we're working close with dpw on that. we use it partly as justification, as many of you know, we have hundreds of millions of dollars in need and part of that work is being able to stick more concrete numbers and examples in it. and the more planning funding we have, the more information we have been able to get. we have a better understanding of the exact condition of our facilities and in addition based on some of the work done on easter, dpw has a more realistic idea of the cost on that. that is in the works currently with dpw. here is our proposal for the capital budget. these projects are not identified, there's details in the commission packet. these are currently not identified as being part of the public health bond or the easer scope and in total as you can see, there's approximately $33 million requested in the first year and 53 in the second year. this is similar to what we proposed in the past. we have updated on the actual work completed by dpw and it doesn't incorporate proposed work as part of the scope. mo

dpw denied the application. the reasons were clearly articulated, mainly being that the food program exists to "provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food opportunities for mobile food to less congested areas of the city." it was then appealed. and now we're back again. the appellant in his brief states it was arbitrary and inconsistent, the original decision by dpw. he also spends time talking about south of market, 2nd street, and 10th and mission. we would oppose them if they had an application here as well. this decision was not arbitrary and it was not contradictory. furthermore, there is no new evidence presented and no evidence of manifest injustice. as i stated to the board and the dpw hearing officer, this location is saturated with affordable, convenient, and interesting varied food options. you have 17 options within two blocks. it is a difficult area because it's a major thoroughfare north to south on oak and a major east-west, which is divisadero. this is 93 feet north of divisa

an option by sf-puc and dpw. >> commissioner johnson: so sf-puc and dpw are the reason we're rezoning rm1? >> well, the property owner needs access to their land and this seems to be the most feasible option. >> what about a swap of the current parcel well the puc parcel? i'm not trying to redo the settlement, but were things like that considered? >> many options were considered. it's the puc parcel. they must get maximum value. they cannot split a parcel and have a portion that's basically useless on the market. from the puc's perspective, if they're going to sell a surplus asset, they're going to sell it at the highest value, which includes the dpw parcel being thrown in at the same time. when you have a larger parcel thrown together, it's a higher value. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm glad we got that clear. i think the piece that was missing for me is the reason that we cannot provide the easement, so i got it. >> and i should clarify, the reason why it's going to rezone technically, it's standard practice that the unzoned would take -- so it would transfer the property to the

i don't have the evidence of -- i mean, i think we have something from dpw, but it's partial. so, again, partial evidence for all of these things. we also have no statement from dpw or the rent board to substantiate how they validated the statement on the initial application that there had been no evictions from 2005. the residency table in our planning packet i made reference to says that the unit was vacant from 2012, but yet, the eviction that was somehow -- it gets complicated -- connected to the findings that are around 2012, iris was not in the apartment, eviction wasn't until 2017. if you say the litigation went on for 2 or 3 years, that still isn't 2012. so i don't understand how the residency table can say there was a vacant unit. but yet we also don't have proof of residency. i mean, we have statements today, and again, i'm not trying to say anyone's not telling the truth. i'm just saying, this is what we're just getting in the past hours. there's no proof of residency. we have an article that was passed to us from march 28th, 2017, an article in the guardian, but th

dpw is out there doing their job. the condition of the trees is not an issue. i'm sorry. there's been no due process. it was never posted. there was a place to post that. we had no chance to respond on that. i reviewed the individual inspection reports for each tree. they aren't all listed as poor. they weren't nearly as gloomy as what mr. buck just painted for you. two of them were actually called to be in good condition. fair to good condition. three of them were considered fair and poor condition. so, you know, that process that he described to make sure that the significant trees get their due, that's why we're here, it wasn't done at all. there's no tree protection plan that was ever filed. no tree survey was ever filed. this is a $40 million project on public property being conducted by a public agency. and they didn't follow any of the rules. the same rules, the same hoops that they make the little individual homeowner jump through for a tree survey if they're going to replace one damn street tree they got to fill out survey and protection plans. nothing for six si

dpw has submitted brief after brief to this board that says just that. i put an example in exhibit 2. that's the number one goal in the urban forest plan of the five goals listed, maintain, conserve the existing urban forest, statistics about losing our urban forest are well known to this board. but unlike the other cases that you often hear, this is not about the health or condition of the trees. this is about the condition of the soil around the trees. that's the only reason given for the removal of these trees is that the remediation of lead in the soil. dpw is not in charge of lead, and so i immediately contacted the department of public health. they told me there wassen any lead. they were wrong. there is lead in the soil. i actually paid for a test from a company from marin on my own, $300. there is substantial lead in the soil. but why doesn't anybody know it? why wasn't that talked about from the beginning? i put in the cad x that was issued. may have i have the overhead? planning certainly didn't know that there's any hazardous waste. the box sa

dpw will give the commission an update on february 14th. so you know that. and just about the new ambulances, commissioner covington, if you can just visualize, if you have seen a king american or private ambulance or printer vehicle, that's what the vehicles look like, they're i believe 40% cheaper than what we currently have. they do get better mileage and they also meet our -- the mayor's vision zero program. you have much better -- the chief can atest, she drove one. you have much better visibility and tend to get in fewer accidents. i just wanted to give you a heads-up about that and i look forward to working with you all. thank you. >> thank you. congratulations. >> thank you. so you heard at length mr. corso related to the budget. we are midway through this fiscal year as you know and we're on track for revenue and expenditures. good work to our division of fi fire. in the coming meetings which i know we'll talk about future agendas, there will be a budget item in each one and i know we contemplated a special meeting if needed i believe for february 2

it appears to have been no discussion between planning, dpw, the developer and rec and park about this situation. what will be the effect on overall design, number of availing parking spaces, and most importantly, safety. the proposed development will be -- will jet into existing open space, forming a visual barrier compromising open space and visitation avenues. only eastern parkways for children walking to and from their homes. we're considered about safety issues where open space will be narrowed and a blindspot created on public park land. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm herman yi, urban spouts, nonprofit that works in the sunny dale housing project. and i would like to echo the concerns about the pathway. i work with an afterschool program at the boys and girls club, we're partners. and many of the youth go behind the garden at 1654 sunnydale and go up the playground and up visitation. it's the main way that cars get up and down the eastern part of mclaren park. so there's definitely -- i would like to encourag

is it dpw? is it puc? is it -- who is it? how do you control the bird's nest? the thing that sets me off tonight is we all saw on that screen that big loop of wire that was just hanging there because probably some worker anticipating that that wire will go somewhere in the distant future leaves it up there because it's easier. meanwhile in one of san francisco's most important locations for tourism, most important location historically, this loopity loop is hanging as part of the bird's nest of this telephone pole. who manages this? >> i cannot speak to that particularly, but i would like to defer -- >> i knew i would get an answer from somebody. >> can i have the overhead? for this pole, it's owned by pg & e and the california state public utilities commission has the rules for the attachments to these woodening pg & e-owned poles. so they're the ones setting the rules for the telephone lines. the wireless facility that's under review under article 25 in planning is just this antenna and the radio transeiver. article 25 defines a wireless facility as antennas

the formal presentation by dpw to the fire commission, is that on schedule for the 14th, i believe, so february 14th, you'll be getting that presentation from dpw, and it's been a really transparpt process. a lot of different parties have been involved and have been able to have input from local had 48, station 49 members, command staff. and then finally, the awsf. i know the chief spoke about it a bit, but it is moving forward. i have been to probably more meetings on awsf than anything else in the last three weeks that i've been here, and we are working diligently with the puc and if that plan that we have chosen gets approved, we will be able to move forward almost -- very quickly with construction because of those funds that -- that the puc has. so i thank you for your time, and look forward to any questions. they better be easy on the first night. that's all i've got to say, all right? no threats, just, you know, suggestion. so -- but thank you for your time. >> thank you, chief, but don't count on the easy questions. commissioner veronese? >> seriously, this is -- i think we -- y

we've been work for three and four years on the vernal cut that has a dpw land and has been pretty much abandoned. it's kind of a dumping site. over the last four years through parks alliance we were able to receive our first 20 trees. so the carbon fund two years ago funded that and it's now expanding and we're such an excited group of volunteers who live in the neighborhood and through the grant we'll be able to tell the story and plant more trees and keep the action going so thank you. >> i'm with the thomkins street beautification project near vernal we're there in the middle of the freeways. it's lovely. we don't have a lot of green open space. we're just above the alemany farmer's market. the it's become a blight on our neighborhood. it is a dumping ground for car thieves and package thieves. it's had homeless encampments and human waste and it's a nice beautiful piece of property and we put flyers under people's doors and got to know each other and come together and developed a plan to build a beautiful garden there to tile the stairs in a pattern inspired by the stairs of peace

dpw is not going to solve the problem. dbi is not going to solve the problem. this is a planning department problem. you have the laws to deal with adus, dwelling units and mergers, historical buildings. that's the planning code. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on the budget? proposed budget? seeing none, we close public comment. any questions, commissioners? commissioner melgar >> what is non-personnel services? >> they're outside contractors. >> non-personnel services also includes software and licensing. so services to other departments is what we do if -- so the airport is going to have a big environmental -- a big project that requires environmental review, so they're going to pay us for our work for them specifically. the non-personnel services is the category, it's the financial term that the city uses, sorry, but it's what we pay to outside agencies. >> i see, ok. so the other question i had is, under services to other department which includes legal, for code enforcement, what we pay the city attorney, how is th

. >> and maybe the small business and dpw is a big part of this equation. and the colleagues at dpw are collaborative, and we are confident they will be supportive. >> would they be interested in coming? >> i hope so. we'll certainly invite them. >> they are a huge part to this equation. i know the planning department will work around their issues and a lot of policies in place. and that is probably another question that's probably going to be arising a lot, and how to get past the historic building aspect that planning is likely to be mostly involved in here. >> it is what it is and we have to do our best on this. all right. thanks, bill, for your work on this. >> certainly. >> is there any public comment on item six? seeing none, item seven. discussion on accela permit and project tracking system. >> good morning, commissioners. this month has been an extremely busy month on the project. we've completed all of the walk throughs and prototypes that we wanted to complete in order to start defining what the new solution is going to look like. that included w