instead dpw continued to state there is no error. dpw included exhibit n in their brief. it is a memorandum month from the department of public health to the department of public work. it states he contacted the applicant about a possible error during his review on february 22. this is not accurate. the record shows that he contacted the applicant several months after three months after his review was complete and the department had already made its determination. i submitted that e-mail as an exhibit. in the e-mail he asks it looks as though the antenna we directlied toward the building so i wanted to know if this may be an error. he is asking for clarification on what is being proposed after he has made his determination. exhibit n further undermining the integrity of this process by trying to imply this clarification was sought during his review when in fact it was not. the citizens put their trust in the city to ensure that they know what is being proposed the basis of how it will be cited and making sure the determination is accurate. if this is not the case, the tru

similarly, for the map approval, dpw was required to support record evidence. as explained by city staff, the record contains extensive information in these findings, including that the project is desirable for and compatible with the environment is community, is applicable with the plan and consistent wit thee subdivision. arguments to the contrary lack merit. and i would like to focus this evening on the sequa appeal. they present 18 arguments attempting to attack the eir s efficiency. although appell annual disagrees on these points, it fails to meet the evidentiary burden and substantial evidence in support of the arguments that the eir and rtc are instuff or inadequate. insufficient or inadequate. they believe the circumstance eirs were not enough as well as a different project to be approved. sequa requires study of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, promoting informed decision-making and public participation. here, the eir presented circumstance alternatives including two full preservation and too preservation alternatives. lhia's p

how is it decided which trees are watered by a dpw staff versus a contractor? >> sure. we have some trees that are clustered together tha and if wd more contractors, we could have more trees watered by them, but we want to use our in-house to the fullest capacity and currently we have better pricing internally, having our city staff watering. but at this current moment, we have a tree watering and planting contract that folks are bidding on and we're hoping to have good pricing, good people in the pool to continue that effort. but we're limited in what we can do internally and trying to do as many as we can. but that decision-making process is usually what makes sense in clustering them for a contractor and they're not traversing the city. we have a large enough system that it covers much of the city and we can easily add trees tour existing routes internally. >> so you guys, in terms of deciding whether a tree is watered by you or staff versus a contractor, is it dependent on what the location of the tree is? >> we have a package that a contractor is doing and that the

our partners, uc hey hastings, l part of the tenant-landlord clinic, sfhsa, dpw oewd is the middle poke, cbd, it's an an honor and a pleasure and thank you very much. any questions? >> thank you. >> any members that wish to testify on this item? seeing none, public item is closed. and i would make a motio motiono send mr. martin's last report to the full board with recommendation. >> thank you, sir. >> without objection. >> great. >> mr. clerk, any further business? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you. >> we are adjourned, thank you. employee >> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciou deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community. >> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african herita

in addition, the city's architects at dpw determined the feasibility of the plans is highly speculative and these plans would not provide the same number of high-quality residential unit as the project before you today. like the projects in the eir, the appellant's plans failed to meet the urban design and housing goals and policies to the same extent and should similarly be rejected. at the 11th hour, they have attempted to recast the four proposed alternatives and their individual components and asserts the secretary standard for historic prompts must be applied as litigation. the planning department correctly used the secretary standards to analyze the impacts, as weein as well as ths of the alternatives. this follows the law as well as countless san francisco eirs. substantial evidence supports the city's determination, that the individual components of the lhia alternative plans cited in their appeal materials would not substantially or clearly lessen the project's impacts. put you've heard a lot about trees. as mentioned by staff, sequa impacts are related to whether there environ

wanting to know -- so you explained the reason for the increase in tree removal is that's because now dpw has a real street tree maintenance program, removing the trees that are not healthy and removed for various reasons but what was the reason for the decline in tree plantings? >> because i said, what is our dedicated funding source for street tree planting? i i think it was a gas tax and that's the only money the city has available for planting trees. now we're luckying at friend's urban forest. we got a cal fire grant and we're focusing on the southeast and western parts of the city and we're really fighting to try to get funding to plant trees. and thank god, you all heard me talking last spring when i said we need money for planting to replace trees and i am so proud of the board of supervisors for putting $2 billion into the budget, but that is just a drop in the bucket. it cost $2,000 to plant a tree in san francisco and establish it for three years and $500,000 to pu$500 ayear to water it fors and you have to water it for 12 months a year and that's expensive and that's the money

i have an issue of trust with the dpw. my business is on franklin street. and they just took down two large beautiful trees last week without notice. it's frustrating because two years ago they took down another tree in front of my building without notice and it remains a hole in the ground. so for two years they have not replaced that tree. so i feel dubious about what they are saying. it's frustrating. the other thing is it does feel this is a reactivity issue rather than a proactive issue. it doesn't seem to me any of the trees is an immediate emergency situation. and yet we are sort of mowing them down. i get that what the previous speaker said was it's an efficiency issue a financial efficiency issue. but then, you know efficient for tuna as opposed to pole catching the fish. so in my neighborhood you can mow down the trees that might be a problem at some point but it makes the neighborhood unlivable and it affects my business. so rather than creating sort of a toxic unlivable waste land, i would prefer that we not replace them all at once. replace as

we have a proactive program with dpw mentioned earlier where we send outletters every spring to clear is hillside. we can continue as we go on, we can task force this, team up with other departments to go visit the sites and come up a plan for each site or city and county of san francisco can declare the whole county high hazard and we will apply 49 throughout. that is an option. if you were to do that, then chapter 7 of the building code kicks in. that restricts you on the building materials you can use adjacent to the child land areas. -- wild land areas. >> the material on your roof, tile, you can't use wood shingles. where to put the vents, the openings, windows, it is quite involved. >> would only apply to new construction? everything there would be grandfathered? >> correct, correct. when you talk about defensible space, it is for the structure to prevent it. none of these areas have a large street, a man made break adjacent to the areas. you take that into account in the 30-foot rule. i would like to mention the fire department does not have jurisdiction over federal land, stat

the project sponsor team and landscape architectures will work with the bureau, dpw folks. the number being forwarded around didn't account for the fact they were in poor unhealthy condition. to add to that this came up. there are 11 trees considered healthy or mature they redesigned the project around to make sure those don't get taken out. >> good. i hadn't heard that. so the healthy ones will stay. >> that makes me feel better. thank you. >> go hug them. >> i am going to. >> do we have any public comment? any questions. may i have a motion. >> i make a motion we move forward with this. >> i will second. >> all those in favor. aye. proposed. the motion carries. >> next item, please. >> adopt a decuria coloration the property located at 639 bryant street is surplus and provide for the city's transfer in exchange for acquiring 2000marin street. this is relocation of the sfpuc power enterprise utility field service for the port property and developers reimbursement of certain sfpuc costs subject to the approval by the board of supervisors. >> this is land swap for the corpor

and signed off but are sitting in dpw. they will not be out by the first. what happens there? >> we keep appealing to public works to see if they can come up with a little more efficient system to move this along. i will say that kevin jenson, the public works staffs does come to these meetings trying to work with agencies to make this happen. we may need to revisit some of the slope-like issues. we know as director pointed out when this first passed is the city has some neighborhoods with a lot of slopes that are greater than 4%, and many of those with probably qualify for technical infeasibility or financial infeasibility. we are trying to work with public works to shrink the total size of the universe so we don't have those properties dragging down the compliance ratio. >> your legislation is not parallel to the timeframe when you go into violation. what happens after the first? you are in violation, right? >> yes, technically that is true. if we are able to introduce this in january, then we can hopefully give people the additional time until next july or so. >> do you wan

to point out to you here, and this is something we couldn't have done without the partnership of our dpw is that we've done a few things to reconfigure our lobby area to improve public access. we've transformed the physical space. we have a wonderful and lovely seating area for people to come here and wait comfortably, to be able to get their documentation and information. we actually have implemented a kiosk system so when people first come into our office they can directly find and get tickets, that they're served in an expeditious way. we have implemented a lobby navigator, someone who is greeting people when they come in to make sure they're in the right place to make sure they're not wasting valuable times waiting in the wrong lines. that does happen at city hall. we want to make sure we're preventing that. if you look around our office, you will see many of our kiosks and information are in multiple languages. we're cognizant of the fact that san francisco is a universal city with universal languages that we want to access and share with people. this is also something that is part

similarly, for the map approval, dpw was required to support record evidence. as explained by city staff, the record contains extensive information in these findings, including that the project is desirable for and compatible with the environment is community, is applicable with the plan and consistent wit thee subdivision. arguments to the contrary lack merit. and i would like to focus this evening on the sequa appeal. they present 18 arguments attempting to attack the eir s efficiency. although appell annual disagrees on these points, it fails to meet the evidentiary burden and substantial evidence in support of the arguments that the eir an

right now we are going dpw on the robotic side. one flag i would have is sometimes data sharing can involve proprietary information and trade secrets. one consideration would be to make sure the way we are sharing data is aggregated and anonymized that does a compromise some of those various if it -- pacific trade outs for the company along the way. thank you again for the leadership. >> any other speaker? seeing them. public comment is now closed. any comments or questions? i think that was pretty thorough. i would like to make a motion to move this to with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objections. thank you very much. adam clarke can you call item number two. >> item two, 191013. ordinance amending the transportation code to establish a violation for operating a shared mobility device service without a permit or other authorization from the municipal transportation agency, and to repeal certain parking restrictions related to stationless bicycle share programs and powered scooter share programs; and affirmin

appellant fails to meet the burden that the record supports reversal of the planning commission and dpw. it did not and cannot provide evidence in support of its evidence. the records supporting the determinations is thorough consisting of multiple years of study and analysis and based on facts and evidence rather than argument and infect allegation. speculation. this project will transform and underutilized wall-offtioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses. we ask you reject these appeals and move forward today. thank you, supervisors. >> thank you. any questions? i have a question of the proje project, is there a reason why it was infeasible to make a family unit affordable? >> so this project through the development agreement, it was determined that was a specific need for senior housing and that affordable senior housing should be what was emphasized and the project would provide 25% of its total units a. i believe they're affordable at an average of 59% of ami and these are affordable

multiple city agencies reviewed and approved this permit including planning dbi fire department, tfc and dpw. the permit includes a horizontal addition at the southeast corner, which i believe should probably be this west corner. at any rate, additionally the descriptive language includes three new bedrooms, two new bathrooms 3:13 three third floor remodel. the permit has been suspended and work stopped based on the issue and notice of violation by dbi that occurred on august 18 of 2018. new building permit has been filed and is currently being reviewed by the planning department. dbi plan review will follow planning's approval. inspections. three building inspections were performed by the district building inspector for foundation from may 30 to june 27 of 2018. so roughly two months before we got the complaint for the demolition, we performed these three inspections for concrete pours. they were for different areas of the foundation and they were approved based on special inspector approval prior to the concrete being poured. so what that means is the engineer testing agency folks would ne

long-term health impacts associated with human exposure and radio frequently energy and in an argument, dpw charges my client that emissions from the proposed wireless would exceed fcc limits. i believe it falls on city agencies while it's true that post insulation and operations verizon is required to test r.f. emissions the board that can imagine the residents of the this city, my client are weary of trusting a process that they feel has not been transparent. this is particularly so when d.p.w. in just a the prior brass essentially told the resident to do their work for them. as i noted at the outset you hear these appeals because there are a lot of concerns. and while the track record for these appeals is not good, concerned residents will continue to feel to bring these issues to this board. and to the attention of whatever city body will hear them. in the hope that these issues can be corrected, the process can be transparent and improperly approved to determinations like this one can be overturned. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the next appellant. >> hi, there. my nam