to some day resolve the question mr. carnes has how the tree is listed in our tree database. we ask the commissioners to deny the appeal so public works can remove the tree to address this public safety concern. the site is replantable and public works will plant a tree in the same location. during the evening tonight i thought about other things staff may do to try to allay concerns of the wrong tree may be removed. we can mark the tree with paint on the trunk. i can offer to meet the tree on site to lead them to that tree. the request for removal when we place it with the tree crew with the contractor will include a photo of the subject tree so i trust they can find the correct tree on their own

but just looking how we can try to find common ground and insure that only the tree posted with hazard notice is what public works will remove. i feel we are at a impasse as to the tree numbering. thank you. >> are those diagrams available to the whole department and anybody any contractor working on this? i guess my question is, is this formally-are these documents formal policy of buff? >> they are our internal guide how to number trees at a site, and we don't ask a contractor

to interpret them. we dont want there to be a error in that, so we give them an address with sequencing but also it is the photo that meets matches the tree described and also specious. specious, but with there photo. we want a positive identification that they are at the right tree. construction could be occurring nearby, any number of confusing elements. >> i appreciate that. i want to preface by saying i'm not confused by this but i want to make sure that this document-these diagrams were not prepared for the appeal, they preexisted. >> correct, those three pages sit in a folder to as tree numbering tree diagrams and we have new staff and sit

down day 1, maybe day 2 and talk about it. >> wnderful. thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. you can be seated. now moving to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment in the room? mr. klipp. you have 3 minutes. >> thanks. this isn't my area of expertise. i don't get into databases. but i say three things. first of all trees don't move, so it e so many layers to tracking where a tree exists internally versus externally. the other thing, i want to speak in support of lance. i met him and want to say 2018 or so. lives in north beach. we were connected because he was concerned about the big tree removal happening at washington square, and however

his appeal is received, his intention is that these issues be clear. speaking of that, i will say that through my own records request through the bureau of urban forestry, it has been clear there is room for improvement within the department for internal record keeping and sometimes it is exactly appeals like these and records requests like his and like mine that improve that situation. that's it. thanks. >> thank you. we have someone raising their hands on zoom. john nulte, please go ahead. >> good evening. this isn't the first time that these questions have come up with buf. numbering of trees. i know it is a problem with non profit. a problem with other people

trying to plant trees in the city and also take out trees, and then has occurred pretty sure a tree is taken out that wasn't supposed to be taken out. so, it is a problem with their record keeping and it does go against the best practice buf had improving the database to all contractors throughout the city and also the database is only for buf employees and also what they give to their contractors, it isn't to the public so this is where the confusion becomes because we see it as a layer of non anonymity to the public and also confusion because what you

received in the packet is misinformation too. that's the problem, and áthat's why i [indiscernible] make my point that we have questions about how buf maintains their database and also [indiscernible] they didn't have that. and they couldn't find the paper permits, so there is room for improvement and there are other jurisdictions have better records keeping then buf does, so thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from michael nulte. please go ahead. >> hi. i just want to make a point that one, i'm met lance when he was dealing with washington square and i think that i

guess-the term has been used a couple times, tree huggers have a hard time dealing with the minutia that is given by public officials and databases and having to deal with the bureaucracy created and making it hard for even the community to understand what's going on. none of the people that you see before you if you want to give the word tree huggers, we are not paid to deal with these issues, we are doing this on a volunteer basis trying to hopefully correct the situation as they occur and try to improve a is system that can be improved when possible and like the previous item, try to make

a better for everybody in the future trying to get maintain and have a better tree canopy, so i am not sure exactly what lance wants out of the appeal, but i do want to applaud him for his due diligence and ongoing trying to improve a system that has over the years had many flaws and i think that we can all do better and that's-welcome to 2024. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment on the item? seeing none, move to rebuttal. mr. carnes, you have 3 minutes.

>> going back do the beginning with the large tree and small tree. the small tree is the one that is supposed to be removed. the proposed for removal. it's actually a brisbane box tree and if you read the order for this particular case, it says the tree to be removed is a red flowering gum. entirely different tree. another thing was, mr. buck actually wrote a to you folks, he wrote a brief on the previous thing and saint francis square and he says, the street tree on laguna is refer

to at 1335 laguna street, but he says the correct trees were reviewed by staff and the laguna street tree was referred to as 1355 so he is conflating those two trees. i showed the large and small tree. he is saying those are the same tree. and this is some reason this become mr. buck's favorite address. 1355 tree 2 large. sorry. how do i get it back alec? i guess i hit the--this guy. okay.

yeah. that's okay. we'll go back. this tree here 1355 tree 2 is mr. buck's favorite address and he applies it to every tree on laguna street. he went into the database of tree photos went into one tree in the data base and labeled them all with this address. 1355 street tree 2 which puts a lot of junk into our database that doesn't make any sense and i'm able to kind of filter out the garbage but i don't know anybody in the future will be able to. here's another con formation.

this is the-this particular tree here is the tree to be removed shown as [indiscernible] which is a brisban box and the order for this particular removal specifies a red flowering gum. so, i think for that reason alone you can throw this whole thing out. the order and the tree being shown is totally different. >> thank you, that's time. >> okay. thank you. i don't see questions at this time. we'll hear from buf. >> thank you commissioners. chris buck, public works bureau urban forestry. the tree identification of the subject tree didn't change. there has been no error and no

changes during this process. we have received feedback from the public. we have many tree advocates who find data or errors in our data. we are happy to update the records. mr. carnes noticed several years ago along js or [indiscernible] a number of trees didn't have the correct latitude and lodgeitude, brought to our attention. that might have been a case before us here, and i made a statement then when i said i didn't choose my words carefully, i said, that's not important. what i meant was is what is important is i will give the tree crew a photo with a sequencing number. i wasn't dismissing the importance of latitude and lodgeitute and that is important. since that day and around that

time mr. carnes has placed hundreds of records requests and we have e-mails about conspiracy theories righting e-mails for the director and staff. we need to be responsive. i respect first amendment rights, but in this particular case we didn't make a mistake and so i'm going to defend our department. when we make a mistake we have been clear and quick to correct them. we have just as much motivation to have accurate data. we maintain brety good data. we are not perfect. we are a tree city u.s. s a and received california large grant from the inflation reduction investment act. the previous urban forester before me is carla short. director of public works. doesn't fit the narrative you are treated to when we meet,

which is to face [indiscernible] you get a very very very select amount of public feedback regarding this department. mr. carnes is simply in mistaken and mistaken about the tree specious, mistaken about the numbering. >> 30 seconds. >> completely mistaken so i contest everything mr. carnes stated and if i go to the overhead this is the subject tree with the id number and specious. so i just do respectfully want to point out we respect the feedback, all the records request, part of the deal. we love it. when someone is incorrect-- >> that is time. >> this is where we are. >> commissioner eppler has a question. >> thank you mr. buck. when someone is incorrect and

correct if i'm wrong the thing we are having contversery is the number of the trees? >> correct. >> do you have a map showing the numbering of the trees or anything handy you put on the overhead? and got a quick question about that. >> we have i say our-if i'm explaining the tree numbering to establish for fact what we are looking at on the block to walk it we walk by each tree at each address, what i did in this case was try to create that. the latitude lodgeitude in the case will all line up. those are all aligning up just fine. but it is just referring to whether it is 1355 or 1335, but if i were to take mr. carnes

suggestion and change the number, it is impacting potentially everything else on the block and so again, if we are incorrect we take that feedback and we say good catch. >> i understand that. because we are dealing with a numbering issue i noticed mr. carnes put up a diagram where he listed 1355 tree 1 north of clary court and see another document that looks like the tree map shows that shows 1355 site 1 is south of clary court which would have misnumbered everything one tree to the north which seems the issue here and curious if you had something that could show where 1355 tree 1 is÷o supposed to be so we use that at the point to count to number 2. >> i appreciate that and we involved it support and database manager to see if there is a technical way to resolve this.

at certain point open to going to community boards and handing over to a third party just to reestablish trust with mr. carnes. >> i appreciate your dedication, but i have no doubt you have selected and ordered and named referred to the correct tree here. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> i have a question. thank you. i thought this was all about misnumbering misnaming misidentifying mislocating a 3 and ask mr. carnes, which tree is-he thinks there is a tree that the city wants to remove but no reason to remove that tree. is it the small tree that is subject of the permit? >> correct.

it is the small >> i am actually not-i don't think we are here to get numbering system or how you manage certain people or staff or-we are here to decide whether a tree should be removed or not, so now that we established it is that tree, what he calls the small tree, he believes that tree should not be removed. what is the basis for the city desire and permit to remove the tree? >> thank you commissioner. the small tree is a subject tree that public works has been pursuing removal of and has been consistent in how we refer to it. either in previous hearing and in this permit process. the subject tree, the smaller of the two trees is in severe decline, so we already pruned off about 80 percent of the

canopy. it died back physically and there are cracks forming in the main section of the trunk, so the desire of public works is to remove what we deemed the tree to be a hazard. it presents enough of failure potential, public safety concern and hazard so we are pursuing removal of one tree, the small tree and not pursuing removal of the larger tree that mr. carnes is concerned he believes based on tree numbering that we are referrithat that would identify that larger tree for removal and that's one of his key points, but we assure all parties involved we are not pursuing removal of the larger tree. it is the small tree only. that is the hazard and we are essentially at crossroad in regards to what sequence the number is in the tree data

base. >> and the dispute whether the tree should be cut down. his testimony is that shouldn't be cut down. you've stated the reasons, you stated the conditions of the tree has a history before this board and i personally am satisfied with your explanation and rational. >> thank you. in the documents submitted by mr. carnes, he stated early in those documents it lacked a clear narrative but a number of attachments we were able to pull up and review and it talked about his desire to make sure the large healthy tree was not removed and i see that as the one way to focus the argument and we can assure them that larger healthy tree will not be removed. >> thank you. >> thank you. president lopez has a question. >> just to tie it back to your brief where you noted 80 percent die back, can you just

for the benefit of everybody tell us exactly what that means if there is a [indiscernible] give rise to cause for removal. >> thank you. the reference percent die back, the overall canopy health of that tree it is broadly evergreen specious so should be green and lustrous and look healthy. it isn't a tree that is in a deciduous state in the winters and drops leaves so should have a fuller canopy with living branches and leaves and 80 percent of the overall canopy declined, so we recently removed the dead branches. the tree crews came through and did tree work on that block. they removed dead branches so it isn't evident in the most

recent photos but some photos in the file over the last several years you can see that 80 percent of the overall living canopy has died in the last 1 to 2 years. the concern around that of course is just that the vigor of the tree is in severe decline. we wouldn't typically see that in a specious. secondarily, just as important is that there's due to the lack of growth and healthy tissue, the stem tissues on the main stems of the main trunk and as you look up and they dividewo secondary stems, there are cracks forming within that and it may be difficult to see in photos, but more evidence on site, so we see for the public listening to the details, about 80 percent of the overall canopy has died and been removed. 20 percent remains and the tree

has cracks forming in the stems and so that's why we determined not just to recommend removal but recommend removal as a higher priority as a hazard. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, any comments or a motion? commissioner eppler. >> yes, i satisfied with the report back from buf and move we deny the appeal and deny the appeal-my brain shut off. and affirm the issuance of the public works order basis in which it was properly issued. >> vice president lemberg. >> i was asking pretty technical question. i agree with the motion and

will be voting for it. i just wanted to lay foundation where my questioning was coming from and that is i am a attorney now, but my original back [indiscernible] i studied extensively and seeing the diagrams on the last three pages of the brief answered all my questions going into tonight. i just want to say i have done very complicated map numbering projects before, very successfully in languages and don't speak in cities i have never been to that-i'm confident in my knowledge in this area and i am satisfied with the evidence presented and the explanations given by buf

tonight, so i do just want to say i--you know, i agree with mr. buck in that i am fully for governmental process. when i am no longer on the board some day i will potentially consider doing tree appeals myself, but i publicly stated i'm all for the trees, i have a bias toward the trees. this to me is a case of not understanding when something isn't correct and i always want to encourage public participation in these processes, but also a little bit of picking your battles. thank you. >> i appreciate all the testimony tonight from all sides and public on this.

i am convinced that there is no--whether there was a confusion over which tree is subject of the order, don't believe there is any confusion anymore and i persuaded by the testimony from mr. buck that the single tree that is going to be removed there is adequate basis for it and i vote for uphold the order. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner eppler to deny the appeal and uphold on the basis properly issued. president lopez, aye. commissioner trasvina, aye. lemberg, aye. swig, aye. the motion carries 5-0. thank you and that concludes the hearing. >> thanks everybody. [meeting adjourned]

okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, january 18th, 2024. for uh, each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a

chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take