>> welcome to the january 18, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals rick swig is joined by vice president jose lopez. commissioner lemberg. commissioner trasvina and commissionering eppler and john give in will give legal advice. am i'm julie rose evenburg executive direct we will be joined by city departments presenting this evening. chris buck urban forester with public works and melinda sullivan project manager with rec and park capital improvement division. board ask silence electronics.

no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the appellate and permit hold and respondents given upon 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebut you will. members who are not affiliated with the party vs 3 minutes to address the board and no rebutel time may be 2 minutes if the item is longful 4 votes required grant abappeal. if you have questions about asking a rehearing e mail starch at boardlifeappealssfgov.org. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live and the ability to receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgovtv is also providing closed

captioning for the meeting. note that tell be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26 a link is on sfgov.org/boa. public comment can be provide in person, via zoom go to the website, click on meetings and the zoom mrifrng or by phone call 669-900-6833. enter access code: 897 5972 6404 ##. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number and instructions on the screen if you are. wag the stream or broadcast. to block your phone number dial star-67 and the phone initial wait for the comment to be called and dial star 9 so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in when it your turn you may have to dial

star 6 to unmute yourself you will 2-3 minutes. the legal assistant will provide you with a 30 second morning. there is a delay with the live proceedings and that is on tv and the internet t. is important that people call nothing reduce the volume otherwise there is intrefrns with the meeting. if participates need assistance make a request in chat to the legal assistant or send an e mail to board of appeals sfgov.org, chat can not be used for public comment or opinions. we will take public comment first from the room and then from remote now we will swear in all those who intend to testify. anyone may speak without an oath pursuant not sunshine ordinance if you testify tonight, and wish to have the board give your

testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i don do you wear that the testimony you will give will be the ruth and nothing but the truth? >> okay. thank you. if you are a participate and not speak put yourself on mute. commissioners we have one housekeeping item. 6 appeal 22-08 upon 7. 734 delores has been with drawn that matter will not be heard tonight. and i understand we expect public after consultation with president swig. public comment is limited to 2 minutes this evening. >> we are now moving on to item one this is a special item. consideration and adoption of a resolution makes findings allow teleconferenced meeting under section 54953e. >> i move to adopt the resolution. >> okay. is there public comment on this

item? raise your hand. >> i see one hand raised. nope. it went down. okay. on the motion to adopt the resolution vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> that is 5-0 and it is adopted. so item 2 is election of officers. article 1 section one of the board rules requires the election of officers at this time of year. thank you, president swig and violent lopez for your help in service this past year. so, we will start with the office of the president. are there member who elsed like to nominate a colleague or themselves for office of the president? i would like it also join in thanks for president swig's

service and nominate him for another term as president. >> thank you. is there public commentom this motion to nominate president swig again? okay. i don't see hands raised. on that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig. >> yes, please. >> that motion carries 5-0 and i should have asked are you willing to serve i'm assuming yes >> thank you. we are moving to the office of vice president. are there members withhold nominate a colleague or themselves for this office? >> yes , i like to nominate commissioner lopez to continue as vice president of the commission, please. >> okay is well public comment on this motion? raise your hand. i upon don't see public comment.

commissioner trasvina, did you want to peek? >> i may both on the last motion and this motion, i don't suppose there is debate on it i don't think the motion should go by without discussing the merits of both individuals. as a new member of this commission that i could say that my needs and i think the board's need and it is public's needs have been well served the past year by president swig and vice president lopez and proud to support both of them for another year. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> so on president swig's motion to reelect vice president lopez to that position. vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> yes. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler

>> aye >> that motion carries. congratulations. okay. so we are now moving on to y. 3 this is general public comment this it is an town for anyone who would like to speak on the jurisdiction but not on tonight's hn/dza■ó >>9bu< i see=é(36+á]k; 2■rm=n5n. josh clip. go ahead. this is general public comment. mr. clip, we can't hear you. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> yea. looks like the sfgovtv staff mic is muted so you are aware you are not coming through to the public participating on zoom. >> okay i'm sorry we are not coming through clearly on zoom? no you are not coming through at all when i hold my mouth overnight zoom screen it says the identifying sfgovtv staff is

muted. got a red line through a red mic it it is not coming through on my computer and i checked my audio and my audio is workingip wonder if someone forgot to unmute the microphone on sfgovtv side. >> thank you. alex can you check with sfgovtv to see the status of zoom? is there anyone in zoom not having problems, can you raise your hand? i see kenny bruzzone are you having problems? >> so, the sfgovtv staff is shown as muted but the clerk's desk has the audio coming through.

i'm not sure if this is by design we can hear actual is through the clerk's desk rather than sfgovtv. that is how it is run with zoom through the clerk's desk that is where the audio you are hearing. but you are not having a problem hearing or seeing us? >> that's correct >> okay. thank you. >> so mr. clip i'm not sure what your issue is? other people. >> i wonder if i'm wondering if there is difference what the participates webinar and panelists can hear. i see irma lieu premesis the queue i will promote to you panelist. mrs. lewis can you hear and see us? >> yes, i can hear you. >> mr. clip i'm not sure what your issue is. she is in the attendsee queue. all right.

i left and restarted may be i will reboot my computer after this i wanted make public comment and hope to share my screen i don't know if there is i way may be can you promote me and i can talk through my phone. sure, can you promote him to panelist, please. and if you could unpromote me when i'm done so i am not up there. >> sure. . let's see here. public comment is limited to 2 minutes tonight. >> just a moment i thought i had this, okay. can you see my screen >> yes. >> so. at the december 13th 22 hearing the city representative complied

with an order and specific in october. 2019 this board granted a permit to tesla for a new power ball at 6 new 24 inch box to be planted it the am tenderloin and they be paid for by the determination holder by tesla. and in december i pointed out this had not been done and the city said this was done 992022. but the public did not receive 6-24 innerbox tree wes got be 6 trees not paid by tesla they were funded by a cal fair grant. [speak fast] i make the upon point the success rests on the public's ability to keep fab we need to feel when the board ordered the department to do manage it will be done and the

details matter. so in any all board orders that were a city department order to take action i encourage the board to fashion the order that requires compliance even if it means retaining jurisdiction until can be proven and done. and a suggestion i made in the past, which is, suggest the creation of an alternative dispute process. that would allow to engage cooperatively with the gospel preaching mutual out come with the city and the people and communities. thank you. >> thank you. >> may i respond? >> thank you mr. clip for that commentary. i look into the very specific issue. several weeks ago when you raise today in a brief. i called buff. i spoke with the representative who was in this room tonight and

he absolutely assured me confirmed that this has been taken care of. so i would like to make a formal request to buff to tell us the truth, proof that you are telling the truth. because this is a credibility issue. and if i can't believe a response freshman a city department, then this is a problem. our trust is breached. so -- i join mr. complip in asking for that written proof with documentation photos, all the numbers all the times all the dates. or else we can't trust you. that would be unfortunate and undermines our relationship. thank you mr. clip for bringing that up. we can continue. >> thank you. we are now on the caller who's number ends nothing 110 sick.

go ahead. you had your hand raised you need to press star 6. >> you have 2 minutes. this is mark with the san francisco taxi alliance i missed your last meeting i wanted to thank vice president lopez and the board for your letter to the mta concerning taxi appeals. ive hope tell help them understands the importance of the right for the taxi community including the medallion holders but all drivers and companies. i take issue with one aspect the letter it assumes the mta has the authority on refuse to allow the appeals to do so. we believe the charter language given mta authority over taxi nungzs does not conflict with jurisdiction over appeals. i the city attorney offered

different advice if the question come before you, i hope you will address it with an open minds. i want to urge you not to agree to any proposals come from the mta that would restrict the right of taxi appellates. the mta drafted an mou have the appeal right meaningless would have eliminated the right to a hearing and interested member of the public to take an appeal. right of members of the public to participate in the hearing. the right of the board to modify a hearing officer's decision and the right of an appellate to request a rehearing. ask yourself how easy it would be to place these restrictions if the hearing officer decisions were going against them this board was correct to reject the mou then and i hope you do the same now. getting 4 vote system a steep

climb without loading the diechls taxi appellates deserve the same right says as any other appellates to this board. thank you. why thank you. is there further general public comment. raise your hand. i don't see any. we'll move to item 4. comments and questions. >> first i like to thank my fellow commissioners for entrusting mow the privilege of serving as their president for the next year. as you understands i take this job seriously and personally. your trust and honoring me with this position is very important and i appreciate it. thank you. mr. lopez? >> i wanted echo that appreciation to my fellow commissioners and thank you for the support and looking forward to a great year. >> okay. thank you. any public comment on this item.

raise your hand. >> i don't see hands raised. we will now move on to item number 5. the adoption of the minutes. commissioners for consideration and possible adoption the minutes of january 4 of 23 meeting. commissioners, comments or a motion to approve? >> mr. trasvina? >> i move to approve the minutes as presented. >> thank you. is this public comment on that motion, raise your hand. i don't see public comments. so on that motion to adopt the minutes vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye >> the minutes are adopted. and we are now as i previously said item 60's appeal is with drawn we are move to item 7 appeal 22-089 telegraph hill dwellers.

urban forestry to ken bruzoney. to remove 3 street tree consist replacement the conscience of the trees are poor. woundses from vehicles hitting them and stems which makes the trees prone to failure. and we will hear from the appellates first. welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> thank you very much. my speaker card and president swig i wonder if it would be possible for copies of this to be distributed to the members. i appreciate that. >> thank you very much. i'm stan hays i'm here on behalf of the telegraph hill dwellers as cochair of plan and zoning committee and former president. the appellates in this matter,

of course. and today we are asking you to over turn the public work'sing decision to remove the 3 street trees at 69 green. our argument to you is pretty straightforward. nothing complicate today is simple. here is why. these were approved for removal based on health and condition alone. after the tree removal order. prior to the appeal hearing the developer pruned the trees. after pruning a mroel rapid independent arborist we conwill suled determined the trees are fine. as evidence of this the trees have successfully with stood strong winter storms 10 since christmas. no basis remains for aproving the removal of the trees. which is why we are asking to you grant our appeal dp over turn the decision to remove

these trees. so, why remove these trees in the first place. what does the developer want? the developer is seek to remove the trees not for safety reasons but convenience of construction access. you see that from the online permit application replicated on the slide. which says that street tree removal need terror access for renovation work. and the bottom you see quote, tree removal needed for construction access. if the tree removal needed to accommodate the curtain wall system. here is a baptist factual background. the tree removal notice posted august 29th the box checked, as you see, says, dying/in poor

condition/weak/diseased. not checked the box that contains, public safety hazzard. the order approveingly the removal was issued by public wos november 14th. and we appealed the decision to you folks on november 29th and here we are. here is a context. as you see here, these 3 street trees are on a block with a dozen on both sides of that block. no other trees are proposed for removal. the streets in the northeast water front historic district. where few other street trees are being added. the trees are proposed for removal at the same time the san francisco urban forest plan calls for 50,000 new street trees by 2034.

a 50% increase. so, what are the trees look like? here is i picture of the trees before pruning. will this is how they looked. since then the developer significantly pruned the trees and done so by a professional tree firm of how much of a difference did that make? here is how they look during pruning you see how much of the branchs and foliage were removed. and here is how they locked after pruning. you see how different the 2 tree or 3 trees looked from here...

during pruning after pruning. before pruning. after. what are the risks there was before after pruning the trees are health and he viable. we asked aen known arborist roy lithet his assessment. you know he is the owner of tree management expert in san francisco. a certified arborist and tree risk management qualify exclude sent the e mail you see here. he says, i agree that these trees look fine. the branch structure is excellent and pruning work was done well by a skilled prune are. cages mead to go and basins opened and expand.

maintenance. not removal. maintenance. we want to clear up a few things there were occurrence that the trees cause the sidewalk damage. that's not so. here is a picture take a close look as you see there is no damage visible here. and another thing. of course we know that it has been a long series of strong and violent winter storms that struck the bay area with high gusts and sustained winds. just during the week of january first-7th alone there were 289 street trees that fell in san francisco. all throughout the city shown in this map. based on the urban forestry data

200 location vs no fiek us trees. no damage occur to the 3 pruned trees at 69 green. simple pruning was all it took for the trees to be in fine condition the pruning work shown them to be viable. as evidenced, the trees with stood multiple winter storms and well is in sidewalk damage. all of this demonstrating removal is not needed please, please, please grant our appeal and over turn decision to remove the trees. >> thank you.

>> thank you. we will now hear from the determination holder mr. bruzzone. >> yes, thank you. can you hear me. >> welcome you have 7 minutes. i will share my screen. i'm kenny bruzzone representing the owner of 69 green street. background on december 8 of 22, 25% of the canopy was pruneed provide clearance for vehicles as the canopies of the trees were in contact with the facade and branches struck by vehicles this was approved using best practices. vehicle said this, the pruning did not finish all the, facing the trees only secondary branchs

were pruned. the trees other ficus dpw has a web page devoted to this type of tree. they are known for canopy but serious issues with ficus trees height, structure, size and rots make them susceptible to will limb failure or collapse. san francisco ficus trees age making them vulnerable to failure the risk associated with them are out weighing the benefits they provide. of due to the walk and other infrastructure damage caused boy rots and the species history of the limb failures banned the planting of ficus since the late 90's to address the mounting issues with the trees. the director of public works

issued. . tree removal criteria for ficus the pruning of the trees provide clearance from the structure and provide cloerns from vehicles however, the trees meet the criteria required for removal under this order. one, dpw's website states that the roots of ficus cause damage to sidewalks making them buckle and tripping hazzard its is apparent in the 3 tree in question. you see that the tree grade is has begun to warp from the roots and affect will continue as time goos impacting the walk in the future f. also, trimming them does nothing for root damage issue the trees are known for. two, competing/codominant stems -- large trees with multiple competing codominant stems with acute angles pruning

of the limb to mitigate would remove 30% of the can open. the limbs fail miles an hour often than others. codominant stem is still present in all trees after pruning 25%. this fact has been confirmed by the arborist. to paraphrase the sentiments the first bifor youcasions of trunks where your most problem stems exist in the trees making a portion of each tree prone to failure. earlier pruning and secondary limbs did nothing to solve this issue. additional prudent to mitigate the stem characteristic would remove more than 30% of the tree canopy making them candidates for removal under this code ump see the primary trunk and the codominant stem in each tree. after pruning. and here you can see this is

from the d. public work's website. specific low for ficus trees shoes the affect of codominant stem failure real examples in san francisco. number three, large limbs damaged by vehicles. if there are large limbs hit by vehicles pruning off them to mitigate damage remove 30% or more of the can open there are vehicle strikes even after 20% of the canopy was pruned. we have a large branch existing today. still existing and with as you see evidence of heavy damage from vehicle strikes in the past. public works order 187246 sets criteria for tree planting. the department is look for when planting new trees, one, trees are to be planted more than 3 feet from parking meter it is

the existing are within 3 feet of parking meters. you see this here in exhibit 7 and 1. basin surfags tree grades and basins are discouraged over time they are a tripping hazzard and intrefr with the groerth of a tree the baseince have metal grates. the grates a tripping hazzard is apparent as we sue in exhibit 1 and one case the tree grown in the support structure you see here. also worth noting the codominant stems exist where this tree has grown in the brace make thanksgiving very unsound. it is worth highlighting the removal sell with replace am. remranth plan was submitted characteristicized as a robust plan by the department of public work staff. you see this in exhibit 9. owners requested board of appeal's action the owner asks

the board of appealsup hold the public works approval recommendation allowing the owner top proceed with removal on 69 green street, thank you. >> thank you. we have a request from commissioner trasvina? >> thank you. can you go in more detail the replacement plan at or near 69 green at all? >> it is the locations approximately of the existing trees. >> and -- you described the various problems with the trees that obviously pruning does not help with the location next to a parking meter or vehicle issues. can you splien the gospel pruning was at this point? >> the goal of pruning was to provide access to the front of the building or clearance from

the front of the building and cloerns from the street due to numerous vehicle strikes occurring on the branches on the street side and the branches physically in contact with the facade of 69 green. trees in pruned condition achieve the ability for people to have access to the building and make it less likely that vehicles will damage it? >> so the answer to the first question is -- yes, the separation of the trees from the facade has been improved. in terms of the vehicular inneraction with the branches there remains at least one major branch than is an issue the photo i highlighted in the

presentation. so -- partially is the answer to the second part of that question. >> and finally, it seems that the hill dweller association their expert says the structure of the tree is fine. will where as the city or your presently anticipation say there is is poor structure conditionful you mentioned the codominant stems. the -- can you explain why there is such a difference of vow? um -- as someone who is not an arborist i cannot. really guess at why that difference existsil state the fact that the bureau of urban forestry agreed with our arborist and in conversations with our arborist they did state st it does in the take an expert to look at the trees and tell

that codominant stems are present here and would have the potential of causing you know major limb failures which are common this type tree. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you i don't see further questions. we will hear from the department. on >> good evening am chris buck with bureau of urban forestry in public works the primary reason for approving the removal is the poor structure of the trees. there was not fully addressed by the pruning. so that will be our

straightforward response. we'll circle back i was hoping for more information from the applicant about constructability or inability to carry on with renovations. i'm a little i can cover the health of the trees and the structure but i would like to hear more about that. because at our public works hearing that was more present were structure issues how renovations could be reasonable low conducted. so we exactly back but i will focus on the trees. so, as you heard this evening we have concern about ficus trees in general. does this mean every ficus tree is doomed to be removed. no. we have thousands of them still. we went throughout worst first.

and we will focus in on that. regarding the tree anatomy and physiology. 2 stems of the same size are considered to be stems that are potential fail. of that's an image on the left. now you see 2 trunks the same size those could be prone to fail what is worse are 2 stems of roughly equal size this don't have a wide branching attachment. then what you have is the term included bark where both stems will grow laterally against each other. and the concern here is the specific structural point within a tree you point to like you can with an engineer. we look how to troubleshoot

other issues how to keep things straight from sink. there are engineers who point to specific issues and say, this is the weak point this is the area we need to address. it is difficult to predict no one predicts when a tree will fail when we respond to damaged trees. you typically see where a tree fail today is rarely in the stem it it is where they join other stems. and or could be a root failure this . is just the nomenclature we have a diagram that talks about codominant stems and how they are prone to fail. we had a lot of articles in the newspaper overnight last many years. this public works order the tree removal for ficus was approved by director in 2014. so -- we are almost coming up on

9 years since we started to address the issue. here is a visual. 3 and a half pages that talks about specific structural deficiencies that are prone to fail. now just in the last year or a year ago. ray nest process of remove and replace am of treeos lombard street. so i understand and respect telegraph hill dwell and understand the history, first neighborhood organization in the city. they wanted to protect approximate defend the historic nature of that part of the neighborhood. i proeshth that. but they have to acknowledge

that ficus trees we allowed are still failing. another example last week during storms the ficus on broadway by the list faring or around the corner of the greatest building in the city, city lights this ficus tree partially failed. we still have failures across the city. these other subject trees. i visited them myself. we cover third degree information at our public works hearing about the defects and concerns we have with ficus. the pruning has. it is reduced potential failure we are saying these arely young ficus with a lot of defects. we reviewd that application and there may be disagreement in the community about the goals of the applicant but we have to look at the trees themselves and what the structure gives us. so this is tree one, looks

similar to the example we had on the website of how we don't want to ficus to be structured. these trees were not maintained by public works they became our responsibility on july first, 2017 they have not benefit friday regular prudent to enhance structure and reduce likelihood of failure. we have a large section of decay below 2 codominant stems they are above the decay pocket this . is an their that it is a concern long-term. it is a concern tomorrow. no. we are saying long-term someone approached us and applied and removed the trees and need to be up fronted and very honest about the structure of the trees we see. i'm highlight nothing yellow the callous rolls. very large rolls this mean there is is a good amount of decay present. meaning those callous rolls are

responding to the decay to close that out t. it is a race. can the tree add back woods before the tree becomes too dekayed. tree one is poor structure this is after. 30 seconds. >> so as we go through each the trees the trees were approved removal by public works of the structure remains poor. our one year with experience urban foresxeft experience in industry approached by the applicant can we prune them. you gotta follow the standards they said okay. had he come to me i would have said no this statute jurisdiction of board of appeals no pruning until we come in the hearing. >> we apologize that was allowed it was done with good intentions. >> thank you. why we have a request from president swig. so, thank you for educating us

again. on the ficus trees and the codomination issues, which you have reiterated over and over again. and i observed as i drive around our city everything that you said and. thanks for the upon education. i'm more concerned about the original issuance and the grounds of yet trees were sentenced to death. the it -- it was the whole conversation was about renovation. is it not completely counter what you told us as much as you told us about codomination you told us redundzant low when it come to the voens of a developer to renovate or improve a property, guess what, trees

first. renovation second. you've was this therapy drawn out in the first place. and with that, why did the city and dpw go and fix the problem which i happening the developer has done, lighten the load through professional professional arborist activity to lighten the load on the tree as you lighten the load you take down the branch and it is pressure on the codomination and the potential split of the tree is lessened significant low. why did not the city in the spirit of saving the trees which were some counts 50,000 behind. my found 30,000 behind. why did not the city step up and say, we will lighten the load. look at the trees and take care

of our business is what the city is supposed to do and implement the responsibility that they have to protect the trees regardless especially when taking them down is simple low for reason vision and construction. >> thank you. as i stated in the opening i'm a little perplexed why the applicants focus is 100% on the condition of the trees at public works even though it is in the out signed in the decision i do recall some robust discussion around ability to access the site. so i am correspond that was not mentioned at all during the presentation. we -- our approach with projects we evaluate the tree conscience. the ficus trees have very poor structure. mr. lagget i worked with and

known for a quarter century don't understand what he is looking at. that is why i provided photos with arrows and technical terminology. i don't believe that the a fair assessment i question that assess am. public works and mr. legget could not be further apart on the issue of ficus trees. i heard so there it is nothing in the report that was submitted with respect to the telegraph hill dwellers. the structures not fine. we. disagree where mr. legget's assess am. we were approached by the applicant to remove the trees we evaluate then say, what is the reason you want to remove these? so -- we have 3 ficus trees with poor structure. very well documented poor structure. they are not the biggest trees in the world.

so -- you know. that's if there is no compelling argument from the applicant that there is a physical abinstruction preventing them from doing work, now we are stuck with when do we do with 3 trees documented with poor structure and leaving us out in the breeze. that it is my reply. therefore that presents a liability to the city because if the tree falls tomorrow on a car it becomes the city's fault opposed to anybody mother nature. you know about it. >> true, commissioner, and i want to let the public know had a tree can be pruneed mitigate structure to reduce likelihood of failure that is the first thing you consider. you know that has been considered. we are looking at long-term maintenance of the trees. that's where we are at this

point. >> and tell me about am i misinformed tell me the truth i admonished you for potential of me not getting the truth on another case. but am i misinformed had i say if the trees with the pruning of the trees it lighten the load and the stress on the codomination weakness and therefore approximate terrible low extended limited the liability and potentially extend the life of the tree. >> correct, commissioner, the pruning the over all canopy and reducing weight in that potential load that is a mitigation and that does give them more remembers of a shot. now again long-term, okay. you know can we come back and monitor these and keep an eye on them that is something i had not considered because we were not that realm of review.

but if there is no physical obstruction prevenning them from making renovations now we are back to really looking at the structure of the trees and what can we accept. on the notice we did not mark that it it is diseased ore dying. it is more complicated i recommend to my team don't check the box plain it. a few sentences go a language way i don't like to have that brought up at hearings and say what about the original reasons. we all on the website we had information about the codominant stems the concern for us is that the ficus trees. they have poor structure. long-term in the a good tree to have here. can we retain them for a period of time that -- allows the cooling off period of a number of years.

reevaluate. we have a regular maintenance cycle treat tree sf every 3-5 years and leave it up to the next time we come through to identify maintenance and or removals. in absence of a compelling physical need to remove the trees, the mitigation of the failure perhaps when i come become for rebuttal i can give that thought >> clarification you use the term long sterile. long-term is in the minds's eye. give me years on long-term or months on long-term? >> sure. the trees are not in our tree removal criteria for ficus the emphasis was the largest tallest ficus the 1s that would cause the greatest damage or harm in the public right-of-way. these ficus, the 3 ficus and

others on that block are certainly have been there a long time. they are not large. >> please use if you can use long time. my long time is a year yours is 100. give me years. >> sure i say 5 to 10 years again the structural issues are not going to get better. 5-10 years to keeping an eye on them. prosecute >> is 5 to 10 years create a liability to keeping these trees in that spot right now or in your view, is this creating critical liability that is putting the public at risk at this time? >> great question. these are not a critical risk at this time. it was a 30-day removal posting

or 30-day approach. not an immediate hazzard this is more long-term issues here we want to acknowledge that. no the answer is no, no immediate public safety concern >> and especially with the mitigation that has been completed by the arborist yoochl yes >> final question, if they were to be removed what is replace am tree? the replace am species is fern pine an ever greep, 3, 24 inch box trees. we were not pushing for anything greater we look at the 3 trees as not great assets. the 3, 24 inch box tree system proposed for replace am. >> thank you. i will let mr. trasvina ask questions. >> thank you, you asked a number of the questions i was on my

minds i appreciate that. i want to note that our last meeting we met approximate over will zoom. because. bad weather. and yet your team was out protecting tree and inspecting sdprees protecting the public and i want to say we appreciate the work that you and your team do for the city. on this case, and i'm glad you explained the upon difference between your team your team's view and that of the arborist from the telegraph hill dweller association and i asked you explain lead is a difference. wondering, though, how does -- these trees -- going forward. the pruning helps in an aspect of the health of the tree and

danger. but they are located next to these parking meters. is that an issue of all the issues. is that proximity of major consideration for us that we should consider? >> no not at all. i'm not concerned about meters and again sidewalk is shown was not a factor in this peculiar site. the species can be brutal on sidewalks. at this sight not so at the moment. >> the other question i had was again looking at the longer term. these trees in the condition they are in. they will be replaced if on one side. with the replacement trees, can you speculate how well we would be served at the period of time

whatever year of the death of these trees, not by removal but death anding how the replacement trees would serve the needs of the canom and he needs of the city. >> in short, is it better to deal with it now or is it better in a number of years from now? >> thank you, commissioner. public works feels strong low now is the time to address this. we put resources and review into it. we inspektdd and evaluates and had our hearing. that will said, you know so public works believes that would be better served aloug the trees to be removed and replaced by this will property owner getting better species and now we have a structural tree pruning program. get them pruned so we don't have the future liability.

but we recognize there is considerable concern from the community. >> thank you. vice president lopez. >> couple things can you say a word about the cage of the points as limp obviously those are moot if they come down of the but if the trees remain would you have a recommendation? >> thank you, commissioner, the cages we call them grates whether basin covering or vertical tree protection. in general the -- that's the vertical grates on trunks are not a concern of mine. i am upon getting to my presentation was of that there is a lack of trunk flair at the base of the trees. just another factor from public works perspective, they are

grirdelled. they don't have good taper. they are tuck in the together among other ficus other trees on the block and below the hill. i'm not concerned about a root failure but the vertical grates can be removed without adding any injuries to what has occurred the grates can be removed the grate coverings on the sidewalk can be removed. so that is really not an issue for us. >> thanks. and then i just want to clarify for myself i want to make sure i understand your -- position and guidance here. the determination holder narrowed focus on the presentation at least in the

initial presentation this evening. but -- it sounds like but forfor the development project, you said that these are not approximate an immediate threat of danger to the public. you said that you know they would be on the watch list for future risk. but also said there is a strong recommendation they be removed. i'm trying to -- fwhiel take away to the essense. i guess my question is, but for the development project, i citizen walking down the street says, hey, these don't look great. like where would these fall in

your lives priorities for removal. absent the development project all together. >> thank you, the size of the trees that reduce their public safety concern for public works. they have poor structure. i want that to be on the record not for any never for i told you so, more to defends the integrity of public works and the fact that you know i have been a proktor for the is an exam i take my credentials seriously and as a public servient i don't come up to thump my chest. had a colleague who can be hired as consultance and is not hel the way public work system. he play disagree about that. my client is public w and my

client leads the public safety and of course protect and enhance mature trees. but i seen similar trees same consultants 180 degree difference that is plain fact. so that is hai want on the record. that we are not here doing that. not doing this. that said, the trees are small for ficus trees. these are not towering giants. and absence of a physical need to don'ts do work at the building, this is not where i saw it going the small are size of the trees means, yes, depilot that poor u center not an immediate threat we can live with them for awhile. >> thank you. >> appreciate. >> question from commissioner eppler then president swig. >> thank you. we could live with the trees but you have had the misfortunately

of identifying their poor structure. and you now have them on a list and you expect them to last for another 5 or 10 years right? >> correct. during that time period with when frequency do you have to go out and check on the trees? >> am i'm comfortable sticking with the established maintenance styles of 3-5 years we have. i don't believe we need to be on an annual watch list. five to 10 is conservative. we could look at 20 years. i don't want to put the pie year i think that -- i want to free that up a bit yoochl that's good. i want to ask my follow up, which is, the averages and expectations are great but you know an average does in the do we me good if the tree fallos my

car. what is the likelihood of a failure? either between the times you checked or in that time period when the tree is there weather being the elements? >> for these 3 specific subject trees, these are long-term concerns. this is not we can rule out there is no immediate danger not a 15 day hazzard notice someone approaches and says, you know we would like to remove the trees and we go out and look and look at the structure and species do they exhibit concerns, yes, yes, yes. there are also say thering is a need to do other work at the site. i would not want to be before you saying why are you saying the trees can stay. are you had a different narrative. we are comfortable will with

retaining the tree fist that the direction the commission goes. >> thank you. why how many ficus trees are there in san francisco today. why we have thousands. hapercentage of the ficus trees have a structure problem? >> at least half more than half. probable the vast majority. >> so if we were what strikes me here is -- that 50% of the thousands of trees which are ficus have poor structure. and if you were testifying on behalf of those 50% of thousands of trees with poor structure you would say they have poor structure and you know they present a liable and have to come down and we lose half the trees in san francisco?

>> correct. i'm not picking on you. >> absolutely. >> right. >> so and -- then somebody i bet you if you made that testimony, there would issue people who might disagree with your position of taking out 50% of the ficus tree in san francisco because they have poor structure. so -- you know i know that, you know that, but how should we evaluate this situation fwauz we evaluate this situation in that really poor structure they'll fall, we better take them now. then they go. if we evaluate it based on. well they have poosh structure like 50% of the ficus tree in san francisco do, but says tonight they will probably be good for at least potentially 10 or more years.

then, then probably is i roll with keeping them in place. especially since you know the all about construction in the first place and we don't want to take out trees for construction correct? >> correct. >> you know. this is where i -- what am i missing here, chris. >> thank you, commissioner. we did not seek this approximate conflict. this will came to nus the form of an application and an owner who as many in the public heard about ficus trees. so they got something going on at that site. they said we have ficus trees look at the photos. step outside. this sell not of specialing that we looked for. it came you to. we never stated these are immediate hazards there is an

immediate public safety concern. we are stating that they have poor structure defending why we approved it. before reading the brief had no idea why they were involved. i was like 3 ficus trees jammed together. i don't google projects. i was not tempted to look at height issues when i read the brief i was touched with that sense of this is a historic district. this is. so from that perspective i'm comfortable. i'm uncomfortable that the narrative from the applicant is lacking. very uncomfortable but i still feel very good about where we stands with the trees in our assess ams and consistent with how we handled similar cases so it is a rabbit hole but a productive conversation.

thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we are move to public comment for this item. is there anyone in the recommend withhold like to provide public comment? if so approach the microphone if you can come up. >> you have 2 minutes >> just 2. >> yes. >> thank you very much. i'm judi irving a film maker with pelican mead why in north beach. and i -- would like to support the continued existence of the 3 trees but in the just about the 3 trees. this is a matter of principle. why do we choose to destroy street trees and what do we mean about replace am?

this has been a problem for a long time i'm sure you are aware the appeals have come to you before. why should the 3 trees be replaced? it is convenient for the contractor. this is the reason the 3 trees have been singles out for sdruvenlgz because it is voenlts for the contractor. it it is easy to say. poor structure, et cetera. they have been pruned. and they are very healthy now. hundreds of trees got destroyed in the last few storms and rain. the trees stood all and so did willerses on the block. they should receive medals for stand being throughout storms. >> they will last forever.

the second thing is that is replacement? the word is ronning. it is like replacing a phone pole with a match stick when you take out a healthy, mature tree and you replace it with something in a box. this is no way to grow the urban canopy or deal with the climate i urge you to let the trees stay. you have 2 minutes. congratulations president swig. good to see you again. and all the new commissioners. i'm lance carbons a residents of district 3, which -- is where telegraph hill is.

you have been toying around with how many ficus trees there are. sure. there is in 20 staent city did a survey of the street trees there were 7500 plus a few ficus trees. i think there is still 7 thbld ficus trees we have in the 10 this many out. so you have a hard number. and also according to public works data base, on green street between 68 and 71 there are 19 ficus trees. i'm surprised 3 of those trees were looked at by public works. also you shopped downtown. maiden lane has 18 ficus trees.

and similar height and age as on green street. i wonder has public works locked at those. that it is higher risk district. >> will 75 huh ficus trees now. >> so -- >> thank you. is there anyone present hold like to provide public comment. anyone on zoom. john, go ahead. good evening. can you hear mow? >> yes. >> 56p+f i have a petition online with 10,000 signatures to save ficus trees and on going saints the min library. when upon that started 5 years ago. will i have watched how public

works have used the proposition to remove trees as the reason to remove trees because there are ficus. and order of ficus it is in the the highest on the list of -- 2017. there are like 5 other -- species that have a higher risk. i think that we should look at the whole force and not focusing on one order for one specific species to be e eliminating the trees. i felt this again came because of construction issue and contractormented light in the ground floor of the building. this is before you so by they

brought more light to the ground floor retail of the office building there is no reason for more issues to be dealt with. thank you. >> mr. clip? am you have 2 minutes. can you hear me? >> yes. >> this is a case an application based on construction and approval based on health. the hearing the applicant claimed existing sidewalk damage and point to the grates and the grifts could have been removed any time. and tonight [inaudible] parking meter in a compliement crisis. over trees also it is unclear how they will be replace in the locations where existing trees

are too close to parking meters. tree census rmdz maintenance in the removal. that's what the city did in 2018. and sometimes we hear. census was prior to the drought now trees are failingly because of the drought you saw what happens, 300 fell down. not the 3 trees inform a single tree on this block failed. [speak very fast]. as we heard the trees were pruned and arborist not paid for time said they look fine take off the are greatest and maintain the city could have looked after the storms in anticipation of the appeal. and did not. so -- it would seem the assessment is out dated. san francisco has a small urban can open we are failing the urban forrest plan and climate action plan and have thousands

of trees behind in pleasanting and no budget for replacement and seems that it is to get someone tolls pay for what the city does not pay. [inaudible]. the trees provide that without. i request that this appeal upheld and trees be allowed to stay in accomplice. thank you. >> we will hear from mike nolte. go ahead. i request the commission to uphold the appeal on the groundses that met by public comment and everyone that has spoken are here for the trees and not the developer. the dwerp's done had he willing to do which was dot pruning. and so -- it is trees are now in excellent health to stay. with no -- damage to the communities as being the reason why the tree should go.

i disagree with anything more happening to the trees at this time. waiting to do a tree removal of trees in san francisco. and that's their job. that's irrelevant the crux of this is that dpw gets more money for removing trees am. . they have's budget but not for planting. this is why they are expect happening the developer to pleasant the treeings because dpw does in the have funds to plant trees. that's issue that is going on. thank you. >> i see roy legget hundreds since you for the appellate you can't speak during public comment. tell be during rebuttal team. is there further public comment

on the item. raise your hand. >> i don't see any. we will move on to rebutel we will hear from appellates. thank you very much. thank you very much. i like to allow some of my time for mr. legget. >> have you to 3 minutes. so. i want to clear up something he was not paid and declineed h2whnxl4ñnk thank you for giving me time. um -- as far as trees clarified with his graphic an illustration a black line image there are 2

aspects to structural problems of ficus that are related to the branch structure. swon codominance the stems are similar in size. and the other is inclusion. bark inclusions other fatal flaw. they are not a factor with these ficus. i think that the trees are in different. and this it is not at all one 80 from my perspective on other ficus trees on case he e louded to. if we want to get in the technicality when is is write our wrong with the trees we have a small stature tree without

bark inclusion. and basically there are -- i upon agree with mr. buck they are not hazardous trees. the trees went through an amazing heavy storm. and you know almost a month of heavy storms. they are just fine. maintenance and getting rid of the tree grate and vertical cages is all they really need at this point. can be pruning done but on the city standard schedule is fine. we are at the minute mark. >> thank you very much. >> so to us the removal of the 3 trees 69 green seems a matter of construction access convenience than necessity

temperature is more started at least a patriot remodeling more than the public interest. and we like all of you, support public safety strong low. the trees don't seem unsafe now may be in the future upon 5 or 10 years whoness. whatever risk there was there they have been pruned. and that has reduced the risk of to the point the trees are not a threat. these are street trees that intrefred with construction access. construction access and convenience should not over ride the public interest we think that a public interest that is high low prizes thing protection, maintenance and growth of san francisco street trees and urban can open. please grant our appeal. >> thank you. >> you don't see questions we'll

hear from the determination holder you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. to claire fight reason proposed for real move and prudent to provide clearance from the build and vehicles for construction acsxesz to uphold public 78 do you have to occurrence presents said at length. due to the poor health of the trees removal was preferred to prudenting newscast first place. because it would be a worn step process versus twochl one bill for us from the arborist versus 2. if the city did noted have criteria for removal and place for the types of trees chshgs they dom a code, we would not have proceed down the path of the add hering to the code in the first place that's all i have. thank you. >>. okay. thank you. we will hear from the department. mr. buck you have 3 minutes.

>> good evening issue commissioners, a couple brief follow ups. i want to confirm i was there on saturday january 14th. looking at other issues and did take photos they are time stamped i was in fact there on january 14th a few days ago after 3 weeks of storms and then i appreciate mr. legget hopping on the call to clarify his observations. i believe there are some bark inclusions there are not everyone has an inclusion. again. we are looking at long-term structural issues. definitely have concerns. bark inclusions immediate public safety concern, i kung we are agreeing and disagree on a couple things but i appreciate

his claireification i don't disagree with some of this but i'm concerned that the public continues to believe the trees are fine. that said, we are a great city that embrace public robust community feedback. i heard nothing from the applicant about any physical need to access the building. that is a misknowing we can work on because that is when i heard at air hearing. this said i wanted to again thank everyone and especially the public had came out and speak up for the trees. it has been an interesting journey and i listen close low to the feedback. thank you. why we have a question from president swig. >> first, i neglected thank you and the bureau and the dpw for a role hard work over the last few

weeks mother nature did damage on trees and you responded.[e;oe 24/7. thank you for this. if we were to allow the trees -- to stay. would it be your advice the grates at the base of the tree removed and the vertical grates stay. or that the one of the other? i sense this the of the -- grates at the base of the tree may be inhibiting the growth of the tree itself. but seem the vertical grates would be helping the tree by -- protecting it from those automobiles. why yea. >> so what is your advice on

that if we were to sustain the appeal? >> thank you, commissioner, won't recommend removing the vertical grates tree protective grates and covering the basins. the these vertical grates need to be there first first 5 years to protect against vehicles and planning likes grates we dislike them they stay in place too long and do more damage than protection. the recommendation could be for public ws or the applicant you know show that good faith and remove them we meet them on site and determine who is best suit federal they want to volunteer. great. >> in the spirit we all understands now it has been publicizes today, that by keeping the trees we are assuming a liability we know at some point that there is a high

risk of them doing damage? as -- there are for than i00 ficus trees around the city. so it is in the like an exception. but with that liability surfaced and assumed, and can we ask dpw to place these treeos a more aggressive inspection of every sick months or within every 12 month period so there is inspection because we now know and you commented and confirmed that than i are at risk trees although not tomorrow. >> sure. >> is that can we do this. >> yea. >> we can put in i recommend an annual inspection this probably is just to be extra careful. and krtsz our t's as a city

family. i don't believe they will need that but air on the side of safety. put in front load inspection requests in referred and show up in orbit team's tablets every year it is amazing >> great. >> thank you. >> will thank you. commissioner this matter is submitted. mr. lopez. eye convinced hahas been presented the appeal is appropriate based on the of lack of immediate threat associated with the trees. and i have not heard a countervailing interest that is as strong as the lack of

immediate threat. i would be in support of the appeal. >> mr. trasvina. i appreciate the testimony. i'm not sure i continuing is a closure call that has been described by vice president lopez and i think by you president swig. we talk about liability but it is danger. the trees can fall. trees do fall. and guess the issue of liable after. i think i told my colleagues had i first trial as a deputy city attorney a tree in golden gate park is fell on an elderly person. trees fall on babies and pedestrians so -- there is a prudent case to be made for dealing with the trees now. i trust the city's evaluation of

the trees if there is we heard a lot of people talking about the health of the trees now. post pruning versus prepruning. and i'm not convinced the trees are that strong i defer to the city expert here. that is why they are here. i think there is a risk in the case of trees whether 3 ficus or other ficus trees will they fall here we have a replace am when we talk about focus on removing trees. the reality is removal and replace am and over a period of time, if we talk about the nature of our planet and the climate, well, today we can say, we will save money kicking this down 5 or 15 years. but then or longer we willment

to be able to look at the state of the trees then. not just now. >> i'm not -- comforted by the fact that these 3 trees may last 15 years like saying our retirement system may last 15 years. 15 years in one context is fine and others it is not. i am believe it is a close call. i appreciate the time the neighbor association has taken. the care they have given to this and i thank you is to be commendsable. i'm a little worried when the property owners demonize it a developer or the previous meeting we had, when we talked about ucsf building there will removing trees but for a major hospital that will save lives.

so, there are a lot of considerations that are here. i believe that upon each case is different. zoel another major tree case next. so i think this it is a closer call. my views aline with vice president lopez. i think the, i think what is boils down to since we review this is whether it is appropriate for the 3 trees to be removed. i'm not convinced that these 3 trees need to be removed that is what it boils down to for me.

i have been quiet but that is because my fellow commissioners were asking excellent questions i did not have anything that was not asked. i think this removing the trees is not necessarily the best thing for the neighborhood. the property or the public at large. >> thank you. >> commissioner eppler. >> thank you i fall closer to the lines of commissioner trasvina and saying it is a closer call than perhaps tell may seem. that there are approximately 3,000 compromised ficus trees in the city. how i do identify and remodeiate and do it over time. and in this circumstance, we have 3 trees with poor structure we could remediate right now.

however, that said, we have to balance risk and cost and resources because we don't have the ability to go out and do these all at once. and in the absence of a time low need to replace these trees and that combined with the absence of another over riding purpose in this case private and some case public. in the absence of an over riding purpose, it seems that the trees -- should perhaps be kicked down the read in terms of replace am whoild they remain in their viable state. with that, private purpose we are here i would feel differently. public purpose i would feel different leave this is not here. i'm more inclined to sept minimal risk and monitor and to deal with this problem when the

trees become an issue. >> commissioner loams you want to chat before i do? >> go ahead. >> thanks. i agree that there is this is not simple. you know if am i'm rung my private business and i see a liable that is slip and fall in a hallway or because i know about it that becomes my liable if there is a slip and fall guess what, i'm toast. in my business. so i'm sensitive to. the same time, and i would look at the potential scomplip fall and see how it could be mitigated and repair could continue the activities around it. until it became limit that risk.

so that's how i would handle it in my business. and in this case, i'm lynch to commissioner eppler and lean nothing his direction. and that i think, in that -- there has been mitigation. than i are young are trees they are not disasters we heard testimony and that's why i press mr. buck about what is a long time and get him more specific and i believe he said well in 10 years i think we should good for 10 years. and in 10 years i will be 81 years olds. . but so i feel a little bit more relieved of that liability especially since i know and confirmed with him this there has been mitigation done flout

pruning and the trees load is lightend and that lightens the risk. so, i -- think i'm leaning toward sustaining the appeal. and i -- doing that, i would like to see that the grates removed so the trees can flourish better. and that also with buff's permission require that they look at the series of orders of are placed in computer that will certify guarantee the trees looshged at every 12 months which is better than most in san francisco and therefore paying attention to the risk and doing something about it. mr. lopez? >> yea i wanted to clarify my

comments. you know i did not mean to imply it this is a simple case. you know necessaily and i'm in line with commissioner eppler's comment s and remain open to hearing a private or public interest that would support removal as we have done. and in previous case the last meeting. which i voted in support of removal in that instance. i did not hear a compelling private interest here. and when asking buff, for this project, would this be on the hit list? i heard, no. >> i heard that there are thousands of ficus trees that00

although have similar structural damage. and we are not chopping thousands of ficus down. so it feels like a bit of policy make to me. absent the buff sweeping policy to take down these trees. so that's -- kinds of how i see it. would member like to make a motion or have a comment. i like to add that this has been a good discussion from the public and for my colleagues. but what i -- i'm missing a couple things. one is, this when we talk about

liable we are talking about danger to someone first. and that is something that while yea they go not city attorney's budget to pay the claim it is irrelevant we are this the -- value of and the public interest in removing the trees now, identified, i agree the identification of how they got to have this case got to the department and us. it is not ideal. and we can speculate it why. they found the tree that is -- instructal now sound. i don't hear this much about the risk factor. and second, i don't hear about replace am. and perhaps the whole replace am idea is a fiction this people don't have faith in. but -- i see it as remove today

and replace today or offer. and the trees will are going to actually replace. may be i need more schooling in the future but should not min moiz this it is not rusing 3 tree its is rusing 3 sdproes adding 3 that will last long exert be safer for the public. motion? i make a motion. move that we grant the appeal on dual conditions the vertical and ground level grates removed and the condition we havenual inspections for the 3 trees and made on the baseis the department errored in failing to take in account alternatives to

removal. >> you have to add the condition of aloug them to remain the order states that trees will be removed you want to say the order needs to be revised to aluthe trees to remain. >> that works. >> thank you. we have a motion from vice president lopez to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition revised to allow the trees to remain and not removed. 2, require buff to inspect the trees annual and 3 the vertical grates and grates the baseince removed and who is bearing responsibility the buff? pay for this. normally they maintain street trees in the case where a private individual requests removal but this person is not getting them removal. removal of the grates. the vertical.

>> oh. >> who owns them? the typically the city is responsible for maintaining street trees except where a private individual requests removal this individual is not get whatting he wants buff should bear the costs. i want to clarify. i say buff bears responsibility with the dhan they conifer with the determination holder to see if they prefer a different approach. >> what do you mean different approach. the board is making an order now you are leaving the door open to change the situation. i'm leaving it open to the removal practice not the fact that the removal needs to take place. >> you want them to conifer with the determination hold or the removal itself. >> on the process. jot process for removal of the

grates. >> okay >> city attorney are we out of bounds mandating a shared cost of removal? >> from what i understand from the motion now the city will be responsible for the cost of removal. butch buff will conifer woman the property owner about the removal process that is in the a problem. >> >> as a point our education, if mr. lopez were to have said removal of the grates shared cost with buff and the property owner would he be out of bounds. that will be inconsistent with the lus regarding the city's obligations. >> i think that answers the question. >> so to further clarify, if upon conferring with the

determination holder, the determination holder approximate chooses to -- a different process that the one the buff proposes at that point could we then say that -- they would if they want to do it a different way or have a different grate or something that they -- determination holdser has the option of paying if he wants tochlt if they disagree am? >> okay. thank you i will not repeat it. tell be good when i dot minutes. >> on this motion commissioner trasvina? >> no. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. why commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> okay. that motion carries 4-1 and appeal is granted with conditions. why and might i suggest commissioner trasvina brings up

we stumble on replace am regular low. both the public and ourselves. can i we stumbled upon it left week the public stumbled upon it. i would like and00 autoissue seems to being you have the mature tree catharsis twenty feet or 30 feet tall. and there will be 3 upon down, 3 replaced. yet again it is like the phrase long time. you know what is this replacement tree? and i think mr. buck, if we could have a conversation about what is a replacement tree. because when tonight it was discussed it was a pine? upon fern pine.

my eye a 4 foot tall pine tree in a 25 inch box was my view that would sit in the street lined by 30 foot ficus trees. you know that's a long time to catch up. but may be i'm wrong. may be the 25 inch box was 8 feet snaul i don't know. you don't, either. and so i think you might want to schedule for ourselves a conversation opt subject of the -- the -- determination of street trees exactly what is replaced so we all know not only in our mind's eye but in picture perfect clarity. please. is this okay and >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. are we ready to move on to item

8 >> yes. >> we are now on item 8 appeal 22-084 irma lewis versus public works urban forestry 700 minnesota 4 frontages minnesota and 20th street. appealing on november fourth of 22. removal of 38 trees replacement of 35 on 441ages indiana, minnesota, 19th and 20th. removal part of renovation of e prix park overhauls irrigation and makes path ways compliant with ad a. the trees approved because of construction impacts, poor condition, disease or low viz ablts for preservation. we have the disclosure and

refusal from commissioner eppler. why thank you. executive director. so, as you know we have 2 real residentials for recusal one a financial candlestick that does in the exist in this case the other is a due process conflict. and i have to disclose that i know the appellate i worked with the appellate on different issues in the greater dog patch community in my role as president of the neighborhood association. that is included a member of the dog patch task force for the funding for the project this is before us. this has included w with department motor to ensure there is public out reach. a mfbt eastern neighborhood advisory committee that allocated funding to the project. and reconfirmed this funding to the project. while the issue with tree renewal you are looking at is for me the city attorney advised

me could ksdz be perception i have a conflict in this circumstance and as a resulted be prudent to recuse myself in this case. i leave it in your hands. thank you. >> thank you. we will resume when you leave but we have a disclosure from vice president lopez. >> right. i need it disclose that potential conflict not a financial conflict but -- ucsf involved in the under lying renovation project. my wife works for ucsf. she is in the involved in the project hoe is a proceedtrician no a planner or her work does not touch upon neighborhood development. with that said, i conferred with the city attorney's office was

determined this there is not an actual conflict on the matter so i will not recuse myself butmented to disclose those facts. >> thank you. >>y wool hear from irma lewis the appellate for the case. you have 7 minutes. >> julie, will you someone start the slide? yes. one moment. we will not start the time.

public works based the sdoigz a few considerations 2 we will address. one the trees in poor health. 2, there was rebust community engagement. i'm going to cover community engagement of the decision. and independent and qualified arborist who you interacted with tonight will address the health of the trees. what we are asking for. is at the ends of the day the trees must be removed there be a binding agreement that requires replacement of 38 trees 48 inch box trees in other words, adequate mitigation for the community and environmental impact of the passive tree removal.

speaking of mitigation i will give you background. this shows why the project exists. it is actually a mitigation to the ucsf to the dog patch community for the 2 major projects you see listed. opportunity and graduate student housing and an impressive psychiatry center for families and youth. ucsf committed 10 million dollars to fund the project to mitigate the impact of the development. ucsf also because status as a state institution, avoided 80 million dollars in taxes and fees. here is a shot of the project and i don't i will not go in the details what i want to draw your

attention to of the 10 million the park project according to the scorecard is late by at least 2-1/2-3 years. and it is red. that is 5 million of the 10 million. then another 4 million in a community center. that project is in recovery. the goal or picture here is that ucsf all of the project this is started before our the same time our projects were supposed to start the money was grants in the twenty 17. the projects are done and in accomplice. the community is still waiting for mitigation. this will slide guess to the best practice i referenced in my brief regarding the need for community engagement.

ef focus on the right hand side of the slide. it goes to a comment that one of the commissioners raised. ucsf is a world class institution. they don't only it is isn't just about health delivery they take great provide in their capitol projects. so, how does this line up with the support we are getting even from subject matter experts? quarter low financial reporting for the park project. it is work. cfo's office will review the reports. project implementation that is not working. and the group on point is community and government relation. the group lacks expertise in construction projects.

ucsf has a wornlt everwonderful team in design and construction. no one from this group is [inaudible] and not in the room when it come to the project. rec park submit third degree graph to your board. i took liberty of going ahead andum with an update. and so what you see is that in fact there was no community engagement for over 9 months leading until august 15th there was a single virtual meet and when you are looking at is -- dp not occur there has been no robust commune engagement in

any -- trade off the community may want to make. i would like to turn this over to roy legget. this is roy legget. i want to lutz than first, i wrote a report submitted and it is in the a long read. there are only a couple of page its is worth a read or worth -- lookinga the. i think. it out lines where doctor costelo's data has been lumped together. so poor and moderate condition trees. are lumped into one pot as poor condition trees. poor and moderate condition trees are quite different. one is sustain sxabl viable and

the other is perhaps not. and my look at the trees is -- when am i looked at these they are mag 95 cent double row of trees. they are general low in fair-good condition and have a potential for many years special several democracied of safe useful life left in them. i think they continue to be [inaudible]. so -- with this in minds, i think that the mitigation to be consistent with other department of public work orders it should include installation of larger trees. the 24 inch box is not a comparable or acceptable outcome to replace the magnificent trees. >> thank you that is time. >> thank you.

>> thank you we have a question from president swig. >> mr. legit. i will start an argument. not between you and i but between yourself and mr. buck. but as i sat on this panel for a long time i have been informed by multiple arborists and awfuls especially mr. buck that putting in mature trees and i sat in your position and the appellate's position why are we put nothing 25 inch replace am trees instead of larger trees. and 100% of the time i had push back 100% of the time push back hi said, let's do 42 inch box and they said no, no.

that's suedal. because large trees although laymans that would be -- and my common sense is faulty because well is greater failure with the replace am of a larger format tree. so, what i'm challengingow is -- why of do you think a larger using my layman's common sense. why do you think a larger tree against everyone's judgment is better than a smaller format sustainability. >> first i don't disagree with mr. buck. good. >> no fight. >> no fight with mr. buck. smaller trees establish quicker

and integrate in a new land came the drainage going in and dirt going in. it is dramatic engineering feat what is going in the park. and that's the only reason why the trees need to be removed. my assessment of the plans. and based on the the soil assessment they need to deal with a soil problem. it is a drainage problem. putting in small trees in a normal street tree setting is a practical matter.

this is a highly engineered site it is designd and readically improved. bigger trees will gives the l.a. back in the functionality of the trees for screening, through a double row of trees on a sidewalk and parking on the 90 degree slide overnight rug. and the trees proportional for the uses >> i will ask you, thank you for settle way to my other question. this is a highly engineered site and i don't be photocopy new design or will that is enough for me. you heard my in the last hearing try to defend some trees or find how trees can be maintained in consideration of all the things we talked about.

but this is is what is different here and i like your thoughts on this. this is not an in the hotel business we used to call them housekeeper rooms we want to go room to room the executive housekeeper i have been in the hotel business for 40 years. the executive housekeeper come in the room and the executive housekeeper says, you know we should keep that couch. because it is still pretty good couch. get rid of the carp sxeft wall covering and chairs they are no good but keep this couch it has life in it. and so and -- somebody makes a mistake of listening to the

housekeeper is trying to be responsible and saving a few bucks and you get a brand-new room and what stands out like a soar thumb? the couch. so -- it seems to me that the difference between our typical tree case here and typical is we want to take out 3 trees because there is a reason. am highly designd and intended be a completely new development. and although i don't like to take out trees. it may compromise the entire integrity of the project and ruin the project. quite frank low for the sake of keeping a couple of trees which

in a holistic view, are not needed in this dynamically designed project. your thoughts, please? friends of park like the trees. i like the trees that are there. i don't continuing is rolistic to keep them. i read flout doctor costelo's report and i read through ms. lounge ysy report on the soil and i talked to irma about the muddy path ways and poor drainage issues. this is stuff haneeds to be fixed if you renovate a park. i'm all for. rec and pak guesting the infrastructure right on this. to do that the trees litally

cannot be save today is construction driven problem. so -- because they are street trees,. or subject to regulation by public works i was looking at. >> so -- i'm sorry to interrupt you i asked you a question i want to stay on my question. then we have more testimony and digression. from a holistic i hear fruis that from this is a heavily designed engineerd and designed project and from a holistic stand point given the macro on this, it is your view not realistic or reasonable to save these trees because it is a whole project not just a random this tree is coming out for a specific reason? or random reason?

>> yea. i agree i think you are right. >> thank you. >> fine. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the rec and park department. welcome. you have 7 minutes. take your time we will not start until you are ready. good evening. project manager with the san francisco rec and park department. i'm the permit applicant for the bureau of urban forestry the

subject of the appeal and the project manager for the park renovation project and started working on that in april of 2017. concept for the renovation of the park that was approved in february of 21 pie rec and park in this room. and i wanted sit on this diagram thshg is a baptist a complicated wagz in that this is a buff tree removal permit if the trees were fully within rec and p property listen we would not be here this

evening am rec and park has a policy around courtesy noticing of tree removals but not the same as street trees. this shows in yellow the right-of-way that extends beyond the street and sidewalk. this area is a rem nanlt from legislated walks that were never constructed. we have consulted with city attorney and with public works and we have submitted it application to vacate this to rec and park. throughout the community out reach and planning process for the project maintenance difficulties with mince in the past and mud listed are occurrence. rec and park worked with a team including the folks who min tain the park every day. to look toward the future. and we believe that vacating this portion to rec and park

will clarify and simplify maintenance down the road. regardless of whether that is approved or not. we are committed to working with public works to make sure the trees we do replace are maintained. joof this is a snapshot showing the site that game the p in 1982. former industrial site. contaminated soils. and this is a snapshot of the soil pit at that time. provide by our consulting arborist had work the on the project at that time. a separate project. >> this is upon the what we shared at several community meetings that were noticed in the past. the proposal we have stressed trees, bear ground and looking at really replace and restoring the infrastructure of the p. a huge population growth in dog

patch and competing interests and our intent hen to find something for everyone in the p and minimize user conflicts. i'm not going to speak at length of the trees i believe chris buck will. i want to points out the sycamores is a point of contention in the appellate's brief. this is a picture showing the sycamore. poor condition and i understands this shows likely fungal condition of the trees. and we will be replacing this inside the property line of rec and park. good nows there will be thing inch box trees. we rec and park are beens the fact this the best practice is to establish that smaller trees establish better with the public's desire to replace and maintain as much as possible.

our replace am trees in the park are combination of 34 and 24 inch the sycamore will be 36 inch box trees and they will be repleasanted a cult var resistant to mildew. i will breeze through these showing the level intent of the design. the pleasants and many shrubs. we have engaged lawyery from oracle oak the rec and park worked with him on this project and many others. come molested an assessment in 2019 and 21 and preconstruction update inspect 22. we made site walks and i think it is important for a project this take this is long to electric at trees more than once. and probably not just the last week in december when they are not many leaves on the trees can be a difficult time to get a full assessment there has been

misinformation the appellate mentioned in her present anticipation this we have not been doing out roach. the appellate is on our screen capture of attending the august 22 update. she asked if we were retaining an arborist to look at protecting the sequoias in the park i want to correct the record on that. we presented to the ucsf group in september in lieu of december they asked us to present then. we coordinated with the bureau on all tree removals and to simplify for the public they see the whole p and we update the project age of the rec and park website regular low and responses this came back raerding rec and park we responded to individually. this is showing briefly the

right-of-way trees to be removed. part of the reason why we are here because rec and park consider the trees in the right of way to be shrub the arborists consider them shrubs. but rec and park work to notice these as trees buff something anything over 10 feet to be a tree. to be in compliance we did w with buff it notice those. this is a trees to be retained. i believe in the appellate's brief there was removing all of the street trees the green sos retained. we are leaving some trees that are in good condition or on the outside of the park. this tree shoes the scale of the 36 inch box this . is i california buckeye and a sycamore below. >> andive providing the construction documents here to show we have a robust tree protection plan.

a request in the appeal's brief for maintenance included a 90 day maintenance with the construction contract. we are working with a known contractor we worked with before. retained our arborists to look at quality control and starting construction and not -- time and rebuttal we have questions. mr. lemberg and vice president lopez. >> thank you for your presentation and thank you for joining us this evening. >> this is my first time after 10 year. >> welcome. most like low everybody you are a new face. >> i want to talk about and --

we wroet on the slide what she says the commune access involve am was not up to her expectations. >> and then she showed a couple meeting that did not happen or whatever, did you -- could you comment on why those am the specifics in the dinltss on those meetings and what happened, were they am -- replaced or otherwise? >> sure. so the appellate mention third degree in august of 22 there was a meeting but her claim on her slide was it was one sided not a dialogue. i did take notes it was a public low noticed rirtual community meeting update and done one in november of 21 as well and out

lined proposed tree for both hearings. in the appellate's brief this is answering your second question, there is an e mail i or a colleague sent it planning staff the eastern neighborhood advisory committee. with points about out reach after that. we received feedback that body and members were not content. we worked krooet create a plan for 9 months. general low with rec and park we have a huge push for planning and the concept and work to keep community members updated above and the community advisory meeting presentation. that was schedule for december left month. and ucsf reached out in august to ask for a presentation in september. we comply in the lieu of a

december update. and the appellate was there as well and did talk about tree removal at that hearing. >> so, the latest and greatest in the same toing i will get to my second one soon. guys, sorry. you know one of the finer projects that i seen in the city is the francisco park, wonderful project and a great addition to our city and congratulations to rec and park and your completion of this wonderful park. lookinga the that park, which took how long? i was not involved with this park i don't know >> probably 5-10 years since it was water storage area. what was the -- do you have information on whether the out reach was similar or any more or

less than this park? >> we work the at the francisco park conservancey. i have someone online if it is helpful y. in rebuttal can you answer that question, please. the issue since the appellate brought want issue of community involvement that would be a prudent thing to investigate just to compaper one successful project to upcoming project. i say that there were many more meetings done for espr it i was not involved on francisco i am not comfortable to comment on the comparison. >> you heard me bring up the subject of holistic project versus a piecemeal project we

talk about 3 trees like in the last hearing. can you tell me can you tell me how long redevelopment agency commission. i got history here. of most of the stuff was baked by time i was in there. we were terminate in the 2007. i was00 gone because the agency was gone. but i have views from that -- from that. how long has this from beginning to now how long has been the planning for this park? >> so, rec and park supported the planning department lead public realm plan for the water front includes this p. rec and p support third degree we have the park as the only site in that upon area. and i don't know i can't when

were that start it was 2-3 year press from 2014 to 17. the end of the process ucsf gave the granters offering that funding. which fast tracked to the own capitol project this rec and park owned that was in spring of 2017 the proposal was announce exclude rec and park hosted the first community meeting in staff of 2017. one reasons yet press took long because there were issues around the dog play and synthetic turf and natural turf. trees were not around issue during that process. >> we are somewhere between if you take 2014 in year 9. 2017 we are in year 6. is that might have math good >> yes. >> and what has been the cost

to this point if what citizen cost of this project for the city citizens, taxpayers, et cetera, funders, the city itself, remember staff time. and the taxpayer was to this point? i don't have the figures are you asking how much money extended on the project to date. i don't have that figure. a guess? >> no , i can tell you an 8 mission project over 8 million the construction contract is for 4 million. with another 4 huh that you knowed in contingancey i don't have soft costs available. why using your marth given we are at construction start of 4 million with contingancey of another 4 at least 3 million dollars spent to this point. no that is not accurate >> no. i'm trying to get a number.

sorry we still have almost a year of construction. this is including all of the design, construction management, my time during construction. issue we under construction yet. can you clout mow in. >> we are starting this week and will not proceed with any of the scope of work in the permit scope we let the condition tractor know we are meeting to mark the trees so they are clear. >> the 4 million you identified that there is 4 million dollars costs in the construction phase? correct 4.3 for construction. the. button guess down on that 4 million starting alleged 3 this week? correct. >> so if the00 automatic i'm doing math you said the project 8 million. >> yes. >> 4 million is starts this week

then that would finish the project with contingencey set aside 8 minus 4 equals 4 or -- are you asking about the total soft costs from start to finish? >> yea. >> where are you now? >> miles an hour a couple million. i did not appropriate for that. i can say the soft costs have been high for this project because of the amount commune engagement. >> yes. that's a key personal point. the follow up question therefore is if this project were further -- further postponed, and -- and there was a rep design. as a result of not removing these trees what is financial impact. got a guess?

>> significant? 5 or 6 digits for the redesign, repermitting, president construction contract might have been to be would not bid out but change order impacts. >> not to mention the loss of time. not to mention the loss of enjoy am by the public which we can't place. >> correct. and escalation we are seeing escalation claims from contractors on projects that are in construction with rec and park. and so, the reason we are starting construction we foal we are beholeant to the community upon support and the city to move forward and not risk a claim and also in the realm of trees the regulated bird nesting season startos february 15th that means funny to me like a vacancy sign for birds if they notice in on the 15th there is a risk of nesting bird in large

mature trees that requires you to have a biologist and takes sdpiem can cost the city more money we are completing as much as the tree work recognizing we will not move forward. >> in upon and upon the building >> and that -- if this was a building project we are building marvelous engineers on top of considered a blighted building or less desire atheverable should i look in that fagsz. this is a new park that is

replacing fully a park which was substandard and not serving the needs of the public. why with the disclaimer we are preserving as many trees over 60 tres in the 2 acre park done everything we can to preserve the canopy there but a hellistic renovation for the success of future plant and park users. >> this. sorry. commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. a couple of questions. in regard to the appellate contention. the first question is kinds of an odd one but -- at least according to the 98 this matter, rec and park did the own analysis of the trees of the street trees rather than buff doing the analysis. is that understanding correct? >> i understand the question and i don't believe that to be

correct. >> so buff did do their own obviously. >> yes. >> i will move on. the one obvious sticking point when reading all of the brief nothing this was the less than 1 for 1 replace am. that it is 38 tres replaced with 35. and presumable low all 35 of the new street trees would be smaller stature than the 38 removed. >> i think i heard 2 questions i will try for the first one. so over all part of the park renovation we are removing 85 tree and replacing them with 92 trees and preserving 60 we have over one to one ratio i will let chris talk more about the

replacement but the double lrdz mention side replicated it is on our park property. there are more trees being planted. >> okay. that makes sense. and then another one of the things in the conclusion of appellate's of brief a suggestion to increase the size of the new trees to photography inch box and imented your intns response to that. thank you. i think that in reading of the everborist the appellate wed with as well as the appellate's brief i'm not sure they reviewed the tree replace am plan we are replacing the sycamores and london plain st. trees with 36 inch becomes. i locked at the question for replacement to photography inch but balancing the desire for

replacement of canopy with the trees robust and resilient for the long-term 36 inch was the level we decided on. >> and one more similar question. believe in your presentation you said there would be a 90 day maintenance period after planting? and the appellate suggests 3 year maintenance time period. what is rec and park's position 90 days sounds short. joy will clarify this. we will be maintaining them for longer than 3 year the 3 months or 90 days in the construction contract. the trees come in, the landscape condition tractor plantses them approximate when they are planted in the land scape

architect accepts them that starts the clock on 90 days. they weed, water and et cetera and we review the trees the upon ends of 90 days and request replace ams if any are not up to standard. that said, the maintenance of the trees will go to our park service and management and operations they have been involved with plan and design and for construction. and i should mention our park manager is here if any questions are needed. >> thank you. >> my left thing is in the a question but i -- president swig asked a number of questions i was going to which sorry. >> fine. the important per is we get the information out. i just wanted to thank you for addressing the public feedback process. myself am starting a rec and

park renovation project in a different neighborhood but learning a lot about the process and i appreciate hearing your position. >> thank you. i wanted mention on the heels disclosure and recuesals we have,ings who wanted speak because rec and park has an agreement as well as the dog partial green benefit district we understood that including executive director board director would not be appropriate. that said the board members are neighbors who have other interests. you may see less comment then reflected. >> understood. thank you. >> >> thank you will vice president lopez. upon thank you for your present anticipation. on that topic of community

engage am i wanted to ask about an e mail included in the appellate's brief. it is frequently may 2019 and has to do with disclosure of line item budget. i'm not sure if i'm missing context. . my view was not ideal approximate because it expresses a reluctance it reles the budget for fear that the agency will face questions about it? which you know, it runs counter to what i'm hearing about your commitment to community involvement, which do you understand significant and also i source of delays and cost out lace approximate. i wanted square this away. is this manage this is normally provided in the projects? or something that was abnormal

request? what was the ultimate culmination? was that shared or what happened? >> thank you. i'm i think you are referencing exhibit 1 plan to not disclose budget 2019. this was written by a previous project manager supervisoring project manager there have been 2 on this project. alexis ward approximate myself this was from the supervisoring team. i did not spend a lot of time to prepare because it was 3 years ago from a previous project manager and a stretch on the purview of the board. i want to mention already in may of 2019 the tenor of community relations was tense. and with among certain groups. and so i only was, wear of this when i suit in a brief i was on maternity leave during this time. but we have shared many budget

for this project. so we had a group and asked we share line item expenditure or soft costs and hard costs. we shared many versions of budget and, legality of the documents we shared live oft project am page of rec and park website. i greet that this is not i deal and i don't believe it is an accurate rep 7ation of currently rec and park out reach and disclosure. i think at this point there were some upon mount interactions that were chfrmging for rec and park. i think it was just at a point you do everything you can but if everything is going to be you did everything you can and then folks are still finding fault

the bvenls beholeance to everyone to deliver a quality project we try not to get to myommic at the cost of the rest of the city. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. and thank you for your presentation, welcome. i have a few question. ohs tree assessment from your department and >> that's from a third party consult analysis the department worked with, yes. iot department stands behind the assessment? >> yes. there was some question brought up by the appellates about the per to moderate and excellent condition of the trees. and in -- table 3 and in in the report. it stays 54% are porto moderate.

of condition. elsewhere it stays 64% are mod try high suitability for preservation. are both of those accurate? >> the tree assess ams are complicated i have larry costelo per of the tome on to answer questions i cannot fully answer we look at assessment that oak did with that hazzard tree assessment. that is one thing. there is a size of the compoenlts the failure potential and the target that is a 12 point rating system and suitability for preservation and there is common structure. are you looking at the i can look at the page. >> that helps me for what i need. but so the 64% of the trees suitable for preservation are we talking about sixty-four % of the property or the 38.

>> correct i should have made that clarification the assessment for the entire property from rec and park and urban forest assessed the right-of-way trees specific low. why a variety of surveys over a period and lost some and found other years. will pyle confused how you lose a tree other than it dying. we can go with the data we have. big picture and asking this in the context of the discussion we had over the 3 trees at green street. how long. when was the beginning of this project? concept. rec and park started planning in assessment of 2017. >> okay. so 5 and a half years. when and when did we decide that

the trees should be removed? the trees were assessed in 2019 by lar and he oracle oak part of plan and prior to finalizing a design. and we did a follow up assessment in 21 and then a follow up assessment in 22. >> can you state what is the reason for the trees removed? the tree removal because of the condition of the tree and construction impacts for certain trees. butt construction impacts and i think urban forestry may shed light. construction has to do with replacement of the park. it is not like the design team worked that's right minimize construction impactless the design intent accessibility in the park the path ways are not

accessible and to also define user areas which include an off leash dog play and no dog meadow exercise equipment, et cetera . that involved moundzing. you know doing topography and having a path way. construction impacts a small handful removed for construction impact the sycamores which are half of the trees the purvow of the permit, are being replaced the upon poor condition is in the good. there is replaced inside the park. and this rec and park come a long way with maintenance. . . we are committed to to maintaining the new trees. we -- we are concerned that if we leave trees. that are not in good condition

or in out of 5 condition had cost replacing them in 5 or temyears burglar and incorporate in the the infrastructure we are spending. >> i will get on my argument later. say out of 100% how much of the decisions of removing the trees is about soil condition, the trees can't last. versus this is a new park we brought community needs one more population moving in the upon communities is excited about temperature we had the stake holder meetings and want a new park. the trees are invoeblt for these other purposes. how much of the decision is that

versus these 38 can't survive in the area. >> i think the upon majority is for park purpose. i listened the previous appeal i don't think the trees likely would not have been assessed by the urban forestry passing by they were assessed part of the capitol project. so -- we have removed trees went park in the pachlt for hazardous conditions. so i think we are refreshing the park but it is not a disingenuous impact the stand by larry's assessment of the tree conscience as fair, poor, moderate. as out lines in the assessments. >> i upon don't question his evaluation but as i read it 64% over all are suitable for

preservation and to finally i would comment thap this project is your work and others are prowsing more trees rather than fewer trees and preserving 60 trees in the park that is -- i'm sorry i don't know if i do the math it is a large fraction. >> thank you. >> thank you. i don't see further questions we will hear from bureau of urban forestry.

yooment good evening. chris buck with san francisco public works. thank you for all your work. i know we get in the details on the projects and i appreciate it. what we have before you you heard detail i can jump into it. my feedback i did review the appellate's brief and the proirm point that is important to address it is important to repeat it. is that public work evaluates trees individual low. trees in the right of way under our jurisdiction. i want to assure commissioners and the public that we absolutely review the trees on case individual tree as that's largely where i go through here. we did not just of receive rec and p's sxeflgdz say, great. larry costelo has been an educator for combroers used the head of efforts with our urban

forestry. a state wide civil servant that's a name i'm pleased to see involved with the project. public ws is pleased with the professionals involved with the project. and so moving on to the power points. i want top visual tour of the trees that are proposed for removal along minnesota we have trees along the sidewalk curb and trees that are back of walk. they are in the public right-of-way under jurisdiction of public works. this is a rare project you say, one city one team. we like to break out in our jurisdictions and make sure that tree in our purvow and under our jurisdiction are looked after. that is why we look at our

trees. i will say i will not comment about trees in the park i will say from my observations the large, big trees the red wolds the trees i wouldment to make sure are advocated for retention are planned for retention. so you will see this in the image we go through. all the slides i am about to wing you through now were created by staff from bureau of urban forestry. sailor and marcus. these are all images we took ourselves in our time for public works and with our own feedback about tree conditions. and when you will find is the sycamore trees are in poor condition that is when we will take you on a tour through this is the power point our staff presented at public works

hearing. i planned for the day on this. and i pulled it ump and said my job is doneful sarah stacy is a power house. and she put a lot of time in revowing the trees. working with the team and pulling all this together. but this is an example. this tree in the back hiding behind the tree in the foreground that is an example of a smaller tree where we seat continue is fair or good. rec and park looks and says we are considering that a bush. public works our code is inclusive it is learning and woody. a plant that is learning and woody is a tree. that's woody. large is up for debate it it is a woody plant. we have a number of trees that rec and park refer to as shrubs that we wanted to be more inclusive and what we include for the public. this is the visual tour this is

a state of many of the sick morse. really porcondition. creates the visual out lay. tunnel you know it is unique. there is not a lot of parks that have this. condition is fair. tree is very small. this it is a sycamore. condition is poor. again. very small tree. this is a sycamore, poor condition. i will point out the trees which are large stature here are the ones replaced with 36 inch box trees. again very small tree. small tree. small. that is a platness.

these are trees back of sidewalk. and if they are large they are platness or sycamore in poor condition. if they are smaller they are more shrub like. somewhere fair to good condition but we are not losing out by approving the trees for removal. so, i just wanted you to look at the visual of what is proposed for removal. these are trees in poor condition or would not be suitable for retention part of the over all project. they would be severely impacted this . tree would be severely impacted adding better soil and drainage great how much root compakz and loss of fine absorbing roots would be make it not sustainable we would have tree in worse condition than they already are. the trees in very poor condition

there there are good conscience they are smaller that are forming more of an under story. there are no sequoias or redwoods. if we had a row of redwood in great condition on the back of the walk we would need to get together and have a meeting of community and the minds. so i wanted to present this information just to go through individual low. a lot of the other details no requests about tree protection. the planting plan. and -- following up on that. thereupon is park commissions there are public meetings i feel good about the follow through on this. that is not a concern for us. this it is the one redwood. >> thank you.

we are questions from swig, lemberg and lopez. >> so, let's go back to my trying to pick a fight. so. the one of the in the appellate's brief. and conversation she was focus on the replace am of not 36 but 48 inch boxed size trees. do you -- can i get an opinion on that, is this consistent? with my previous lectures from you on the subject? >> thank you commissioner swig. it was grit to hear you lead off theed hearing this evening with those questions. the smaller the pleasant the faster it transplant and establishes. we planted a tree for caesar chavez street and i wear it is

about as big as it was bh we plant today but feels great when you put in a big tree. smaller trees establish quickly and will catch and up surpass that larger tree you start with. so from that perspective 36 inch box size trees for the sycamores being remove side there a reasonable i like that size they are larger than the 24 inch less prone to vandals and pedestrians they will be protected a bit but a bit more robust. are there not eyeos that spot? 24/7 than i can with stand more impulse vanld limp. i want to points out that when there is private development and we are losing trees because of the private use of the right-of-way such as garage. that is where we do step aside and say, you know what if one

our code does require when we are denying removal. another argument. i agree with you where your line of questioning was going. i do think that -- this is not. a private development. you know i think public works rescue noises that some of the trees that are in our jurisdiction will be rec and park jurisdiction through the vacation of the public right-of-way. >> you are advocacy is 36 not 48.

>> correct because it would be consistent with how we have approached a lot of cases before and consistent with our argument. it is the p. this is environmental benefits. i just think it is a heavy lift for the project. you know you are adding on a considerable amount of fund to a project that already feel it is elemented y. it is not the funding the argument on the funding. ah-hah you guysment to save money but really real ~ically from a florala standpoint and health of the fler stand point it is advisable to go to 36 versus 48. >> that is the perfect balance for this project and the site. a great balance. why thank you for that and i will -- let commissioner lemberg take it.

>> thank you, i only have a small question first i want today say, that i'm glad that you presentod hayou did, which is the actual trees removed because readings the materials it was in the clear had type were being removed i was like they are removing 38 red wold and had a bit of a panic attack. that has subsided, thank you. my one question/concern, we have talked a number of timeless in the last few meetings here about the southeastern quadrant of the city's lack of tree cover i want your opinion on how -- how this project over all is going to credibility to tree cover in the city under served. why sure, thank you,

commissioner, the public works is learningly looking at what is within the right-of-way and under our purvow in this case. when trees are in poor condition. i asked, when do we -- you know -- a 10 inch diameter tree. can we require, you know, large number of replace am trees that are equalling the value. one challenge is this when we find the tree condition is poor, you know we are starting it say, there is not value there. there is aesthetic and carbon some again the presses are slowed dun a bit when the trees are performing porpoorly could be an opportunity to inject benefits in the southeast area of the city. i would my take is the urban

forester. i lived in third for 20 years i watched this neighborhoods grow i know the leaders in the neighborhood and you know -- i see thiss take take the p it 2.0. i see this as a park renovation the trees that malice aforethought to me is urban forrester the mitigating trees are slated remain. people involved this will guide their protection. so -- from that stand point i feel like the public is served because the valuable trees here are remaining. so from that per specificive, we have an urban forest plan

planting of street trees. so it is related. we are one city one family temperature is a baptist its own opportunity within this space. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. anyone here in person like to provide comment approach the microphone. of you have 2 minutes and if you could fill out a speaker card and hand it to alex y. i'm george slack i'm a residents in dog patch and this area i saw the trees and planted. and over the years have spent a lot of time visiting the park. and every year i said what is wrong with that tree. its got brown leave and shrinking not growing. ure know it might have been planted 10 years ago and only 4 feet high. there is something wrong.

i think that what has been discovered through the process is is that there are fundamental issues with drainage and so -- and rocks under. poor drainage and soil being as poor as it is. the -- that all of the improvements that -- through a complicated process with a tense neighborhood division on certain aspects of the project. have criminalitied to delays which are impact costs. and thap is the neighborhood. you can't just say, forget temperature we have to deal with each other. finally i think this plan is turned out to be spectacular. and very forward thinking you talk about the 2.0 might go

further i'm not a professional don't have qualifications in this but i have an interest in trees and i do plant trees from nuts i think is a way to go in the neighborhood. was pihave a landmark thank you. in the bask my building. thank you your time is up. thank you. is there anyone in the room who would like to comment? >> okay. we will go to zoom. if you are here for public comment raise your hand. mr. clip, go ahead. >> thanks, can you hear mow? >> yes, we can >> 2 points. at 13.upon 7% san francisco has

the smallest urban canopy in the united states. the your of the park has a 2 fors tree canopy the place you don't take out viable trees. if you look at san francisco's heat island this is part is a christmas tree not surprising there are freeways all over this part of town including the park. the competiing trees are doing hard work and the left thing you need is few are trees and greater impacts. third, what park remove for construction and access manager rate hayworried and wish wash square. where almost a dozen huge trees in the park slated for preservation were cut down during product. rec park does novelty indicate 36 inch they say 24 inch.

minnesota street looks like mature trees not babies that is misleading. the community engagement i saw the e mail but not an apology from rec park to reset the community relationship. baseod my experience as an attorney and judge these don'ts reset themselves. hard to believe this was a one off that will fell corrected. i request the appeal upheld. rec park implement a robust replace am plan one top one. large are box, defined schedules and consequences of noncompliance. this project and sponsor can afford this. >> thank you. why thank you we will hear from john nolte. go ahead you have 2 minutes.

hi. can you hear me >> yes, thank you. >> great. first off i did not hear anything about since the weirdness about park now [inaudible] the street trees are in. therefore, dpw is unique positioning the responsible for all the street trees. under rec and p to maintain trees. rec and park had a poor history of min tain being trees and keeping them in parksum and safe. i say this longer parks on the city missing trees around the park. they don't have money. had 3-4 bond measures on parks.

funds parks and last 10- 15 years. the city. so, you know aloments of money going in the ps that rec and parkment. but they don't keep track of trees and it is noted they don't keep track. i would be concerned them even relinquishing the trees because [inaudible]. not recommended the trees be given over to rec and park. and that they stay within jurisdiction of dpw and also that when the trees are -- if they are you planted, around the park that they be also be screend and [inaudible] and to protect them. thank you. >> thank you. is there further public comment. raise your hand. >> okay. i don't see hands raised we will

move on to rebuttal. >> mrs. lewis. >> you want to answer president swig's question. there is a best practice with commune engagement from south park and land scape architect for this project with served on that project. and what it is you keep a small group of stake holders representing the community stake holders. 18-20. you keep them in place throughout life of the project. so -- i doment to clarify this was not one group versus west park it was approximate familiarity entire group because all 18 stake holders were in agreement and not in agreement with rec park which is why we asked supervisor walton for an intervention that was another 5 months.

secondly, one of the benefits of the group throughout left project is when you have change orders or making trade afters you want a group of people who have the history. this does d in the help. we were told that melinda was value engine earring making trade offs on behalf of the community and the community was in the involved. we don't want this project to have gone over budget. we want study done 2 years ago and i do want to clarify that robust commune engage am when there is a conversation it it is in the when there it is just a presently anticipation. that it is why appearing for 20 minutes i was there, too this is in the engagement. and melinda, thank you i quoted you because i taemdz third

degree meeting as you said. and i noted that on my mark mum today that meeting did happen. however it was at this meeting you said for reasons you would not be able to do gom 18 different community upon groups, which is realistic that is why you have an atag so you don't do 18 meeting you do one watch that i will give my time over to roy. i want today draw attention to -- irma lewis slide number 2 to look at the consistently. . in trees. that are in full leaf and absolutely gorgeous. they are providing lots of veermal benefit and public benefit they are functional, healthy trees. foundationally.

sour there is fungus on a loaf horror there. that occurs and causes a problem at the ends of the growing cycle. and. thank you that is time. >> okay thank you mr. legits. >> your time is up >> you are welcome. why thank you. we will hear from rec and park. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. city staff am i couple of points you asked part of rebuttal costs to date. my clothes pulled this up while i'm here our costs are les than a mission so far possible low 700,000 and asked front civic open we had 4 meeting for francisco for this we had 4 noticed before the concept upon design. and 2 public low noticed meeting since then.

we have also had 9 or 10 community advisory group meeting and made presentations to other group and meaningful diawilling with the community. i want to say in terms of the public comment about. rec and park taking on trees or not. we are here tonight because we submitted a permit due to the currently jurisdiction. and so i thank you is under review this evening. i mentioned street vacation details for transparency and give confident to the board that which ever agency is responsible the trees will be maintained and the public out roach process the last few years put mow in a position of feeling defensive and i am inspiring my team and encouraging them to take a breath and realize we are making a huge improvement to the park

and put nothing trees, lighting and paths. this is a park that is very much supported by the communities you see in written testimony provided last week and appreciate your support. thank you. >> thank you. so we have a question from president swig. the will appellate just said this first 18 people or -- forget number. there was a community advisory board and they were seemingly dismissed after a point. due to the word violent approximate used disagreement. dare i ask that the violent disagreement and why i sat on community advisory boards and i

have seen and responsiblesed them i know what it means to be in the room and have conversation disagreement. compromise and collaboration. what happened on that? >> so >> i'm sorry. it was my comment. i'm not asking if of you i'm asking of mrs. sullivan. >> the community advisory group was set up by rec and park with green benefit district. this was based on suggestion that came from ucsf based on their group model they have a community group all together. a community folks recommended this model. we started meeting and had meetings from may fwenlt 18 to july of 2020. and we had 8 or 9 meetings and a park tour. we hired rec and park hired an

external facilitator the idea of the group was to have representtation from different groups we were transparent with information. as i mentioned, rec and park was starting to feel the group was not representative of large are community and so it was in the an i have lent disbanment it was saying not everyone is in the room let's expand our out reach and move to public low noticed community meetings. some of us had to do with the tenor of interactions at the time. we then had from -- february twenty 20 and december of 22 additional meetings and online survey we briefed supervisor walton and met with other groups during that time. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. i don't see further questions we will hear from the department. anything further. >> no >> commissioners this matter is

submitted. >> commissioner lemberg? >> why not. there was a lot to take in tonight inspect this line item on this agenda item. i am leaning toward denying the appeal. i think -- the will upon answers to the questions we have have been answered to my satisfaction. i also you know i definitely hear the appellate argument. what i done hear was great support for their argument. and ultimate low that is what we have we have to go off of. andir am very upon encouraged by mr. buck's presentation and visual depictions of the trees. i'm a very visual person.

so seeing the visuals of the trees that were to be removed i think quelled, lot of my fears about the project. based on the briefings that we reviewed prior to today. and i think for that reason i'm inclineed deny the appeal and let the project move forward. why thank you mr. trasvina? >> thank you. president swig. i'm struck by the position of the previous item and the consideration of this matter. 've i wish that some of the what i hear emerging from this discussion was presently in the previous discussion. the discussion aboutvillid reasons to remove trees. and appreciation of it here. not so much in the previous

item. the notion about replacing existing trees was strategier trees. it is seems to be important to this discussion less to the last discussion. the issue about dog it now versus later. so i think that i appreciate all of the public comment and the various e mails this we received. over the past week as part of the materials. all of the reports. from the experts. certainly the work of the diameters and in the public. and the occurrence and the occurrence you raised about beg your pardon -- public access to the process. all of these are important. i am again i find them a close call. i'm inclineed join commissioner lemberg in how he come out but i think as we move forward on tree cases there are alegality of valid considerationless and i

justment to appreciate the work of the substantive work of the departments and the experts and the public. but i -- i am troubled by that we have yet to grasp a consistent tree of the issues. commissioner lopez. >> yea. i echo a lot of the comments of the previous speakers. particularly the mr. lemberg's or -- proper -- comments about -- the visuals being helpful, particularly the

redwood tree i ever seen. i think that back to the mr. trasvina's comments about you know the i agree that it is complex balance thanksgiving needs to occur. i also in my mind think there is a compelling interest in this project here. in a way that i was not as convinced exist in the the previous matter. and i think that given the size of the canopy that is impacted versus replace am trees and the over all nature of the project i'm skroinsed it is appropriate top deny theinally this case.

i appreciate mrs. sullivan's comments about directing the team to rep upon minds folks. of the -- the -- posture in service that we -- within the city should take. these will be public upon comment. and you you know i did know in earlier questioning being a bit concerned about this e mail and how it may be indicative of the dynamic this exists. i do think this and i understand this also going back to president swig's comments about these types of meetings and the dynamic that can exist at times and i understand that when we as

when you are slides for the upon ends state of the park are compelling as they are employs you want to get there but we are also custodians of the positions and project and it is end of the day that public upon input is why we are here. we need to have that in minds and it does seem like there was a communication break down that occur the. i do think that -- i want to applaud mrs. sullivan's comments and emphasize broadly we need to

be the bigger people, right, as you know upon the, the custodians for the city. be the [inaudible] input we may in the like to hear and receive. with that said, i would support the denying the appeal. >> commissioner lemberg. >> ed add, you do think that some of occurrence that the appellates have in this matter were legitimate when i upon don't think they are low nit mate to the subject matter of the appeal removal and replacement of street trees. and i wanted to pints this out and i did feel bad after for not having questions for the appellate had far less time to speak as a result of our panel's

questions. i do feel bad but ultimately i am not seeing a lot of evidence toward the specific replaguesment of the street trees especially after being shown the street trees removed. i wanted add that on. and i don't want this to be a deterrent to community groups or members from foil being appealos issues like this. these are big projects and issues of significant public concern. and -- my fellow commissioners said we received significant public comment on bothed sides of this. but i do think that the concerns from the appellates remember other parts of the project. and not necessary leave what is in front of us. we don't have the ability to make will upon sweeping

decisions about the entire project. we are only he were on the public works order regarding removal and replace am. i wanted to add that. >> commissioner lemberg i like to alaud you on getting us focussed on the subject of this appeal was and that's important. thank you for getting us on track. on when we are evaluating tonight. your prize is you can -- make the motion. i move to denight appeal on the basis the order was properly issued. >> okay. >> on commissioner lemberg's motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina >> aye >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries. for-zero and the appeal is denied. >> we are done. >> thank you. this concludes. see you in a couple weeks. thank you.

>> we have private and public gardens throughout the garden tour. all of the gardens are volunteers. the only requirement is you're willing to show your garden for a day. so we have gardens that vary from all stages of development and all gardens, family gardens, private gardens, some of them as small as postage stamps and others pretty expansive. it's a variety -- all of the world is represented in our gardens here in the portola.

>> i have been coming to the portola garden tour for the past seven or eight years ever since i learned about it because it is the most important event of the neighborhood, and the reason it is so important is because it links this neighborhood back to its history. in the early 1800s the portola was farmland. the region's flowers were grown in this neighborhood. if you wanted flowers anywhere future bay area, you would come to this area to get them. in the past decade, the area has tried to reclaim its roots as the garden district. one of the ways it has done that is through the portola garden tour, where neighbors open their gardens open their gardens to people of san francisco so they can share that history.

>> when i started meeting with the neighbors and seeing their gardens, i came up with this idea that it would be a great idea to fundraise. we started doing this as a fund-raiser. since we established it, we awarded 23 scholarships and six work projects for the students. >> the scholarship programs that we have developed in association with the portola is just a win-win-win situation all around. >> the scholarship program is important because it helps people to be able to tin in their situation and afford to take classes. >> i was not sure how i would stay in san francisco. it is so expensive here. i prayed so i would receive enough so i could stay in san francisco and finish my school, which is fantastic, because i

don't know where else i would have gone to finish. >> the scholarships make the difference between students being able to stay here in the city and take classes and having to go somewhere else. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> you come into someone's home and it's they're private and personal space. it's all about them and really their garden and in the city and urban environment, the garden is the extension of their indoor environment, their outdoor living room. >> why are you here at this garden core? it's amazing and i volunteer here every year. this is fantastic. it's a beautiful day. you walk around and look at gardens. you meet people that love gardens. it's fantastic. >> the portola garden tour is the last saturday in september

every year. mark your calendars every year. you can see us on the website in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf.

this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community.

>> good morning everyone. my name is nuvia (inaudible) depdy director at department of public health. before we begin i like to do the land acknowledgeism we are on uncedeed unsesteral home land of the ramaytush oholone. as indigenous studered of the lands and accordance with tradition, the