Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  June 3, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm PDT

2:00 pm
governor propose all suggest that each of the cities follow their own housing requirements and subsidies. whatever local requirements exist that have confirmed that and i think this is all a red herring and if we want to make san francisco a more affordable, inclusive city we should support the governor's agenda ab 2501 and other housing bills. >>thank you next speaker please. >>hi my name is sonja trouts i represent the renters foundation and we think this is the type of bill that will ease the shortage. a week ago on tuesday 15 of us took off work to the san sacramento
2:01 pm
housing committee some calls to the senator len office yesterday 800 san franciscans sent postcards to leno. we will have at the polls on the
2:02 pm
7th because tang and leno are going to look and say are there boots on the ground there? this is a one-size-fits-all housing on does is direct you to follow your own rules. this is something that is radical for californian totally normal for the rest of the united states. almost every other city has as a rights development because it's redundant for the planning department to make a plan and have the development have to come back to the planning department asked for permission for something that is already put there. >>thank you next speaker please. good afternoon
2:03 pm
members of the board and guess locally my name is mr. cohen we are a coalition of local san francisco affordable housing organizations that build affordable housing manage properties and provide advocacy. for the most part the position if you will comes from our coalition and the governor and assembly member bloom and the governor endor blooms bill but they put some serious policy on the board this year and it is some
2:04 pm
radical stuff and it is one-size-fits-all and is moving too quickly and it hasn't been designed well enough. there's 482 cities and 52 counties and it is a huge state and there's no one set of policies that play out the same in any city. if you lobby on behalf of the city which is only one of 482 we acid that be made clear. i think it's interesting to hear the supervisors that are here to say that the board of supervisors is the policy body for the city for both executive and legislative and that you folks are representing the policy body. it's nice to hear the opinion of other folks here are but they are not lobbying you. they can lobby the board of supervisors or anything else but if you were advocating the position of the policy body of the city and county of san francisco and as such you are in an animus resolution on 2501 to seek an amendment to
2:05 pm
exempt san francisco based on their standards and that the reasonable thing to do. there is a bill with some very serious amendments potentially for san francisco. the rest of us civilians can argue this all they want regardless of it goes to the board are not. this is a completely chaotic place and what hearing it goes to a what time of day it is and what gets called up. it's not like what we have here today members of the board. so, we can jump in the car and drive all the way to sacramento but we need you guys to be supporting that. the message on the ground in the
2:06 pm
city is key. thank you. [timer dings] >> vis-à-vis the statewide organizations can you regale us with that information? >> well whether or not in public chambers, the difference between state level organizations and where people work in between as i can to be so smooth. on the governor's trailer bill nor the amendments have been incorporated on the revised bill that came out last saturday. they came to
2:07 pm
a very politically pragmatic position that at least they would be able to negotiate some improvements to the bill but having a really robust conversation about what the global implications are on the ground whether it be san francisco or oakland or los angeles or a lot of jurisdictions in long beach and elsewhere over the last week we've been talking to a lot of folks and those local to state conversations did not shape that position. whether the amendments that they asked for are good ones are not is one question but the idea of a trade off or money or implications there's going to have to be a lot more before we sign on to it and we certainly have not. >>can you articulate what the county organizations would like to see relative to the amendments of the by right? >>well supervisor, think in our circumstances and i think other people in the room would agree can speak to that for
2:08 pm
san francisco. maybe there is a righteousness a were a purpose for having a pretension policy from san francisco. i think a buy right preemption is a bad policy as you said we produce more affordable housing than anyone besides la we havedo not sit around and wait for this legislation. it means
2:09 pm
there is a by right approval from what you have been required to do. there should be an additional premium above local inclusionary to realize there is a real value for developers in exchange for something whatever that assumption is and secondly, as of the amendment that came in last friday that's taken right out of the bonus law for the most part. we have in many jurisdictions and taken from the folks in santa monica today have local demolition controls and the point being if you're allowing the by right approval of a project that simply replaces units and preempts local demolition control and policy discussion that is a big game changer and
2:10 pm
then the 3rd thing is that we really think that this is aboutbuilding housing and that is the presumption from the governor's speech and we want to build more housing now not take so much time so a buy right approval does not build units. a buy rate approval get you paper. so, we are setting up a faster way to entitle more development and we are not assuring that it's going to get constructed. even if i would suspend my analytical disc belief in market rehousing filtering we would go from re-title meant to construction as soon as possible and we would have the maximum period of time from when title meant to construction and we want to see units built not
2:11 pm
entitlement. i would not claim it is a treat offer by right but it would certainly make a better policy. thank you mr. cohen. we very much appreciate that since you may have figured out that the board of supervisors has for many, many, years look to the council of community housing organizations what has been around for decades and it really has been at the forefront of affordable housing policy at san francisco so that is why ask those questions for you all to see where a lot of the housing thinking in san francisco emanates from. >>we would just note that both sides agree on one thing and that is that they don't like sacramento. >>that is why you make the big bucks.sorry.
2:12 pm
>>that is okay. we did not talk about assembly bill 2522 as opposed to 2521 that we took a young anonymous position to push for some amendments and that is my understanding that assembly bill 2522 did not move out a committee that bill is dead. >>yes. >>thank you for your work. >>so feel free to call us. we will be in touch with you. i will continue this hearing to the call the chair so we can check in publicly with mrs. elliott from time to time and we very much appreciate you coming down on a friday and wish you godspeed in your work over the next 2 weeks. >>thank you. we hope you feel better soon mr. chairman have a great weekend. >>thank you. >> >>that will conclude this hearing we are adjourned things again. >>[gavel] good morning. i'm h
2:13 pm
be joined by city attorney jessie smith also here are tom [inaudible] evan [inaudible] kristin jen son and victoria, all working diligently on the action we filed in san francisco superior court this morning. i'm joined by supervisor aaron peskin and soon scott wiener both of whom are working on isues related to this defend for many years. today, i'm announcing i filed suit against the
2:14 pm
silties largest property owners and land lob lords acad amof arts that detailed [inaudible] purchase and lease properties for use city wide. again and again aa [inaudible] use thrf property acquired was unauthorized, unpermed or prohibited by local law. again and again aau [inaudible] at planning and building code requirements which every other san francisco property owners is expected to follow. again and again aau flouted basic requirements involving signage, historic preservation and environmental review and more. most seriously of all, again and again aau acquired residential and xhrjs properties to convert to student dorms and facilities. in doing so aau
2:15 pm
derived san franciscan of 300 residential developing we need in the misof affordable housing crisis as well as critly needed office space. infact, the stale of aau's defiance is breath taking. according to a planning department memo last month, the 40 properties aau operates in san francisco shown on the map to my right, 33 failed to xum ply with permit entitlement or authorization requirements. academy of arts is a agregious land use scauth law and defiance per cysts at the worst possible time for our residential. for as long as aau has been breaking the law, city officials have been working to get them to comply the law and i'll confez i was sometimes less patient than some of my client departments about those efforts. make no mistake, for more than a decade our city
2:16 pm
worked with aau to resolve the violationment we extended aerfck professional courtesy and no one can doubt the good faith san francisco showed work wg aau and yet again and again aau met our good faith with bad faith and again and again sought to fix existing violations and scheming to commit new violations. aau set deadlynns it missed and made promises it broke. with a lawsuit today the again and again's end. sue toog end the wrong doing we ask to adjudicate 23 aau properties in violation. another 10 properties on the map remain under review by my office and may be added in
2:17 pm
a complaint in a later date. our litigation make certain san franciscos rights are protected and seeks objective no environmental r view process alone can accomplish. we seek to restore [inaudible] residential units. san franciscos right to have a voice shaping their neighborhoods. to end unfair business practices which disadvantage competitors who play by the rule jz penalties that are commensurate and sufficient to detrer would be laws in the future. i'm conclude saying how thankful i am with the lawyers. i'm grateful the effort and patient of zoning administrator scott sanchez, to the planning
2:18 pm
department and to our planning commission. i'm grateful to aaron peskin who includes many san franciscos properties where aau is flout thg law for leadership and hard work over the years and to to scott wiener who pushed legislation to design to limit the aau's ability to flout san francisco's zonejug land use laws. before i take any questions i like supervisor peskin and when supervisor wiener can join us to say a few words. >> thank you city attorney, i'm here to commend the city attorney and staff for finally bringing this action. we have been waiting patiently perhaps two patiently for over a decades. this is disproportioninately impacted the northeast corner othe city where hundreds of units of affordable housing are removed during the height the crisis. the academy played san francisco for a fool but that
2:19 pm
is coming to a end today so let me thank city attorney her aa and deputy city attorneys. >> thank you supervisor peskin. i'll let supervisor wiener say a few words when we gets here but in the interim happy to take questions or refer to my staff. >> [inaudible] >> took so long for? >> all this to come to a head. [inaudible] for a long time. >> it has been no secret i have been less patient than others. there has been i think a process of [inaudible] and dlie by academy of art leading people to believe they were going engage in a good faith effort to remedy the issues and to our clieants credit they gave them every opportunity. they bent over backwards to give
2:20 pm
them every opportunity and despite that the academy of art did not engage in good faith. there is no secret that they are economically politically powerful and have a lot of resources at their disposeal and used every one to kick the can down the road. this has toened and that is why seeing the planning department issue their round of notice of violation and think everyones patients has run out. >> [inaudible] >> it can not alone. you probably heard or may hear from aquadomy of art we are so far along in the eir process why in the world would you drop the law suit now? this has nothing to do with slowing down anything.
2:21 pm
the eir alone doesn't remedy past wrong doing ortake care of violations that are currently there. it doesn't slow down the eir process at all and the fact of the matter is this process has been going on for more than 5 years which is unheard of and that is because of their delay. >> the academy is iis aing they had a generous settlement proposal on the table and you turned it down. >> i say that is groussly over states the facts. settlement discussions the particulars i can't go into because they are conficial but nothing is further from the truth a generous offer was put forth. there was numerous settlement discussions but it became clear to me they were going no where because the aau wasn't taking this as serious as they needed to. i
2:22 pm
wouldn't have fall filed the suit if i didn't think i needed to. before i take questions i want supervisor wiener to say few words. happy to have supervisor wiener here and he has been pushing legislation and working for years to limit the aau's ability to flaut the law and make sure we have even handed enforcement with educational institutions and mast r planning. jerk >> thank you dennis i want to thank the city attorneys office to moveic forward to enforce the law. it is a basic concept that everyone needs to fall ow the law. when we passed zoning limitations, when we passed housing measures to try to protect our
2:23 pm
scrarserantal housing stock, it is important those laws mean something and it means something when the board of supervisors passes a law that says universities need to build their own housing but can't buy rent controlled apartments and convert to dorms. it means something when we have restrictions in the planning code limiting how you can use properties, there is a reason why we do that and everyone needs to follow the law. in 2012 i authored student housing legislation to do that, give incentives for universities to build student housing, we don't want student housing at the expense of the general population cannibalizing the housing stock. just a couple months ago we passed a legislation and thank to supervisor peskin to support it, to beef up our coud enforcement efts to make it easier and more
2:24 pm
efficient for our department to enforce the law and to empower the city attorney to step in when thingerize not moving quickly enough. thank you to the city attorneys office to moving forward to make sure everyone follows the law. >> thank you. ileler continue taking questions to the extents people have them. >> you seem fired up >> i am fired up. this is embarrassing, we are sitting here and fighting this for 10 years and i'm angry about it. i know these two supervisors are angry about it. i'm angry about it because the vast majority of people in san francisco know what they have to do to play by the rules and if you had a issue at your house or small business you know the standard and the process you have to go through with the planning department. here we have a entity that
2:25 pm
didn't just ignore the rules, they actively flouted them and it is infearating. i think this go tooz had heart of what either inspires or detracts from the publics confident in the integry of government. when they see a large and powerful entity flouting rules that the ordinary san franciscan has to abide by, it creates a confidence in their perception of the integtry of government and that denigrates all our residential and what we do, so i am. >> [inaudible] greed. >> they are one of the largest property owners in san francisco and this is a highly lucrative run by the institution and it is very profitable. >> is there evidence at all or
2:26 pm
investigation as to whether or not the corruption at city hall that allowed the academy to [inaudible] violating the laws over a decade? >> we are focused on remedying the problem and can tell you that i do know that while i may have differed with the timeline that my clients over the planning department were taking, i know they were doing the best they can and were motivated in good faith. i look forward work wg them, their patience has run out and they have had it because they know how much time and effort they put into it. we are just moving forward with that and cofds we will be successful working together. >> [inaudible] as i recall where the academy appeared [inaudible]
2:27 pm
>> that is the timeline and the path that it is on to be--now, there are other timelines that haven't been met, so it may be met, it may not be met, but i think the planning department planning commissions is clear about their expectations so like i said, that in and of itself doesn't remedy any of this. they are still a lot of work that needs to be done. there is lot of host of buildings probably more than a 3rd of what we identified to get the use authorized they have to go before the board of supervisors to get legislative changes so there is a fair amount of work that needs to be done. >> [inaudible] economic and political power to [inaudible] >> they know it was tremendous
2:28 pm
money and resources. we have been through probably 7 or 8 law firms they have been through that made various promises, different promises, different representations to property the boferd supervisor jz planning department and planning commission. a great deal of advocacy use that makes use of their economic power and use of political process. that is what i think has enable #d this to gee on for as long as it has. so, i think everybody has come to the ends of their rope. >> okay. thank you very much.
2:29 pm
>> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be
2:30 pm
recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will
2:31 pm
personal be liable please visit the sf and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www.
2:32 pm
>> how are you >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, may 18, 2016, the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by and joined by vice president commissioner fung and commissioner ann lazardus. >> commissioner swig commissioner bobby wilson that be absent to my left is thomas owen for legal advice at the controls is gary the boards legal assistants boards legal assistants executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. at the table in front is senior
2:33 pm
building inspector joe duffy dbi providing the advice for the department of building inspection and joined when i scott sanchez the zoning administrator who will be representing planning department and planning commission and carli short the bureau of the department of public works as well as chris buck forecast with the the public works please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the
2:34 pm
business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i
2:35 pm
do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking so, please stand now do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much so item nun on the boards calendar is general public comment an opportunity for the people to address the board on the jurisdiction but not on tonight agenda any public general public comment seeing none, the second item is commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners anything? let's go warriors. >> okay 83 and ethiopian item 3 the minutes commissioners. >> any additions, deletions,
2:36 pm
or changes if not a motion to accept. >> move forward you any public comment on the minutes to adopt commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner swig thank you very much that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero the next item is one that is going to be done i understand that the nellie win is here are you with the person who great please begin the interpretation of the item and everything that was said during the item that needs to be interpreted. >> madam director prior to be starting because of the length of our calendar and the amount of cases to be heard we try to get this we cut the public comment to 2 minutes across the board so we can get to the later
2:37 pm
cases in the evening. >> okay item 4 a jurisdiction request the subject property on rectifying a letter from the jurisdiction of the building permit application which was issued on february 19, 2016, by department of building inspection is evident and the jurisdiction was filed at the board office on may 22, 2016, the project to add two bedrooms and relocate the bathroom on the first floor and one full abandonment on the 72 hour and one remodel on the second story start with the requester step forward and because you have an
2:38 pm
interpreter we'll give you 6 minutes to speak to the board. >> but you'll need to speak into the microphone when it is time. >> so, please begin. >> we're ready yeah. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my name is ann win. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm at the address 221129 avenue, 2002. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so i live in the house for 14 years and seeing i have it
2:39 pm
from the first moment the house included all the windows. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this neighborhood is very safe and my neighbor is very nice and gentle. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> during the 14 years. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so mr. can bought the house on river street i knew he didn't spend any time there before. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so mr. can have paperwork
2:40 pm
to permit the construction but he did not let me know about it. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that's why i have to delays when i you know when i submit my letter to the field. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> mr. can fixed the entire house included the inside and outside. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i don't know if he fix the house to live in or rent out or to sold it. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that the fact that he built the deck effects any families a
2:41 pm
everybody else around it. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> especially for my house location. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> sorry a minute. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because the location of the deck is directed to any room i feel like anyone standing on the deck you know can see straightforward to any room. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and i have from views in the credit cards to have the
2:42 pm
ocean views i love the fresh air. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my children love to hang out in the garden and play in the garden. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> plus my child has asthma so my child's need more clear air that helps with the situation. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and i want to say that building the deck is very inconvenient and make me feel very uncomfortable for my privacy for me and my family.
2:43 pm
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> once again for the safety and the health of my family's and all the people around the neighborhoods i ask if you, you can consider the permissions of building the deck thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good afternoon. my name is
2:44 pm
derrick the designer and permit holder we're the architect that drew up the plans for 1915 rectifying i'll start with the design of the deck the deck height is 9 feet one hundred and 13 inches off the grade and in the planning code nothing under 10 feet not requiring the 311 notices it is 10 feet including the stairs and subject property 1915 river it is one across from the avenue in we're invading the two 22 privacy we're invading through someone else's backyard our adjacent neighbor which is on
2:45 pm
the map is 1909 rivera. >> now on the subject property the deck itself is if or 2211, 29 after the windows that facing our decks are property line window on the property line are those windows permitted? are they ever you know on permit or there, there before or existing we do know i can't say they're not they might be but they're a property line window and regarding the avenue yards did yards so close to an open space
2:46 pm
but it is enclosed with a patio it is we have a picture it shows the enclosure with those windows installed and the property line in san francisco i believe there are no real - i believe we're not blocking any sunset and open space of 22, 11, 29 avenue and we got our plans approved based on code compliant and it was issued and we built according to plans. >> thank you. >> i've got a question, sir so looking at the brief wasn't clear that is a side yard you
2:47 pm
said a vacant lot between. >> that was a vacant lot it was on rivera street that is the same lay out, same deck we're basically flush with our property. >> okay. your the third house from the corner. >> side third from the corner. >> can you thrum what you're lot size. >> it is by one hundred square feet our zoning should be 25 percent rear yard variance within that rear yard area. >> thank you. >> anything from the department the jurisdiction request. >> sew scott sanchez planning department this is in the rh1 the deck is code compliant and a notification would have been required i'm available to answer any questions thanks. >> mr. duffy anything.
2:48 pm
>> good evening joe duffy dbi the building permit mr. appeals to have been issued properly by dbi a typical remodel on the ground floor rooms at the deck and rear didn't require the firewalls the deck has been pulled in from property line a current approval and we - the building is second story and we did the structural notification and there is an open complaint on the property i on intersections it is filed by the appellant and it was the deck was blocking the view i can't see my room in the window in the yard so we investigated that the complaint is open the inspection on the deck and permit was on
2:49 pm
unapproved plan many it's updated prior to the suspension of the permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> your notice only goes to the adjacent. >> that's correct. >> doesn't go to the. >> no. >> the appellants property. >> right a structural notification for both sides. >> subject excuse me - to this hearing the nov will it be abated. >> not an nov we issued a - from the permit is upheld we certainly have no reason to keep it au open. >> it was hard to look at the pictures from different angles but properly lined windows if the appellants. >> yes. >> is that legal or not legal. >> there are very hard to say you'll have to do a thorough
2:50 pm
investigation to see what the original permit you're allowed the property line windows under new construction and they have to be 3 quarter fixed windows in the metal frame you give up all relevance if someone want to build against you a lot of buildings have property windows many, many years ago we don't get that many complaint unless something like that couples they're hard to investigate you're trying to keep bodies happy those windows are there for 40 or 50 or 60 years you're not popular. >> we'll had a couple of those cases here. >> right depending on how things go certainly on the neighborhood the permit holder not - and
2:51 pm
warrant the jurisdiction. >> right. right we can look at it. >> just asking. >> thank you inspector duffy any public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> i might explain for the appellant the standard of review in a jurisdiction is whether the department erred most of the discussion was on the actual issues of the case itself notice was properly given notice that of required properly given i don't find that the department erred. >> i agree. >> i concur would you like to make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal the permit was properly issued. >> okay. thank you so the motion then by commissioner fung
2:52 pm
0 deny the jurisdiction on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero he wanted to ask from the parties for item number 8 on 21st street are in the room if you could raise your hands are you expecting many patterson who is not in the room we'll move on and try to get to you soon, we'll take item 5 panning ramp versus the urban forestry on mission street requesting the denial retrieval and denial to not plant 60 inch box trees at the subject property it was held on october 2015 and on for further consideration on october 2015
2:53 pm
that was continued to allow time for the parties to talk about - to appear before the board to address how americans with disabilities act impact this permit on 2015 that was continued to allow time for the party to further discuss the city's requirement for the site and try to develop a plan so i'm hoping that the parties to this case are here this - it public works in the room wonderful i on intersections we should hear from the departments and see we're tasked with action and then we'll hear from the appellant. >> commissioner honda shall we give each side 3 minutes? okay. thank you >> good evening across the city bucking urban forest urban forester thank you for recapping
2:54 pm
the history this is a lengthy case the original permit to remove 5 trees 2 were very large and to replace with 5, 60 box replacement trees that didn't we were not able to sign off since the october hearing we met with mr. jensen onsite with the sfmta kevin jensen i have his e-mail i'll put it on the overhead his concern with the layout was that the last second sfmta once the building is inhibited they changed the code marks don't line up so the last several months the applicant the appellant had to go back to the sfmta to get permission to modify the color curve so that's been done at this point and i do
2:55 pm
have an e-mail interest kevin jensen he sent the other day to - overhead please. he says thank you for the confirmation it is depicted as discussed, in fact, sure the appellant stated see below the screen shot the highlighted areas we'll fill in a planter concrete to accommodate you we've agreed upon upon site and kevin jensen is acceptable our ada issues are addressed and the appellant is waiting for mta to color the curbs but the ada issue was addressed at this point, i on intersections we're circling back to the - one idea to start
2:56 pm
over move the utilities it sclft with those trees and other option our department suggested is a way forward is they planned 36 inch boxed trees and this is 29 hundreds to install a 6 manipulative box tree is $5,000 so times 5 trees $10,000 plus a fee the board is tacked how to come up with a penalty this is not a penalty this is what was planned not arbitrary and one way to move forward this is the one remaining issue we have no other issues on site regarding this permit. >> thank you, mr. buck.
2:57 pm
>> thank you we'll hear from the appellant now. >> that's correct across the city across the city kevin and i met onsite as chris said we respect to sfmta and applied for the white curb and as a result kevin wanted a loading zone we accommodated that and made i paid all the fees kevin from ada is okay with that and given us the green light to move forward i might add that overflow room we had committed to doing 5, 60 inch box trees but planted 9 as you recall that was dictated
2:58 pm
saying the landscape was - we followed the better landscape plan we planted 9, 36 inch trees we thought that was sufficient the result of plan check confusion within the department as to how we end up with that we are cognizant of the fact that you know we should have come back to the board of appeals and clarified that but those projects tend to be pretty complicated what you know executed them and had a number of permits that was one of '75 permits we got the drawings stamped so the 9 trees i guess you have to review those as part of plan check so in an effort to close this out i on intersections we left off talking about the difference and
2:59 pm
the other thing from dpw is paying the in lui fee which is 18 per tree i heard a total of 5541 we can do a check for that you know, i on intersections that chris agrees the site looks at great the trees as we see the projector we had brought up our landscaper architect says that within 5 years a 36 inch box tree will fill out what a 60 inch box they trithis is in 5 years a 60 box tree would have been we're looking to the board to close it this out we're in line with dpw
3:00 pm
and ada and fta this site looks at good we're looking to close out at the direction of board tonight thank you. >> thank you thank you. >> your number is different than the d s he said 5 at 21 hundred. >> that was the delta so i think the confusing thing with the board is trying to follow kind of a rule book book with the city an in lui fee which is 1890 and the delta of planting a 36 inch tree and a 60 inch my understanding the 36 tree is 29 hundred to plant and a 60 is 5 thousand that is the delta of 10 thousand 5 hundred we were
3:01 pm
supposed to plant 60 inch but if you calculate it a number of ways the 5 for 5 the delta is 10 thousand nine hundred or add up you know the total that we spent which is 9 times 2 nine hundred versus 4 times 75 hundred we're looking for a way to close this out and have the board make a discussion how we want to do so. >> are you fine with the 10 thousand 5 hundred number that the department has come up with. >> yeah. i mean we spent a bunch of money applying to sfmta and phil the concrete taking down existing trees so i on intersections ideally we would like to have it be lower but if
3:02 pm
this is what the boards decision we can commit to that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you public comment on this item okay seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> and again, just a reminder what is before you is an appeal of a denial to not plant the 60 inch box trees okay. >> perhaps a further response from mr. buck. >> based on your presentation we're down to the number. >> thank you, commissioners chris buck with public works whenever a new building constructed a number of trees are assessed to be required to be planned this site is required to plant 14 trees to the
3:03 pm
right-of-way in the end there's a planning department of 7 trees so 3 of the trees, 4 of the trees are even substit skulk landscaping for required trees 7 trees planted landscaping totally the equivalent of 4 trees and paying 3 in lui fees to meet the planning code that is where the 5 thousand plus comes up that is charged regardless of 60 inch box issue a total separate fee just to clarify that is the simple price differences between a 36 inch and 60 inch box tree the difference is $2,900 per tree so $10,000 san francisco public works has an adopt a tree fund
3:04 pm
in lui fees are adopted we have a mechanism that money is literally a lockbox for tree not purchasing new tires or trucks but towards the plantin of new trees we want to commend clarify that amount. >> so you'll be accepting the po and owner o overturning the denial that $10,000 plus will be paid into our tree fund. >> yes. and for the record our preference is the 60 inch box trees, however, i will say that the 36 inch box trees were planted a year ago they're in the ground 36 inch trees and establishing well i can say that the site is doing well it is performing well it is a little bit of a
3:05 pm
consolation a learning curve when we head into some of the cases but to move forward and based on the number of months we've worked to continue this it seem like indirectly another message to applicants to adhere to the rules of board otherwise the approvals will not accompany we will be okay this treatment. >> listening to you is the 10 thousand 5 total or plus the 10 thousand. >> it would be $10,500 specific for the tree size the other matters is a separate fee that is taken care of okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> if cliepdz to make the
3:06 pm
motion there ought to be a price to pay i don't consider that a huge amount. >> commissioner swig was not here but the three of us were here. >> i was here. >> yeah. so. >> i will make the motion to grant the appeal overturn the denial of the department and condition that would be payment of $10,500 into the b u s tree fund. >> okay. thank you so we have a motion in the vice president to grant the appeal and overturn the appeal by the department on is condition that $10,500 be paid as an in lui fee is that
3:07 pm
acceptable commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you very much mr. >> i don't see him. >> no. >> okay. we'll move on to item 6 appeal number stephen gains versus the urban forestry the property on 95 norway do have street to, llc the tree removal moving a tree to the rear of the property and this is on for hearing tonight we'll start with the appellant >> you wish to say i have retained reuben, junius & rose
3:08 pm
on a project reuben, junius & rose representation appearing before this board will not have an effect on my decision this evening. >> you have 7 minutes to present are your case. >> overhead. >> commissioners good evening i'm steve my wife and i are the appellants on 49 next door to the project awhile i testify on my own on behalf of i have snatches for people 0 wishing to enjoy the redwood tree and where it exists the neighborhood associations represent thousands of families surrounded the tree i have a roomful of neighbors that care i want to talk about the tree a 50 coast redwood as noted in the brief less than 04 percent of trees are native to the city this is a privately
3:09 pm
owned tree visibly within the public realm because the proximity to the public right-of-way that is designated under the public works code the city staff described as one of the largest trees in the neighborhood providing shade and character the evaluation was for the denial of the original application the trees location is important it is indirectly dribble behind the park and it is essential to one neighborhood important neighborhood intersection with the two other nearby redwoods one landmarked it is one of the last visible reminder of golden gate park in the. >> can you stop, stop the time have you been trying to use the overhead we need to have the
3:10 pm
overhead you if wanted to use the overhead you have to ask in the microphone i did not hear you, you're on the overhead now go ahead. >> on the same evaluation board the dpw said the tree is healthy and sustainable we marked the tree it showed excellent color this tree is healthy it is covered are new growth and shows inform sign it is in danger or peril the arborist declared the tree now that the sponsor wants to move the tree so healthy it can sustain it's roots it is bold and moved and placement attached to the platform in a new construction site we ask you
3:11 pm
consider this reserve all of opinion the trees are laid out in article 16 lacking from the section is the term relocation it speaks of removal in fact, no where is relocation mentions whether you rove a tree or you may not roach that no section of relocation in the brief you saw the staffs response to the acquiring the application no place form for relocation so the staff instructed the sponsor to use a removal form and change the name no circulation and no legislative authority although the adopted application the notice to the community regarding the permit was about relocation in order for this for roaming of a redwood but the
3:12 pm
actual permit was for removal of a street tree under section 806 not a street tree the tree is on private property by the sponsor as a significant tree you'll hear from the sponsor that authorizes dpw to allow for the removal of trees that's open a half-truth it established the procedures whether or not significant trees thereby removed we believe this is no legislative authority and only conditions that will protect the tree and the neighboring properties if you believe that relocate can be considered it must be considered in the standards that apply to the removal of a significant tree this tree exceeded protection and has been denied permit and full removal by dpw it was ruled
3:13 pm
final by this brotherhoods in 2015 which changed nothing other than the sponsors arborist, however, such a permit because the unsafe conditions the sponsor this have a geotech report of soil removal to have soil engineer and structural engineer study this undertaking on the historical single-family on norwdoff - and have the sponsor pay for the residence of 49 to the offsite housing during this event keep in mind this decision has no public input the period of time discussions were take place the
3:14 pm
decision was made i tried to contact the department 17 times only after the written notice on the other hand, the lobbyists exchanged 49 phone calls and used the arborist as the only person with the expert opinion no outside independent kourlts i want to move on to the tree has to go so the city can be provided with four new housing units that is untrue first if you approve the dpeemgs of the historic home and the subdivision of prominent lots and third the construction of 4 new believes in the exact location no way to know whether or not this will happen and if we influence that it will not happen bus the tree is important
3:15 pm
in the current location in the brief we printed in the record out rules used for 4 unit of housing in different configurations a decision not reserved whether or not a tree is removed in the past didn't matter f eve they move this tree the tree is healthy determined by multi arborist and dpw it is healthy moving it it the only thing that put united states it at risk for 4 units without toughing the tree please don't make this decision thank you. >> (clapping.) no- please thank you. >> a procedural question i know you limited it to 2 minute but people wrote for 3 minutes. >> the problem we say several long cases they've not come into
3:16 pm
the room if we go to 3 minutes we'll not be able to finish the evening. >> thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening commissioner honda and members of the board tom reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holder and property owner, llc as we see the it appellants raised 3 main issues the first, the legal authority of the department of public works to authorize it and the replanting of the tree this clearly is addressed in the urban forestry ordinance together authorized department of public works to and through the urban forestry to both remove and plant trees planting can be done on its own accord or
3:17 pm
the mitigation of the resolve them a tree in this case the removal and replanting of the same tree a difference without a distinction the bureau is clearly authorized to issue the permit second issue environmental review and in this case the larger project was granted categorical exception and that project included the remove of the tree it is important to understand what the categorical exception that didn't mean no environmental review first is a determination of whether a categorical exception even applies and second there as a determination whether the project results in any significant impacts nevertheless, and in this case, the project was studied including the removal of the tree and the hectic value of the tree and of the home and the planning department determined no significant impacts the only change in the project
3:18 pm
now that the tree will be replanted an environmental benefit we submit the environmental review was proper the third concern was really the technical and physical ability to successfully roach and replant the tree with that we have our expert david cox of the environmental design inc. to speak to that issue i'll is the world renowned and removing and replanting trees this is a 98 percent success rate they've removed trees in the white house we have our tree arborist mr. roy for any questions thank you. i'll turn to mr. cox. >> good evening. i'm david cox with viral design based out of houston, texas we are the
3:19 pm
large tree removes we've removed significant trees of this size and larger for on the united states capital ground the white house, the supreme court, we've done work in many area he moved the tree for soma and work in trashing moving a 65 inch a different species to move and currently working in santa fe on several projects and basically remodeled projects and preserving and replanting them on the same prompt that's primarily all we do we don't remove trees or do tree removals with the open up for public comment we're specifically a tree transplanting in business
3:20 pm
since 1977 hold the world record for the biggest distance of move and the diameter and the tallest you name it, we transplanted the tree on peaceably beach in the year 2000 because of the tree the pine trees dying from the disease a significant history in the civic county and area if there is any technical issues you want me to discuss i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners carli short san francisco public works i said to make a couple of
3:21 pm
points i on intersections we wanted to emphasize the fact that the department approved the relocation of this tree on this after reviewing the proposal way are concerned initially the tree might not be successful in its relocation we want to see the tree preserved we actually felt this was a win-win i hate to say it we've yet to see a tree not removed and when a development project is at stake we thought that preserving this tree onsite will protect most of the concerns raised by the community and the concerns the tree is not significant we addressed by requiring a notice of special restriction on the property so we felt this this was actually a good solution to preserve this tree visually with all the environmental benefits that come along and many of the benefits
3:22 pm
to the community i want to address the idea the briefs are saying we have a secret active progress we brenda over backwards when the tree - in conjunction to the board of appeals rather than having that addressed at that the body loan we agreed that the most transparent concept to be to a new thirty day notice on the tree and held another public works hearing and that was appeal able to the board of appeals this was not done in secret we felt the public should know that is the best way to get the notification out to the public by following our typical process and lastly the suggestion not consistent with the code addressed by the permit holders brief you know
3:23 pm
relocation of a significant tree the code requires we plant a tree of the equal value or obtain a fee if that is not possible relocate of a significant tree to a different spot on the same property is in our mind the most ideal equitable of a tree we feel that is consistent with the code so again, i on intersections that the departments perspective we would love to see this tree retained the initial denial we want to see the tree retained relocating to a new recognition arguing having better ground it is constrained because of the exist property and the sidewalk we felt was a good solution to maintain the benefits of the urban forest we're charged with and maintaining most of benefits
3:24 pm
the community and preserve and protect this tree the regret i have it tree is not visual to the public that's the one thing we can't achieve through the solution but that roves that we felt this was a win-win given the proposed development project on the review and the existing location of tree. >> thank you. >> ged. >> is there any use of consistency in the actual permit itself neither location where google brought up by the payment. >> we followed the process of removal process we felt that we were trying to communicate as clear as possible we said the tree was removed and we expected people to be
3:25 pm
concerned so i on intersections that essentially we're following the code with the tree removal process our use of term relocation we were not approving the out right removal but relocated within the property. >> commissioner swig. >> how old is 12 tree. >> i never like the guess the age. >> a range of restraining order years. >> like range 50 to one hundred. >> how old is the neighborhood. >> i don't know perhaps the planning department will know. >> i'm trying to establish which came first, the chicken or the egg era the significance of that tree and what i'm wrestling with a bunch of other stuff is changing the character of a neighborhood
3:26 pm
it is clearly a tree when establishes a character in this neighborhood and one of the briefing a couple weeks ago on things that go wrong or right or wrong with the jauflts to home renovations the key elements which is remote is changing the character by renovation of. >> house changes the character of a neighborhood or inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood it seems to me this standard will apply with this tree i am not this is a i'm wrestling with the importance of this tree and the character of the neighborhood is that part of character of the neighborhood do you on intersections. >> absolutely i on intersections that any large tr the character of a
3:27 pm
neighborhood and certainly this from the does i on intersections that our concern that the tree with the out right removal by perceiving it within the neighborhood and within the basic property footprint we felt was a better alternative than out right removal of tree. >> i'm wrestling we believe the tree is the expert his success ratio is good but am i willing to take the risk the tree will live or die what happens from the tree didn't make it. >> from the tree didn't make it the requirement for an 84 replacement tree seller not as larceny as the tree by honestly
3:28 pm
given the amount of resources investing in the relocation i don't on intersections anyone will be intentionally spending that much money for the tree not to survive. >> it is a one hundred plus-year-old tree i'm old i if i got moved i'll suffer for a one hundred plus-year-old tree deeply rooted and established there is risks. >> certain i' emphasis you know that someone brought up why not angle outdoor arborist the staff has oovshtd we've condominium our lives to preserving and protecting trees that's why we're in the business we reviewed that carefully i was initially resistant and if you read through the material you'll see we were concerned initially about whether or not the tree could successfully be relocated after reviewing the proposal and
3:29 pm
the success rate of firm and how they do it we believe it can be successfully ronald. >> our decision to whether to upheld the appeal or deny the appeal we're taking the risk to move the tree will live or die; right? >> no, i mean i on intersections you're taking - >> taking on the risk. >> sure okay. yeah. >> okay. thanks. >> i'll note this board has on many occasions approved the removal of trees. >> again to see you by the way. >> good to see you in the appellants brief their concern the relocation and specific relocation of where it will be put in not a good place could you explain that to me. >> well, we accident as a
3:30 pm
response to that concern raised at the departmental hearing met with the adjacent property owner he looked at the site where the tree will be relocated our feeling a good location not a conflict with the neighboring trees in many ways a better location because of the existing site constraints of the sidewalk very close. >> and the 4 o'clock that's my next question. >> i have a question the conditions does that literally mean the permit is not issued until the conditions are satisfied. >> yes. so i should also note our approval constituent conditions that all the necessary planning and building permit be satisfied the tree will not be loudly to be removed until the other conditions are
3:31 pm
satisfied. >> if they get the approval that will changing change the character of the neighborhood as well so damn if you do damn if i don't. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under this item. >> okay. i'll ask you to do a couple of things line up on the far side of the room and if you haven't filled out a speaker card do so before or after you speak and hand to other collect the person to speak step up to the podium. >> so two minutes. >> i'll do any best. >> good evening my name is dr.
3:32 pm
evelyn rose fwlerp i'm - the residents of any neighborhoods are the ones that know their neighborhood the collective voices on nordoff street has been loud and strong for the past 15 months those neighbors one hundred strong are in keeping this at its location and opposed to remove it 10 different neighborhood associations who have signed petitions to protect this tree neighbors have signed the current written e-mails to the city and overwhelming support to protect this beautiful redwood and keep it in hits current location commissioners please no personal interest in helping to maintain the character of our neighborhood or protecting the redwood monarch that is to the
3:33 pm
neighborhood glen park has a activism since the 19 hundred have ripens to ask for equal assess and find a way to obstruct the freeway invasion and once again to protect the safety of those homes and trees in close proximity to this move one husband calvin built this in 1908 is honored by the neighborhood as one of the urban forester outlet community activists and established in 1908 and ladies lead the activities the history glen park activism grins with the historic stillings home in the redwood monarchy is helping to establish the spirit of.
3:34 pm
>> thank you your time is up. >> he /*. >> next speaker. >> good evening. i'm eric i reside at thirty stillings director opposite the rear yard of norway off the department of public works declared this tree to be significant pursuant to the passage of board of supervisors a significant tree located within 10 feet of public right-of-way and meets one of several criteria with size bus the common factor in any designation is they're close to the street that's why a large tree is significant it is because it can, seen from the sidewalk and enjoyed from the sidewalk it operationally is on part of visual environment of the streets in this case, the
3:35 pm
most striking feature of that part of avenue in you move a significant tree away from the street 85 feet away it takes away the since and what's the point of go designating the tree this remove sets a bad precedence to preserve the significant trees the sponsor states their brief at the removal and replanting allows the tree that residences much the visible project in advance but how can it be that way when there's a 4 story building straightaway it and o dissipating it and in fact the neighborhood enjoys this that will be destroyed matters in the the title of the tree will be retained but meaning also this
3:36 pm
is significant many people sfwak with that tree. >> outside my window it had destroy the character of a neighborhood entirely please reverse this thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker please may i have the overhead please. commissioners i'm i live on stillings after across the street from the tree one of the the key points removing the tree the only way to put 4 units on the site this is simply not true for the relocation applying f states you can vary the lot slogans it is 1 hundred square feet per lot a blind movement to
3:37 pm
design homes as cluster development group housing around landscape amenities i can't that on intersections of a better site around stillings section f allows this to happen and the sponsors earth all firm is the right one to do this from the sponsor didn't like cluster how about the dwelling unit in section c-4 the space that - it is eligible a unit that is affordable by design if you read the sunday paper you may have seen two important articles with an the plight of san francisco school teachers moving out of the city and the other was an accessory units supervisor peskin is in the process of making the accessory provisions
3:38 pm
favorable citywide they're with 9 history house on norwdoff - a for senior and retired teacher with the san francisco public schools one of those options will help san francisco so have affordable housing none of those have been by the sponsor and . >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> next speaker. >> asking for it. >> overhead please. okay good evening. i'm greg he live on according con go a block
3:39 pm
from our redwood tree the process that is followed by dpw and the sponsor lacks transparency fairness and common sense in any limit time i'll try to raise two points it appears the urban forestry council has been shut out of the process this is the document that shows section for public works code and shows the duties of urban forestry to make the recommendations to the director on appeals of applications for tree removal and then this from the environmental code the scope of the authority the urban forestry council subsection 3 it shall consider the issues that retails to trees on private property the urban forestry council has not been sought in contradiction and contradictory to the entire purpose of the urban forest council and moving to a different point i find
3:40 pm
harsh and hate to see that happening the decision to approve the application seems to have been made before the application was submitted to a non-public input before it was made and removing the hand of transparency i hope you see are a couple of e-mails and friday, october 30th the project sponsor informally submitted the application even though the rules require the application in person with a fee paid and the language applies it the discussion was discussed in advance on monday november 2nd early in the morning dpw staff said they'll approve the application for less than one - this whole process took place i hope you see something wrong
3:41 pm
with. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> next speaker. >> please. i'd like the overhead please. thank you commissioners for entertaining any comments i speak as a concerned citizen and neighbor that live these on intersections the same block and speak as a member of the california bar that values procedurally fairness the sponsors brief states the discretionary action subject to the california environmental quality act and deals with the situation we believe he's one thing wrong on both accounts of the public works code sites 9 purposes for the urban forestry ordinance and letter g to recognize that trees are part of aesthetic environment and their remove removal of important trees should be with the correct dialogue with the california
3:42 pm
environmental quality act this specific purpose was added by this board of supervisors in 2006 to document why the tree legislation was ceqa was not an afterthought when the ceqa documents for this project was completed last year only contained the tree removal a evacuation of the site as construction the relocation that requires up to 5 hundred cubic yards of evacuation so dig a hole large enough to accommodate the man made basis it is attached to the tree the sponsor indicates in his brief the 50 cubic threshold is applied you see this down here this is not true in san francisco the 50 cubic are threshold applies to every lot with a slope of 25 percent or more the guidelines changed
3:43 pm
from an average over the 20 percent 20 percent on the lot as you can see from the check list the term average is removed from the check list. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> next speaker please. state your name for the record susan. >> next speaker >> have the overhead please. commissioners good evening nominees a tom christian i live on north avenue a half block away from the property i'm a native san franciscan went to high school and raising my family here and i on intersections we have a chance to save the character of the neighborhood it is important to the neighborhood to retain that the graphic on the machine here is page four of the sponsors brief he himself quotes public
3:44 pm
works section 8, 10 action only referencing has to do with with removal no section 8 a with the authority over planting of significant trees the reference 10 a is for removed so this is either a relocation that must be denied because dpw has no authority to permit the rezoning or a removal which was previously - the second graphic is let's see here - >> highlighted in yellow down here section 806 stated the directors action shall be final he was denied did permit last year the sponsor appealed and went to a hearing how many times does he get to apply to the same permit
3:45 pm
type that causes questions those call records and e-mail logs that was put on the screen were shocking seeing those showing all the calls not returned and e-mails and the lobbyists getting respond to was shocking you have call that into question commissioner honda - >> (laughter). >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> i'd like to use the overhead please. >> hold on a second your overhead is up and down. >> face it is as though you're looking at it. >> oh, i see. >> surprise. >> reset please thank you. >> commissioners good evening
3:46 pm
this is my agenda we live on congo street we have standing before you to emphasize the developers have a huge credibility problem what they're saying what we do to support the ken tension that has a history of declaring bankruptcy thai they have liens and restraining orders we stand before you because of history of the section and the bankruptcy because of the nordoff, llc was heading on the project this project was full of problems the mortgage company filed for breech of the contract and specific performance and
3:47 pm
judicial foreclosing it was stopped bus of the improperly permits making disadvantage and ufltd the property was taken and the contractor had a history of - a problem of developments that james has federal and state taxed and multiple lions and foreclosures on given avenue and penalty railroad approved by the board of supervisors when the judgment were made he declared bankruptcy the deceptions continued the plans by the nordoff that the - >> can we have. >> this is an area. >> overhead the tree size. >> ask for the overhead. >> can i have the overhead please. the reis the witted canopy is
3:48 pm
across this area 32 times the size and half the companion. >> i'm sorry your time is up there we go. >> i'd like the overhead please. i'm jennifer for the record second the developer pa claims by resolving the redwood no cost to the construction it is unlivable the redwood fragile is only one foot unaware away from the foundation the true canopy overlaps with the depiction of the - third, the house at 49 stillings is 39 feet the canopy is 45 feet wide the branches will not be trimmed but the trim is testified they're not going to significantly cut back the branches of the tree figured out this is really where i want you you guys to focus it
3:49 pm
turns out the sponsor fabricated for - we'll directing your attention to the projector the sponsor submitted 22 letters for removing the redwood tree those letters are not from neighbors 12 more than half from other real estate brokers and spouses monthly in the project sponsors cold well banker office and from other contracts this includes letters from the project sponsors family and more concerting the second time the letters were submitted with the appeal the signatures don't match someone signed those letters fabricated both times why are redoing this we want you on the board to exercise caution
3:50 pm
this sponsor has not proven itself to be successful with the prior developments that didn't require the relocation a much more serious undertaking and second reiterate our request for bond support because - >> okay your time is up. >> now thank you. >> proerj please. good evening, commissioners my name is a james i'm the - i live directly across from the tree there is no relocation permitted for significant trees only a removal permit that was denied and not denied filed under the public works section 3 c in the sponsor wanted to take on the
3:51 pm
volunteerly relocation the time was done at the previously schedule under 9 removal of permit denial the sponsor says that refers to a section that green house gas emissions the authority to dpw to regulate the removals and planting that is for the authority for relocation second 8, 10 a only allows the removals not allow planting the word planting is not mentioned once in section 8, 10 a my graphic of 806 b rather 806, 10 is for the progressing fee the dpw to authorize the removal it states only covers street trees planting that's in the public
3:52 pm
right-of-way not private it says the appropriate form must be used the sponsor has not applied for a sponsor form and not in those provisions are authorized the relocation of any tree much less a significant tree on private property the removal of tree must be denied the time and place to talk about taking on the conditions of loopholes was at the previous denial if this new removal of a tree - >> thank you for your comments your time is up. >> thank you next speaker please. >> good evening commissioners i'm stuart i live on congo around the corner i walk under this tree everyday i just want
3:53 pm
to brought to your attention to a few misleading false statements in the sponsors brief month have been touched on the sponsor starts out stating the reason for removing the trees is for the health and longevity i think the real reason we should register the plan to remove a second and dangerous tree was denied my second point they state twice the tree residences it's visible prominence trigger not only shows you have to be thirty feet away the sponsor says there's support by 22 letters of support i'll not touch if you go into the immediate neighborhood
3:54 pm
you'll find support for keeping the tree the tree is under stress due to an inadequate water supply that is because of the drought and states 6 to 8 feet from the sidewalk those measurement are not quite right and should be checked a justification for moving the activities can damage the root and true but digging it up and moving that 58 feet neither will taking the proper prognosticates and they site the executive drifshg to unreasonable impacts on residential development i'll note that prioritize 100 percent permanently affordable housing and those are not that. >> thank you for your time. >> next speaker please.
3:55 pm
>> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i reside an nordoff immediately in the vicinity of the current development in question relocating the existing tree pose danger for any and the properties with a falling branches and so forth i on intersections the tree will be better where it is right now in terms of community appreciation of the tree and i suggest that we should give attention to that. >> thank you. i have a question your at 69 nordoff street your property is directly behind the tree that is removed. >> right this is the
3:56 pm
demonstration area and that's my property here. >> and this is the property in the back so actually, i will be in conflict that the relocation. >> so is the tree would be next to a building or next to your rear yard. >> if that had been in the rear of the existing development in conjunction with any property i will be impacted by it. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> other public comment? any other public comment on this item >> okay. seeing none then we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant you have 3 additional minutes. >> can i have the overhead. >> seeing here the trees from
3:57 pm
a photo in the 1900s were in the area wooded area back then commissioners, i want to begin any word with the urban forestry staff in their e-mail which he we got through the public records quote we're losing a significant tree the tree will exist but no longer be considered or considered significant hidden by a total of three houses then continues we can stick to our original denial and have the tree remain where it is end quote the decision to grant that was clearly not in concerted with the recommendations not legally authorized and no carefully administrative standards and not subject to environmental review it was the decision was made before the paper application was filed and made it was made for an application type of that didn't exist a
3:58 pm
legal challenge cried out advertise it i'm sorry, i have to speak from my heart i'm going to disheartened i'm a proud san franciscan and lived in the city when the director of dpw denied the redwood permit it reconfirmed we're a community full of folks more than maximizing investigators profit when i heard who the urban forest was i - the decision was reaffirmed i was shocked what makes it worse looefrg e leon about the backroom negotiations hillside in the public the system that allows 44 e-mails because it is possible not because it is do the right thing to decide that a significant tree was two important to remove at one point and then now not
3:59 pm
worthy for the public to enjoy we adjoin with the neighbors of the groups around the tree in obviously to have this redwood tree removed he leave with i the words of staff of the urban forestry i on intersections this is they can pull off something like that but you do not why waste those resources when it may not be possible to retain the tree and continues from a sustainability statement- is from a sustainability why invest in the watering just to pull off this transplant thank you. >> thank you, mr. gains. >> a question. >> do you want to tell us who the authority was of that memo you quoted from. >> if you want me to i will it
4:00 pm
was chris buck. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> okay. >> mr. cox. >> i wanted to speak mostly about the health of the tree itself as it currently exists i mean you've heard all kinds of dimensions from the sidewalk you need to know also there is a stairstep going down the side of the tree that is also constricting it's roots that was planned you asked how would the tree it is 70 so 75-year-old but lived in a constricted with the soil for the tree to sustain itself it is amazing it made it through the drought through there was rain