Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals  SFGTV  December 20, 2021 6:30pm-12:31am PST

6:30 pm
>> president honda will be the presiding officer tonight. also the president and city attorney who will provide us any needed legal advice at this evening. i the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city department that will be presenting before the board this evening.
6:31 pm
they are representing the planning department. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. we request you turn off or silence all phones and electronic devices so they won't disturb the proceedings. people are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute period. members of the public weren't affiliated have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. time maybe limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or if there are large numbers of speakers. hourly legal assistant will give us a warning when time is almost up. if you have any questions about requesting a rehearing, please e-mail board staff.
6:32 pm
public access and participation are paramount importance to the board. every effort has been made to replicate the in-person hearing process. to enable public participation, we are broadcasting and streaming the hearing live and we will have the ability to see public comment for each item on the agenda. they are providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watch the hearing on t.v., you can go to our website, cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on channel 26. the link to the stream is found on the home page of the website. public comment can be provided in two ways. you can join the meeting by computer, go to our website and click on the link or you can call 166-99-6833 and enter the id 87427406831. and we are broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you are
6:33 pm
watching a live screen -- stream or broadcast. listen to the public comment of the portion and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you'll be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star six. you will have two or three minutes depending on the agenda. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. there is a delay between life proceedings and when it is broadcast on t.v. or internet. it is important you reduce track the volume on your t.v. and computers are also his interference with the meeting. if any of the participants need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request to the board's legal assistant or send an e-mail to the board of us -- board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now we will swear in or affirm
6:34 pm
all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. juice where you'll give the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> think you. >> if you are a participant and not speaking, please put your speaker on mute. we do have one housekeeping item. the parties for item number eight would like the appeal continued to march 23rd, 2022. so they can continue working on settlement discussions. >> president honda, do you want to make a quick disclosure?
6:35 pm
>> i wish to make a disclosure that i have a financial conflict. my wife owns a property within 500 feet of the matter being hurt, so i will step out of the hearing until i brought back in. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, we would need a vote to move this item. >> so moved. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this item to march 23rd. is there any public comment on this motion? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comments. on that motion... [ roll call ] >> that motion carries and the matter is continued. let's call president honda back in.
6:36 pm
>> that was fast. i didn't have a chance to fill my water. >> very efficient here. we are now moving on to item number 1, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak within the board jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment? i don't see anyone so we will move on to item two. commissioner comments and questions? >> i have none. >> we will move onto item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion are the minutes of the december 2021 board meeting. >> unless anyone has any changes or additions, i have a motion to bring those minutes to the record. >> i will make a motion.
6:37 pm
>> we have a motion from vice president swig to adopt the minutes. is there any public comment on that motion? if so, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. on that motion... [ roll call ] >> that motion carries 5-0. we are now moving on to item number 4. planning department approval. the property is 355 oak park drive. appealing the issuance on september 22nd, 2021 for an alteration permit. a new deck, new windows and two new doors. seventy-eight square foot addition at level one at the rear of the residents. new bathroom and new half bathroom at level one.
6:38 pm
plumbing and electrical as required. we will hear from the appellant first. i believe they have their attorney here to represent them. >> yes. can everyone hear me? >> welcome. >> thank you so much. good evening, president honda and commissioners. i represent the appellant km a vladimir who live on either side of 355 oak park drive. they are appealing the permit to build a large deck because it will dramatically impact their privacy and it actually does not comply with the building code and residential design guidelines. just a little bit of background about my clients, they moved in to the location with her husband 36 years ago. vladimir lives with the permit on the other side with his wife and 5-year-old daughter. they love living here and they
6:39 pm
think it is a wonderful place for family as well. we are really happy to have them move into the area, and they were very welcoming. matt and cindy immediately engaged in a remodel which was very disruptive, but they were supportive of the remodel and happy to have them in the neighborhood. the issue came when matt and cindy came to the appellant concerning the deck. at first, you know, they thought it would be on the ground level, and they were fine with that because it had enough privacy impact, however when my clients did not use the plan, turns out it would be on the second level, and the issue is, the properties on the street are all aligned. a deck on the second level has significant privacy impacts that you wouldn't see with a similar deck on the first level.
6:40 pm
unfortunately, the permit holders have attempted to muddy the waters and say negative things about my clients. all they want to do at the end of the day is preserve their right to privacy and make sure that matt and cindy are complying with all the rules. prior to the hearing, we sensed them a proposal for a compromise that is a little bit smaller that would eliminate the privacy concerns of my client. unfortunately, they didn't even respond to our proposal so we had to move forward with the hearing today. ultimately we are asking commissioners to modify the permit so that it doesn't impact the same degree the privacy implications that my client had or, you know, ultimately make them go back and follow the rules and actually apply for a co- compliant project. i would like to take the next couple minutes if my client is available for him to give a few minutes of public comment. vladimir, are you there?
6:41 pm
>> yes. i have two minutes, right? >> yes, go ahead. >> good evening and thank you for looking at our case. my name is vladimir. i live at 347 oak park drive with my wife and 5-year-old daughter. the issues is our family's privacy are at stake. we moved into this quiet, nice neighborhood and this specific house to raise our family and enjoy our private life. it looks like this is about to be changed and destroyed, it seems to me. there would be an unobstructed clear view for anyone standing into the deck into our family room, dining room, and downstairs bedroom. i do understand that they are our neighbors, and they want to have the deck, but i don't want to let it happen because of our hard earned privacy, at the same time. i don't want to completely
6:42 pm
oppose the idea, therefore we offered to work it out and decrease the deck size so it would still have some privacy left for us, and they can enjoy the deck. for our conversation with them, i understood that matt and cindy want to have dinners on the second level, that is the reason to have it bigger. as far as they see, for all those larger gatherings, the downstairs ground lever deck can be used and the proposed deck would sit at table with several people. i understand this, it is just not fair to do that at our privacy's expense. to sum it up, i don't want anyone to watch 24/7 and my daughter's room where she sleeps, changes, plays or does homework. i don't want anyone to watch my family eat in the dining room or when they are working. i don't want anyone to look at our living room space.
6:43 pm
this is basically an unobstructed view of our private life 24/7. that is all. thank you. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> i just wanted to go ahead and share my screen. i prepared just a few slides. >> i can pause time until you get your slides. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. can you see the slideshow? >> no. >> okay. i apologize. >> you have to put it in your queue. >> there you go. thank you all for your patience. just to piggyback off of what vladimir said, i want to give more information. one is, if you can see from the picture, these houses are all aligned. the privacy implications are greater than they would be and
6:44 pm
other properties are just a separate situation then these ones. as you can see from the diagram, they have issued the proposed deck. here's what the line of sight would be into the home of the client. here is vladimir's home on the left and kay's home on the right. on the top floor they'd be able to see into most of the front living space. we're not talking about a little bit of a privacy impact, this is a fairly significant privacy impact. here are a couple of other diagrams, just to give you a better sense of how close the deck is. this is a picture from inside their home looking out at where the deck would be if it was approved. you can see from the visual, we are talking about a close distance and a very large deck given the circumstances. i also wanted to bring to your
6:45 pm
attention, once we had a chance to see the plan for the project, are architect determines that they do not comply with the building code. this building section requires that the decks not be more than 9 feet when they are extended over other living spaces. in this case, the picture on the right-hand side is the ground floor of the proposed project, and there is a bedroom and a family room. and because of the code section, the deck cannot be 10 feet. it should not have been approved at that distance. that is just another reason why the project can't move forward. >> great. i wanted to mention a few other things, i wanted to mention the ground floor space of the property has a large patio area that can be used for family meals, other decks that the
6:46 pm
permit holders mentioned are just different situations. these are on the ground floor. the decks have different privacy impacts. ultimately, our proposal is a slightly smaller deck, 60 deep, 3 feet pulled away from the property, and just look at the dramatically left side. >> that is time. thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> we have a question from president honda. >> looking at your brief, it shows that the back of the properties are shown here. the property next to 361 oak currently have a deck that you are currently saying proceeds that? >> the neighbor came to k. and they had a negotiation. this deck is 5 feet deep. it does not have as many privacy
6:47 pm
impacts. they were able to work together and find something that works. my clients are fine with a 5-foot deck as well if that is what the permit holders prefer. >> thank you. that was my question. thank you. >> thank you, we will now hear from the permit holders. welcome. >> good evening, president honda and members of the board. thank you for hearing our case tonight. >> i matt's wife and this is our daughter, sierra. >> the permit that we received is 100% code compliant. this permit was not issued in error or in violation of the planning code. we want our project to be used. we believe that they -- we are
6:48 pm
constructing a small deck that was approved by the department. we believe this should be allowed to proceed as planned. hopefully you have had enough of an opportunity to read our briefs. there are three main points that we want to reiterate and emphasize. number 1, our deck is modest in size and there are numerous examples of similar or larger nearly identical decks in our neighborhood. number 2, this appeal is about trying to protect views and not really about privacy concerns. the last thing, we want to make it clear we are not changing the grade for any portion of the project. the height of the deck was measured properly from the existing grade in the rear yard and it measures about eight and a half feet tall. >> all the houses are detached. in our case, separated by 8 feet of distance from each of our next-door neighbors. you can see here on google earth
6:49 pm
images just how far apart they are. this deck that we're talking about today is only 10 feet in depth. picture two, please. here is a photo provided in our exhibit that shows additional 10-foot deck. as you can see, it is very reasonable in size considering there are much larger decks in our neighborhood, including one that measures 14 feet deep on our block. picture three, please. we included photos of that deck as exhibit b. the owner of the deck was granted an over-the-counter permit for deck construction just like we were. picture for, please. this city signed off on the project with no issues in march of 2016 and no neighbor on the block. please show pictures five a and i've. here are pictures of other similar decks in the neighborhood and they are just some of the many examples.
6:50 pm
our proposal fits in perfectly with the neighborhood character and we had the support of the organization. picture six, please. we attached a support -- support letter as exhibit s. we also have the support of many neighbors who signed a petition circulated in less than 24 hours time to back our project. that is attached as exhibit i, what you are seeing their. they were built over 60 years ago and these homes are now being turned over to new owners and were modelled one by one. we were attracted to the task because of the opportunity to update it to fit a more modern lifestyle. this includes installing a deck, which many other neighbors had already done. the main reason why we bought the house is because of the beautiful mounting view -- mountain view that you see
6:51 pm
there. we have shown in our brief that this 10-foot deck also does not pose any unreasonable impacts of reviews and privacy of the neighbors. and the photos that we took, you can see that there is actually minimal impact of privacy to both adjacent neighbors. nine a and b., please. because of the sizable distance between the homes in the neighbor's windows, the sharp angle doesn't allow subjects on the deck to see much more than the side of the windows. this appeal was filed to attempt to improperly protect views. we want to point out that the photos included confirm that the impact to the views is also minimal. regardless, the planning code does not protect the views. >> the brick will be less than 10 feet above grade. picture 10, please. the appellants argue that the deck height should be measured
6:52 pm
from what they call a natural grade located at or below the retaining wall. however,, it is important to understand the deck is not located at the retaining wall, on top of the retaining what tall -- retaining wall, or below. this deck will extend several feet short of the retaining wall to hold the structure of the house. they are misrepresenting the facts. picture 11, please. it falls several feet short of the retaining wall. it is confirmed on our project drawings. picture 12, please. there is no basis in the planning or billing code if the -- as the appellant wants to do. code does not differentiate between natural or artificial grade that may or may not have existed decades ago when the house was constructed. >> i'm a native san franciscan. all families -- usually small
6:53 pm
families move out of the city. it is a privilege for me to raise my daughter here. it is a family oriented neighborhood where our daughter can ride her bike freely. >> our project represents a small fraction of what code allows us to build. alex, picture 14, please. it allows us to extend our building to cover 70% of the lot and popped out for the required rear yard. picture 15, please. what we are asking here is a small deck like this one. based entirely in the billable area of the lot. if we are allowed to go ahead, it will set a precedent. we ask that the board denied this appeal, affirm our permit and let us go forward with our privacy so we can move into our
6:54 pm
home. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. >> good evening, president honda and members of the board. i the deputy zoning administrator. it is in the rh one zoning district. it is approximately 4800 square feet in size. the property is down sloping towards the rear. the project is to extend the ground floor by 3 feet, filling in the recessed areas under the second floor projection. in addition to the 77 square foot extension, it also includes a new deck off the second floor. it measures 25 feet in width, 10 feet in depth, and 8 feet and 10 inches in height.
6:55 pm
the two main issues raised by the appellants are potential impacts to privacy, inadequate neighborhood notification. in terms of neighborhood notification, none is required for the planning code. the deck is less than 10 feet in height and well within the billable area of the lot. the great -- the grade and elevation from which the height is measured from affects the grade. while the appellant said the height should be measured from the natural grade, which they believe is far lower than the existing grade, the planning department has not been provided any evidence of that. the development pattern on the subject lot faces -- is consistent with all the houses close to the street and only beyond the patio edged is the slope drop down towards the rear. the proposed footing for the deck is within the level patio
6:56 pm
area, which is not only the existing grade, but likely the natural grade or close to the natural grade as well. as referenced on the plans, the height of the deck is 8 feet, 10 inches, which makes it exempt from neighborhood modification. in terms of impact to privacy, the planning department does not believe that the design of the deck is inconsistent with other similar size decks that we would review and approve over-the-counter. it is only one story in height, and more importantly, setback from both sides. the project complies with the planning code. it is consistent with the residential design guidelines, and the department recommends approval of the project. however, based upon recent information, we did learn that the depth of the deck can only be 9 feet in depth, not 10 feet. this is per the building code. with that, i would like to pass the presentation on to matt
6:57 pm
greene to elaborate on the building code. thank you. >> thank you. welcome, inspector green. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, president honda and commissioners. my name is matthew green from the department of building inspection. this permit was approved on october 20th, 2021. there is a san francisco building code amendment which states the depth of all structural projections, including balconies, decks, porches, roofs should not exceed 9 feet when going over exterior wall openings for spaces intended for human occupancy. i reviewed the plans this afternoon and the rooms below the deck are going to be a bedroom and family room, so they are intended for human occupancy.
6:58 pm
it appears we could approve this one in error that the deck should not extend more than 9 feet. the plans to show it extending 10 feet. our recommendation would be to amend that detail and approve the permit. thank you. >> okay. thank you, inspector green. we will now move on to public comment. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. if there is anyone here for public comment, please raise your hand. okay, i don't see any hands -- i do see a hand raised. one moment. walter cathlyn? please go ahead. >> yes, i live at 157 warren drive. i have lived here over 41 years. i live in a house just below the
6:59 pm
homes that are being discussed above. forest hills is a community and neighborhood of over 400 homes located on the western slope of twin peaks, above seventh avenue, situated between ucsf and laguna honda hospital. it is, in essence, the unit development with the zoning and constructed by standard builders from 1959, to the early 1960s. all the homes are virtually alike, constructed over a two car garage with two or three bedrooms facing the street and living and dining rooms in the rear, looking out in a vast range of views from the entrance to the bay and the headlands, to the golden gate bridge to the north, to mount davidson park in daly city to the west. the last homes built in this development, the homes on the 200 block of crest mont, built in 1964, were all built with two decks. upper and lower. [please standby for captioner
7:00 pm
7:01 pm
above an extendedroom i built on the ground level of my house . the only two homes that do not have depths have been tenant occupied for the last 20 years. mrs. dillard died 20 years ago the other mrs. lum died 87. all i can say is people in these neighborhoods want to live on the upper level oftheir house . they want to use them and they want access to a deck that makes sense from the dining room, living roomor their whole . finding that fight in which is likeputting a hallway on the back of a whole . it makes no sense. people today are building up the zones and i assure you davies owns thatclosing this will have decks that time .
7:02 pm
>> anymore publiccomment for this item ? please raise your hand. i don't see any so we will move onto remodel . you have three minutes. >> i'm just goingto go ahead . i want to share myscreen so hopefully everyone can see that . i wanted toreemphasize how this debt is different than other decks we've been talking about. it has these direct lines of site between clients homes . other decks like the one we've been talking about 229 oak park drive havethese mature trees on either side so there's no privacy impact on the neighbors . that's not the case that we have here. other decks are on the first level so they just don't impose the same type of privacy impact that we are dealing with in this situation and unfortunately i didn't hear
7:03 pm
anything from matt and cindy showingany concern for their neighbors on how their exact might impact . however as dvi emphasized the department doesn't comply with the building code and i encourage the commissioners to consider this slight modification in a proposal that will protect the privacy of the neighbors while giving max and cindy the ability to have that 4 x 4 foot table so they can still eat as a family but it wouldn't have the same dramatic impact on their neighbors and their neighbors children who have been private spaces they want to keep as well. this seems like a fair compromise for everyone and we look forward to answering any questions . >> we will now hear from the permit holders, mister bailey andms. chen . >> deck level scaffolding show
7:04 pm
how little can be seen from th closest point of distance . our proposed deck , we did not alter an image to exaggerate what can be seen from that muc distance . we also want to remind the board there's still distance between homes in the neighborhood. nearly 8 feet separate us from the adjacent neighbors . the appellant's proposal to reduce the size of the deck by more than half will not improve pipes as they would bring the subjects of the deck even closer to the appellant's windows. more distance with a deeper deck size would actuallyimprove privacy . we would consider adding landscape as the public's concern. this is a measure that is recommended on the guidelines for privacy concern. thank you. >> president: wewill now hear from the planning department .
7:05 pm
>> current inspectors comments about the need to reduce the deck to no more than nine feet in depth the planningdepartment supports this change and i have no further comments . you. >> president: we will now you're from dvi. >> no further comments from dv . >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president:who would like to start first ? >> i will. >> president: all right. >> so from the left to the right we were in real life. i will and i don't have any problem with this project . the property can see clearly if the statues are that it can be no more than nine and obviously itcannot be more than nine . maybe the other commissioners have an idea of a compromise that narrows it to six or seven
7:06 pm
while still not compromising the deck to a ridiculous amount but i would be comfortable in approving this debt at the nine foot depth which is the statut . >> president: commissioners? >> district chairman here. i agree with what the president just suggested. it appears the proposed deck mitigates the background noise there's a couple kids in the background as you may have noticed . i agree with president swig in that is the deck is the plant based on theadditional site . so i would be supportive of that proposal. >> president: thank you
7:07 pm
commissioner chang. i'm quite familiar familiar with forest hills. i was close to forest hills an clarendon is my and i have a home there is similar in design with five feet , rather than the eight feet through my homes. but i have multiple decks but my main level deck although its code complainti reduced it . i do feel in this case because it's a property in forest knolls and the fact that the grades are either severe flow or downslope there's not much use out of the rear yards so i think again, as building and planning have said that nine feet is the maximum we can do. if you would like to make a motion. i guess we have to grant the appeal and condition the permit
7:08 pm
that the code complaint to nine feet. >> the deck would be reduced to nine feet. did you want torequire any privacy ? >> a problem with privacy is this is in neighborhood not in our view but it would add more blockage. >> and this motion is made on what basis ? >> that the project is code compliantat nine feet . >> we have a motion from president to grant the young issue the permit on the condition it be reduced to nine feet on the basis that this will make the project code compliant on the motion commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] this motion carries 520.
7:09 pm
this matter is concluded and we move on to item number five appeal number 100, leavenworth and three hoh system buildinginspection . properties 17 reed street getting issuance on october 21 to june trc of an alteration permit at 500 square feet additional floor on existing two feet single-family house including two new bedrooms and onenew bathroom , interior remodel existing floor basemen , one existing powder room and install new nsc fires from a systems through the entire building. this is building permit 20/20 01 55 and we will hear from the first. and i believe we are going to hearfrom mister cheong . you have seven minutes. and you are on mute. >> can you?
7:10 pm
>> we can hear you.>> thanks for having me here. >> there's someoneelse who has your name . >> there! a few people that have mining. >> if you havethe name clinton chong and you're not clinton shown can you rename yourself ? pleaserename yourself, thank you. please go ahead . >> so again thanks everyone for taking the time to look over our appeal. i am winston john and i was on 37 read and i'm part of the leavenworth and read hoh so we basically have a tic that adjacentto each other . on leavenworth street at reed street. the property being built on 17 reed is both of us . and you know, we have a couple requests. mainly to do with a continuance
7:11 pm
as the defendants at 17 reed have not properly put up there physical holds and i do have another member of our hoh and myapologies , i'm not to share my screen but i have another person representing us inthe ho a and share the screenshot a bit further than i think . >> who is that person? >> that would be carl, are you here?>> clerk: do youwant to share your screen and we will restart the time ? >> why don't you send me the files. >> i sent it to youremail . >> apologies about the delay. >> sorry aboutthat . when did you send them? >> i just resent it just in case to make sure it's at the
7:12 pm
top of your inbox. >> we will restart time to seven minutes. >> he spoke forsome time and we stopped it . >> i'm opening it now. >> clerk: we cansee the screen . >> if you want togo to page 3 it has the picture from our roof . yes, this one. and then if you canfull-screen on that . just wanted to show everyone is only the two-story. have been put up on the property so we don't know how hard want to extendback so that will determine some of the privacy issues that may pose . 1, 241 read whichhas about a below .sorry is notpictured
7:13 pm
in this photo . as well as possibly 37 read into my munich. we just need to may request a continuance for the architect to the second set of story poles onthat unit . >> clerk: you stillhave more time. did you want to address the board argued on ? >> that's all from my side. >> i've lost time. >> i think the other people on the hoh want to have certain things to say and there are other people in theneighborhood would also like to use their time in public comment as well . >> president: areother officers in the hoh want tospeak you indicated before. can they raise their hand ?
7:14 pm
because i don't see any other handrails . who wants to speak from the hoh>> can i ask a question for clarity ? who actually gets to speak on this case? are the ho a members allowed to speak on theirpublic comment ? >> clerk: the officers of the ho a are appellants and if they're not officers they can speak during the summit. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> clerk: who else would like to speak as an officerof the ho a . >>kelly and erin, are you guys there ? >> i'm the president of our hoa so i am supporting clint's request for an extension because at the current moment we do not have all the information about what hindrance it will be to our properties.
7:15 pm
>> president: it's confusing because you never mentioned you wanted to request a continuance. do we want to entertain a separate request for a continuance ?>> president: going over the material the appellant did not submit. >> one thing i can quickly add then would also be based on the design plans that were given to us and colin will show you the screen again but i apologize because it's hard to get a picture of this thing because it is on the second story but the design plans don't seem to match the story poles that were set. those seem to be a little bit higher and told us it would be so we wantto make sure it's accurate to what is reflected in the design plan . and then the only last thing that we have that we can note is that 17 reed has not been
7:16 pm
unoccupied in over 2 years. i know they had renters in theirmoved out after getting approval of the structural bill . we made the brief circumventing the city's regulations for owner occupancy to improve the proper valuesthrough remodeling . now it's only the last case that we have their speed. >> clerk: ic erin gerard, you are also an officer, please go ahead you are on mute . >> thank you. another item that would like to bring to the attention of the board andthank you for hearing our case . so my unit 41 read as you can see from the drawings, there's literally no distance in between these buildings whatsoever.
7:17 pm
in contrast to for example the last case being heard about 20 minutes ago . there's not four feet or eight feet. but right up against the building. in terms of being able to have not only privacyconcerns but direct access to our building , atmultiple points , specifically i have a deck right off of my unit that would be accessible based on the drawings that we've seen . and obviously we don't ... we don't have the funds to hire an attorney. we haven't gotten to that point yet but we will entertain it if necessary. the other issue we've mentioned in the briefing is that numerous, multiple owners within our complex did not receive the proper or appropriate notification on the permit and that was just one or two owners i don't know the number .
7:18 pm
clinton and carl, if you want to own it on back butit was i think in the five, six, seven owners at no notice whatsoever .that they received of this permit in earlier in theprocess . >> was close to half of the residents of the hoa. >> clerk: are you finished? >> i'm not exactlyfully clear on what the process is . we're open to ask clint mentioned earlier a continuance. more time to get clarification that construction isn't just ran down our throats and something is put up that inappropriate or a massive impedance on our security and privacy . >> clerk: i believe we have a question from president honda.
7:19 pm
>> president: my first question is is there a reason why ... i see many members of the board why they were not submitted because it becomes challenging when there's only one story and what's the answer to that question . >> could you repeat that question? >> prior to coming to the board both a pilot and permit holder at a time to submit questions or briefs. and in our package that we're going through there were no briefs supplied by the appellant which is your party. >>apologies. i did send a breathing . i actually tested positive for covid-19 and was sick for 2 weeks and missed that. i was hoping someone else would have cut back but i guess that was just completely missed so my apologies.
7:20 pm
>> president: looking at the scope of the project you said there was no notification really are you saying you were just unaware of this or that you did not receive notification ? >> there were certain parties that did not receive notification, not just in our ho a also other owners on washington street down the street from wheat. >> the last thing, idon't believe story poles are required to be put up . i think that would be up to the project sponsor but i'll ask questions of the apartment after. thank you very much. >> clerk: ibelieve we have a representative , mister sam fong or sonny gowda will be speaking. hello.
7:21 pm
thank you court of appeals. my name is cindy, i'm the designer of this project and the existing cottage is for mister julie his family. the proposal design will bring that noncompliance structure up to the current codes. the current will include a living room and two bedrooms facing the rear. the total building area is 1866 feet. too i guess the appellant's concerns. the pre-application executions sent out in 2020 with a plan and then the plants were a few times, the planning department had notification on different services in 2020. built objections were accepted and they've had myself on
7:22 pm
number since august 2020 and could have reached out to me forquestions . they could have passed the content to ho a but they did not reply for one year.this story poll is not required by planning department. we offered to refill two-story poles at the front and back time the proposed second floor reflected a total initial design of 10 feet. after a meeting with neighbors the owner admitted to eight feet. the scope of work was reduced to the front story poll height was notadjusted . the existing roof is sloped. there's no way a story poll could be installed as it goes beyond the side of the property line. for one year no neighbor from
7:23 pm
the ho a reach out for any questions regarding a proposed time and the proposed building height was on plan. they were providedto help original as our design . appellants claim they have difficulty understanding the summations of the plan and wish to confirm theproposed type they are able to check the height themselves with a tape measure from his property line window . and also i'd like to see mention of maybe the ordinance by the city planning departmen on the list . the requirement from 80 009 mentions window openings closing on the property lines and permitting under building code 705.8. may not be able to provide required ventilation or address. visual effects and i believe
7:24 pm
the power of the building on the appellant as to property line windows and they mentioned as a privacy issue but there's regulations about property line windows that they shouldn't be used for light and ventilation so it should be fixed and if not there would be a privacy issue for him . and i'd like to request a board of appeal to deny the continuation because this whole application went for two years and the planning departments went into unification a year ago and we didn't receive any objection from reed h away.
7:25 pm
>> we've learned about his balcony in my brief and i showed our guideline of the rear elevation of our proposed berm with the neighbors building.what other elevation be the one read on the balcony is five feet off the ground and right next to the building entry. that was part of the design for fixing the issue in our proposed second edition is the five feet, there's a five feet setback on his balcony and it's at the height of 20 feet off the ground. and i don't think there's access to his balcony.
7:26 pm
>> are you done? >> i did want to understand the thing about occupancy, it's troubling to year ago when the pandemic started his wife and children were on the east coast. so they had to leave a room there and in order to help with their financial boarded they had to rent out spaces for a short period. that's it. >> we have a question from president honda. >> given your testimony, the questions i have. you saidthere were two members filed a discretionary review . >> correct.
7:27 pm
the neighbor is wrong on the lead. and the neighbor north of 17 read facing washington street. >> president: this had a long process before the planning commission you said your client voluntarily reduced the bulk and mass of the building. did you explain that and the other question is could you explain pre-application neighborhood meetings that you had and how that went and how you had any complaints at the time. >> i think the owner agreed with the neighbor to lower the ceiling height from 10 feet to two a standard eight feet. because thelobby is really narrow . it's over 2000. so the only window is facing
7:28 pm
the rear so initially webought 10 feet was high . but we do care about our neighbors so we went to eight feet high. weadded one skylight . the pre-application was a meeting i think of three or four neighbors. and also to their questions it was a short meeting because we didn't have any questions and the pre-application package included a plan so our neighbors have a project plan and i guess it was pretty clear and that's why the meeting was adjusted to half an hour. it was pretty short. >> to your recommendation. or any of the 17 read or the ho a members part of that free
7:29 pm
applications are meeting? >> know, only the plaintiff . >> clerk: we will now hear from the planning department. >> deputy zoning administrator, 17 reed street is in the orange to zoning district. the lot is approximately 1100 square feet in size and it's a one story over basement single-family dwelling constructed in 1906 it was evaluated and determined not to be a historicresource. the project is to construct a new vertical edition approximately 500 square feet in size . the vertical edition will sit on top of the same building and not result in any change to the buildings statistics. the proposed wall of the district aligns with football andthat it's setback seven feet six inches from the main wall of the existing building .as you just heard during the
7:30 pm
section 311 unification process to the artwork filed by the neighbor across the street on read and adjacent neighbor to the north. however upon revisions made by the project sponsor the lower the overall height of the third story by about two feet three inches and redesigning the window at the front of the dr requester withdrew their objection to the project and the testimonies that april 15, 2021 public hearing. the planning commission voted 7 to 0 to not takediscretionary review and improve the project as revised . the appeal was filed by the neighbors to the south. the concerns are about white andprivacy impact . the department recognizes the development pattern on this block but we believe proposed design is compatible and takes into account the nearby neighbors. thewindows are appropriate in size and the third story edition is in scale with the adjacent buildings .
7:31 pm
any of which are much taller than the proposed project. the third story edition is setbackseven feet six inches from the main rear wall of the building . this reduces any potential impactfor light and air .the deck of the third story is also setback three feet from both sides property line thereby addressing potential impacts to privacy. theproject complies with the planning code and is consistent with the residential design guidelines and the department recommends approval of the project . this concludes my presentation. >> clerk: we have a question from president honda. >> president: the question i have and thatneighborhood is pretty's older san francisco . the building proximities are very tight i believe i heard that a grocery store guy designed all their streets west north of market street but the question i have is i believe
7:32 pm
representation for permit holders said that there are property line windows so the planning or billing address that in the new construction as being proposed? >> two things. property line windows are not protected by the planning code andthe second is based upon the side elevation , the addition doesn't appear to block any of those property line windows. i believe the top of the third story sort of reaches to the lower bottom sell of those windows. >> president: so it's not an enforcement issue unless there's a complaint made or is that automaticbecause there's a new building, is there enforcement ?>> no, we're not planning to investigate those permits. >> that wouldrequire a rate that is quite costly .
7:33 pm
thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> at you. it's perfect for 17 reed was referred to the building department on june 3 2021. it went through the final building approval on july 27, 2021 after allthe departments approval permit was issued on october 21, 2021 . the construction addenda have not been approved yet. the questions about the property line windows av 009 was adopted in 2002. i checked on google earth this afternoon at those windows, those windows in question were present in 2002 so the adjacent property would not have to fill in those windows but they would not have any sales based on when they were installed.
7:34 pm
any further questions i'd be happy to ask ofthis department recommends holding this permit . >> one quick question inspector green. if the property line window was installed prior to 2002 it would have the removal but if there's enforcement do they have to bring them to the department to fire windows? if there's a complaint, is that what you're asking?>> president: is there a complaint or are they grandfathered in and the condition that iraq? >> we have to determine when they are installed. that's the difficult part and if we could prove they were installedthey should have been fire rated and there would be a notice of violation . but proving that is the difficult part. how would we determine where those windows were installed? >> thank you inspector read.
7:35 pm
>> clerk: we arenow moving on to public comment. is there anybody here to provide public comment on this item ? kevin fox, please go ahead. >> caller: i'm president of the hoa. >> i'm sorry, since you are an officer of the ho a can only testify during your partiestime so you have three minutes in remodel . publiccomment is for those people who are not officers of the ho way . >> i'm not part of the ho way that filed this appeal. >> i'm sorry,you're not part of the ho way that filed the appeal ? i thought, go ahead. >> caller: i'mpresident of the ho way to the building to the north . i'm one of the people who filed the dr and i just want to say that i appreciate the sponsor has modified the plan supposedly.
7:36 pm
i have not seen any confirmation that will actually happen and the greenstreet ho way that is appealing this, their experience is totally consistent with my experience . this author has said 303 people came to theneighborhood meeting because people didn't know about it because they did not notify people . i was notified in a handwritten envelope that was not put in the mailthat was to my address. it was totally by chance .i did not receive any response when i tried to contact the sponsor for many months until i filed thedoctor they did not respond . and when i asked for a study they sent something that was could hardly be considered a shout out study considering it shows the sun in one position for the entire year until we filed the dr they did notappear
7:37 pm
to be interested in talking to neighbors. i hope that i'm wrong about that . butthat's been my experience with them on their gr filing they had said the place is uninhabitable . if the building was remodeled in 2004. it's notuninhabitable . they say they need to update the code, i don't know what code that is but it's uninhabitable, it is habitable. i can't live there but they do live there. i'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt in my experience it's consistent with the hoa filing the appeal . >> clerk: anyone else here to provide public comment, please raise your hand . okay. taylor novartis. >> good evening president honda. i live just around the corner on taylor street and i've lived
7:38 pm
here a little over 10 years now and i understand residents concerned about the district and the outlines and just confined neighborhood we all live in . we share the same air, same like and lift essentially amongst each other. it's kind of seems like the onlyopportunity here these days is to build up . obviously taking into the neighbors considerations i've been fortunate to be a guest of leavenworth hoa who happened to be the appellants' of this property and you know, over the years visiting the property i've admired the sweeping views from their decks to thegolden gate bridge to the northwest and goldengate parks to the west. and just overall , i'm concerned that we live in such a nice community and i think this is a little offhand but i
7:39 pm
kind of understand the lack of communication from the builder here for the occupants of the neighbor to thenorth . so i just like the board to take into consideration the fact that it seems like the information provided by the people filing the application or the party filing the application has been rather limited so that's just the general communication. that is all. >> clerk: mister ciotti, sensor the permit holder you can only speakduring rollout is there any other public comments, please raise your hand . okay, i don't see any hands raised so we will move on to remodel and hear from the appellants. youhave three minutes , mister chong.
7:40 pm
>> a couple things from when sonny was speaking. she mentioned i waspart of the pre-application meeting to see the design, that never happened . i never attended any meeting otherwise i would have held ho way and at the timei was texting i was not part of the hoh officers . i was purely just a member of the hoa and then we did a vote in 2021 and i was voted in to an officer role. another thing is she also mentioned that the owners haven't occupied that unit in i forgot how many years she decided but i've known that we were actually there were neighbors in that unit for a while who actually did call with a lot of noise and complaints but the only reason i'm bringing up security issues is the used parties and they would havea lot of people over and they do have a balcony to .
7:41 pm
and if they're going to have another balcony ontop , that just gives a lot more people access to our property on the leavenworth and read ho a. so that's why we are planning this security and privacy issues. i don't know if there's anything else you want to add because i don'twant to take up the whole three minutes . >> i want to second the idea that this has been significantly occupied for the last year and a half that i've lived there until very recently . so the idea that it was a pandemic thing doesn't make any sense because i moved in prior to the pandemic and there were people living there that were throwing parties and as a 30-year-old iappreciate parties . i like them but like, they were excessive . and so that just doesn't jive. a lot of people have not gotten notice. that's why there were people at themeetings because we didn't know about it . so i refutemost of what was said previously .
7:42 pm
>> clerk: you. we will now, do we have opposed question from president tran five. >> president: how long have yo lived in theproperty , would you repeat ? >> i moved in october 2019. i received one notice but did not receive other notices that other people in the units received. it seems to besomewhat hit or miss on receiving notices . >> we will now hear from the permitholder , mister biaggi you have three minutes. >> thank you director. for allowing me to speak. i would like to give some background about myfamily and why i am applying for this permit . back in 2017, both my wife and
7:43 pm
i got the job in san francisco. while we were living in the south day so we were commuting one hour and a half each way for the new job opportunity. so at that time we decided to buy a house in 17 read and we moved in in 2017. at that time we had one kid. it's about what one-year-old. and at the end of 2019 my wife was at the end and that's the time that we are thinking about adding another story because at that time we have two bedrooms and a very small kitchen that is not serving the needs of a family of four. that is why we were leaving there for two years but then it's not habitable for our family anymore. we started the process with our designer and at the beginning
7:44 pm
of 2020 pandemic, we kind of saw the news and also seeing the increase so we are like my wife being pregnant for five months at that moment made us think that maybe it would be better to move to a more suburban area so we tried to welcome the new born in the east coast where we have some family there . so we made the decision to like moved there temporarily for si months . we also have at least two practices so we moved there and we planned to move back to san francisco around 2020 september but the pandemic kept working at that time so we feel like maybe we should hold on to this
7:45 pm
east coast new place for a longer time. at that time we because of the financial burden we decided to lease the place out so we have a couplefriends in san francisco . we asked them to clean up everything and try to rent it out and the new tenant moved in in december and decided to move out because of job location change in september soit's about one year . yes, that's the whole story of why i'm not there during the pandemic. and also we have a newborn last year and now is like two years old. >> clerk: thank you. mistergerard, your rebuttal time is over so please lower your hand here . we will now hear from the
7:46 pm
planning department. >> deputy zoning administrator and in terms of story i like to reiterate while they may be recommended to help neighbors understand the proposed project they are not a requirement of the planning code. with regard to neighborhood notification that planning department conducted notifications two times. one for the 311 notice another one for the dr hearing . theplanning department supports this project and recommends approval of the permit . >> one quick question ms. tam, are you done? >> i am to her testimony that. >> a few people did not receive notification. have they reached out to you or your department indicating such and has anyone verified whether they did or did not? >> this was not brought to my attention. until tonight. >> can't do anything if you
7:47 pm
don't know. >> i did go back and hear the recordings from the dr and again, no one brought up comments about not receiving notifications during the hearing.we put up posters. we sent out notice to both owners and occupants. >> had that been in the brief you wouldn't have been able to address it so i'm not going to end with you being able to wave a magic wand but thank you for commenting. i don't see our director. >> sorry, julieis not entering the meeting . >> i was going tostep up and the executive director for about five minutes .
7:48 pm
>> president: i think her internet may be unstable. sorry for the wait.can we just do the minutes until our executive director figures this out? i apologize for the delay. >> erin, your time to speak has ended so please don't raise it again. >> the joys of working from home. >> president: you had a quick question since our executive director is coming on . what was thecomment if you can keep it very short , we will entertainus . >> i wanted to you know, the f-16 owners in the complex when half of those didn't receive any notification i really think
7:49 pm
there's nothing wrong with the notification process. >> president: not to argue this too much but unfortunately that's what it is for and had we known this we be able to addressthis . the fact that many of your members of your hoa new office development, therewas a discretionary view on the commission . at which point unfortunately someone should have spoken up earlier so that could be addressed but having heard now in such a way satisfaction, it's hard for us to address that. >> my only request is just to ask inspector green to physically come to the locatio . >> after the hearing is done you can reach out to the department for our director an she will give you guidance and julie is amazing so after this hearing is done , she can reach out to them.
7:50 pm
madame director are you here? just for our audience, this is the first time everour executive director has had an issue . usually it's the old guy at the meeting. and again, thankyou for your patience . we still can't hear you madame executive director if you want, maybeyou could call in .until the technical stuff is taken care of. >> hall on. >> president: there we go. >> sorry about that, do you hearme . >> i'm going to get some
7:51 pm
elevator musicnext time this happens . >> we need the rain, right? we're moving on to the department of building inspection rebuttal. anything further? >> we have nothing else. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president: would anyone wan to start off first ? commissioner lazarus. >> i wasn't going to do much this meeting but nonetheless in theinterest of keeping things going , i feel this feels like a phantom appeal. there was no written material. it's unclear to me what the objectionsare . i'd understand if there was a problem with notice but as was stated half of the building got notice.
7:52 pm
so it sounds to me like it probably was done properly and something happened with the mail but i've justheard no basis forgoing forward with this appeal and my inclination would be to deny the appeal on the basisof the project is code compliant . >> president: any other commissioner like to chime in ? >> sounds like a good motion to me >> president: i'm sorry? >> soundslike a good motion to me . >> president: commissioner lazarus starting off again as we did last week . >>that's my motion . >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal on the basisthat it is codecompliant and properly issued . on that motion, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the appeal is denied. we are now moving on to the next item, item 68 through 6b.
7:53 pm
appeal number 21 076, 077, 078 and 079 and we have joshua klipp, lance carnes and david romano and dan eldridge versus public works, subject location various locations on market street appealing the issuance on july 30, 2021 bay area rapid transit part of it works order. approval to remove 32 street trees at various locations on market street for the construction of canopy structures over the parts and muni areas. if they cannot meetplanning requirements than a in lieu fee or appraised value shall be assessed whichever is greater . tree requirement replacement is required wheneverfeasible and shall be planted with at least 36 inch box trees .
7:54 pm
order number 205249, motion by commissioner lazarus board voted 4 to 1 to continue these items to december 15 because thedetermination holder did not timely provided brief to the opponents and the parties agreed to this later date . he will hear from the appellantsfirst. misterklipp, you have seven minutes . >> i'm going to share my screen . okay. can everyone see my ... >> president:yes we can . >> just let me makesure i got my notes . good eveningcommissioners and members of the public. parts and department representatives . this week we all watched tornadoes ripped across several states and leave a path of
7:55 pm
destruction in its wake in august we watched hurricane henry flood states in the northeast and cost flash flooding in tennessee . meanwhile the eastern states were underwater, thewest declared a water emergency as reservoirs fell tohalf of their normal levels . during the summer we watched as wildfires ripped across the central states . also succumbing to starvation. in june we saw he went to the pacificnorthwest bringing scores of people and animals . summer we saw hurricane ida ravage the state of louisiana. and amid all these acute disasters we ultimately feel the western us has been in the grips of a historic drought. more than 93 percent of the west is in drought this week
7:56 pm
with six feetentirely involved. including california oregon and idaho, utah and montana. climate change isn't coming, it'salready here . our planet is simultaneously burning and drowning us out . people are fleeing their homes and our air is beginning to choke us and our internal systems are buttressing. we no longer think about protecting endangered species. we're starting to wonder if we caneven protect ourselves . >> here in san francisco we unveiled the new climate action plan. a great plan with lots of brilliant people which unfortunately are entirely unfunded by treeplanting in accordance with our city's urban enforcement . a recent report from budget analysts office concluded weare planting enough trees to keep kennedy from tricking. but herein san francisco even with all its brilliance and
7:57 pm
knowledge :00 has run especially when it comes to construction of development . we are carrying out what little infrastructure wehave left . we haven't changed our purchase construction in order to preserve and create critical green infrastructure . trees which we needto clean our air to observe our co2 , to support our ecosystems, to preserve our health , to act as natural humidifiers and to keep moisture inour drought stricken cities . trees are replaceable aspect of our planet which is the fact that our ownclimate action plan acknowledges . here in san francisco trees are just a continual collateral damage and serve as the cheapest possible construction practice. this is nothyperbole, this is part of government entities contractual construction components . the canopy project this is the case there was never a consideration for tree preservation or
7:58 pm
replacement . there was never consideration for new construction which my office are connected to the loss. as a matter of fact it is in black and white and we won't do any of those things because we believe it will cost more money so why all around we have money for plasticroads but not for life-sustaining green infrastructure . i talk about all this in the context of climate change and sometimes i feel like a total crazy person. like you are all there on the scene call thinking get a grip josh, what does a dozen trees have to do with any of this and that is a great question. that isexactly the question that government entities just like bart and this board asked themselves over and over again . and in the end that's why our seas lose an estimated 36 million trees every year because we don't bother tolook at the whole , to think of our
7:59 pm
trees for the integrated connected role theyplay in our climate resilience . we think this particular project is important so it's not a big deal and as a matter of fact how many city entities are at this very moment approving theremoval of trees in their city ? if we think of it in isolation yes, it's no big deal but over the last couple hundred years that's how wegot to where we are today . that's how we got to all these disasters i've listed adnausea in the top of this presentation which are from this year alone . there was no one decision that brought us to wherewe are. it was billions of small choices, cheap and easy choices . this proposedremoval is anothe one of those choices . we're doing what's cheap and easy as we have collectively done all over the world . so what i would like to suggest is another, rather than make another cheap and easy choice
8:00 pm
that treats green infrastructure as disposable and turning the other way in the name of money that we need to make a difficult choice in the other direction. the last couple of months since the continuance i've been working with the assistant general manager of the parts on a mitigation plan and the plan is simple. first bring back the green roots on the bar escalator canopy so the swallowtail butterfly populace isn't decimated and 2, apply the tree removal to adjacent corridors and partner with a local community benefit district to maintain those trees . in this way we are not only greening the paths that pedestrians and bicyclists take to work andencourage the use of mass transit, we also add additional reading to our workforce element. by the way , agreed to earmark any plans and friends of the
8:01 pm
observatory has agreed to guid treatment since. this past week i was talking to my sisters . and she and her husband and two sons were in their early 20s i asked her how they were doing and they replied not good and when i asked why she said it's because they had their futures. we are very well aware and yet here we aretalking about another tree . yet we can't keep doing this and we have to show courage in the face of the status quo and creativity in the face of contractual limits . for this reason i request these moves and ithank you all for your time . >> thank you mister klipp. we will now hear from we had a question for commissioner lazarus. >> sorry.something you said that conversation that you've been having mister cliff and some disagreements you've reached, could you review that
8:02 pm
were clarified that for me. >> we haven't been able to reach what i would say is a finalized agreement. we have a sort of working proposal that has some logistical elements which still need to beresolved . and i know carl holmes is here and he can talk about that. i don't know if anyone representing the property is here or carl canspeak on adam's behalf but there are basically we have an agreement in principle . there are just logistics that need to be put into place. >> you have any sense of the time frame of what it might require two disagreements. >> i think mister holmes would be best i've doneeverything i can do but i think mister holmes the best . >> we will now hear from mister lance barnes for appeal number 21 077. welcome. you have sevenminutes . >> can you hear me?okay. good evening president, and
8:03 pm
commissioners. my name is lancecards. the appellate , can you go to the next slide. next slide. can you go one more. >> one moment please. >> give me a little time back here. >> i don't think we started your time yet. >> there we gotechnical difficulties . >> by introduction, for appellants got together and decided to challenge this tree removal and one of their
8:04 pm
comments and i decided to survey a foot to prepare for this. i've made a dpw request for all three determination from the 32 and we survey the 32 treason market street on the embarcadero twice. the trees caught the attention shown here. and they are not near asubway entrance. they do not interfere with the canopy placement . in this presentation wewill these trees and other mysteries . next slide please. for each subway entry site, i'm going to use a snapshot from the june 28 removal hearing which was will serve as photo reference. the upper right is the health inspector who narrowed in the video.
8:05 pm
next slide. the center foreground is a subway entry subject to trees at either end. next slide. at the lower left of the first photo is a gray circle that was a papertree. tree dc three seven and after that it shows conditions they are . on the right is the tree information report showing the tree was removed august 30 2019 more than two years ago. how can atree that was removed two years ago have condition fair . next slideplease. we will wrap up another error here . next slide. the 595 market street is near market and second. next slide. let's use that snapshot from the hearing video showing the
8:06 pm
entry, subway entry. next slide. dpw proposes removing all three trees shown here in this slide. next slide please. in november i noticed three trees that had been removed from east down to four point stops and there shown on the left. i asked about this since all trees are to remainuntil the appeal process is completed . dpw announced all three trees on market were removed due to an emergency from the october storms. trees to the leftlooked like they were sawn off . on the right nearby trees have no problems with the october storms. my guess, the metal parts stacked in front of the trees were delivered and space is
8:07 pm
needed for delivery and delivery trucksso they just put down the trees . next slide. here's a photo from december 11 after the october stormsshowing a 595 market street tree still in place . this is the right arrow pointing to it there. dpw said all trees weredamaged and removed which obviously is not true . next slide please. this second arrow, might be a false report of trees removed because of storm damage. next slide. this is the most intriguing one. 595 market for trees to be removed. next slide. there's the subway entry. each side of it has trees, 2 trees. okay. next slide.
8:08 pm
so dpw did not provide tree info reports for these trees in the public records request we did not have anopportunity to survey the . note to trees on the southwest side of the entrance as of the time of the june 28, 2021 video so they were there. next slide. so to trees not provided in dpw dock requests. next slide. sometime after the628 , removal hearing those two trees with the white arrows pointing were prematurelyremoved . next slide. so another file of your, trees pretty much removed at 575. that's one two. next slide. these are the trees i showed at the beginning. when asked dpw why these were
8:09 pm
enclosed in the market street removals since they are not near a subway entrance their answer was sphere. these two trees obviously are notpart of this project because they're not near a subway entrance . next slide. >> this is the explanation dpw gave us for why these two trees that were not part of the project are in fact part of the project and that they about the 575 market entrance. next slide please. so the best trying to explain how this works on the upper right-hand side you see 552 market 102 and down below, you
8:10 pm
see 575 market, three and four. and somehow the trees above ar supposed to all but the trees below and who knows what the heck we are talking about . next slide please. here we are back on the 553. they have a bus shelter. next slide please. here you're standing at the bus shelter and the tree you're looking down market street towards the 575 subway entrance . you can see it'sabout 300 feet away . so those trees just have no bearing onthis project next slide please .here you are at that entrance. i have no idea where this tree is supposed to go. >> you are at seven minutes. >> you will have more timein
8:11 pm
real . we willnow here from glenn rogers , the appellant for appeal number 21 zero 70 representing departments actio . mister rogers. >> can you hear me?>> clerk: yes, welcome. >> i am glenn rogers, the landscape architect and resident of the coalition for sanfrancisco neighborhoods . trees reduce the heat island effect where warm air rises fostering global warming to reduce more trees is to cause the environment tobe debilitated . i recommend that the tree replacement be greater than one-to-one. i recommend that tree replacement of a 12:45. green roads provide most
8:12 pm
benefit to the environment if they have a plant palette of california natives , california native plants. we would recommend if that particular solution is decided to go forward, that california natives be used in the plant palette. and the next thing i'd like to mention is the notion, the homeless could gain access to the arts roof was always a ridiculous statement. any justification to remove trees for this reason should be dismissed immediately. and that's the end of my report, thank you. >> thank you mister rogers. we will now here from the appellant for appeal number 21
8:13 pm
079 and i believe lee and del rich would be representing the appellant . you have seven minutes, welcome. >> thank you all ofyou. i'm going to be talking about vision . if you can start the slideshow . vision for our city. vision for a very beautiful and important cityin the world that has a legacy of beauty . next. we all love trees whether ther in a while , next. or in the city. these are essential parts trees in new york city where developers have consistently up till today trying to wipe them out. next . why do we loveeurope? becausethey plan their roads around trees protecting them above all . next .portland plans architecturearound trees. next . urban trees relax drivers of
8:14 pm
all kinds. it'sbeen proven as wellas people walking .next . portland would not build a walkway without trees. next. walking in new york is made pleasant because of trees. next. seattle preserves them in the middle of the street. next. we need a coalition, a city policy to protect our living trees from developers of any kind. withwhether it's parts, the sf mta , whomever. we need a city policy to protect the beauty of san francisco. next one, sorry. los angeles protects its trees. understands their value. next . chicago demonstrates here how all buildings in the future
8:15 pm
will be creating life-giving oxygen that we will no longer have from the disappearing rai forest. if you think it's funny that we are modeling water , i guarantee you in the future people will be buying air. next. even corporate environments value trees to inspire productivity and relax working stress. and this is how far they will go toget them into their environments . next. let's look at urban tree canopy acrossthe country . will portland is number one. new york city, number two. a close third is seattle, los angeles four. chicago fifth and where is the most beautiful city in the united states ? all the way down atthe bottom. all the way down at the bottom
8:16 pm
. it is shameful to see our city so low on the scale. it's absolutely shameful. we all know that what trees me into our personal lives and property. all of us, everyone at sf mta. at bart,all of you five on the board of appeals. everyone knows that trees are important toour personal lives . we don't wantthem removed from our property. we're all in this together . we are all in the same size . so let'sfind solutions to protect andpreserve what we have to start with . okay, next . what is market streets visual history? next. it began with ugly. next. san francisco's main artery, one of them. one is market street.
8:17 pm
the other is van ness. next. small shops ruined the 30s and 40s on market street. an retail storefront rantings exploded in the 50s and 60s. next. market street movie theaters, next. began a downhill slide in general on market street when porn theaters were allowed in the and of course market street became a haven for drug dealers and all the the best parts of market street look like this pre-pandemic. which forced even large scale retail to close. next. and we haven't recovered yet. next. in the past, trees have made market street you can see here on the left more attractive to
8:18 pm
retailers, inviting them into market street stores. just as greenery invited you into union square once upon a time. this is what can happen if we don't protect our trees and our beauty. next. tourists love san francisco because it's the most european city in the united states. this isn't exactly european design, next. but this belongs in los angele . not in san francisco. next. these are our newsstands that were next . designed, redesigned to fit san francisco's style. next. san francisco iscalled the paris of the united states . next and we have to thank
8:19 pm
francis ford coppola for contributing to our san francisco style by getting these designs. next. we changed our old world trash cans, next. to match the kiosks and newsstands. next. it makes sense. look atthese beautiful public toilets. designed to match our classic san francisco architecture what tourists fromthe world know and love about us . next . what kind of matches this? what happened to caring about and protecting san francisco's style to enhance its natural beauty with trees, these trees that you seeon market street . next. what kind of legacy will you
8:20 pm
five leave to this great city. because it's up to you now. because were not involved in planning. not yet anyway. what kind of legacy will you leave this beautiful city. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from bart, i'm not sure who is going to see. >> i will start with the intro here. >> you have 28 minutes. >> this is willis stern on behalf ofsan francisco bay area transit district . i am here with mycolleague carl holmes , mark hanna, louis stiles and iris is also on the line. the district will present expert mark hanna and we have procedures to obtain accurate and necessary removal of the subject trees so that the state
8:21 pm
mandated construction can commence. this has been a long-standing process and we have followed all procedures and guidelines. with that i'mgoing to turn it over to our experts on the material . mark, are you readyto go west and mark . >> thank you. my name is mark hanna, i'm project manager for both the market street renovation contract and the market street canopies contract where installing escalators at each of four downtown stationsin the market and marketer of , montgomery, powell street and civic center and the canopies over the top. as sterling pointed out, but
8:22 pm
does follow a process for all its projects. you for allowing me to present bart's position on the appeals beingheard . the district understands which hearing as part of the appeals and decisions made by the bureau of import enforcement and we appreciate the opportunity to be able to participate. as a public agency the san francisco bay area rapid transit district we also follow a very thorough process in reviewing,approving and preventing projects . and in this case the district hasbeen diligent . we've been following implementation with regards to escalators and canopies. so the first part of this process is to identify thebasic needs . and in this case, the district has intensive processes to
8:23 pm
verify a need for construction to better protect the escalators and stairs. and this identified short and long-term project goals. so we're installing new escalators and these escalators are amongst the oldest and worst-performing. we have 41 of these escalators being sold in thesefour downtown stations . 18 of those are on the level from the concourse platform. but in the 23 street escalators that we installed, and the existing entrances so in addition to bart's desire to maintain operation of escalators and stations and reduce maintenance activity to ensure the longevity of the units, market street station
8:24 pm
the state code requires that we protect the escalators from weather. and the canopies were installed over those escalators also provide cover and safety and security in these entrances. so i don't know if you can pictureour current entrances . we have been at the bottom of our entrances and historically we when we close decisions people will tend to sleep in the stairways, put their garbage into the stairways so we're installing more of the street-level that we can lock at night and it will be safer for our station agents there having to climb over the garbage and sleep in the stations that we've made . so once we have identified a
8:25 pm
need in this case the canopies, we next step is to decide on the basic design of the canopies so in this process we had a competitive process which was a combination of city, a large community organizations and community leaders all got together and looked at sawmills provided by variousarchitects in the bay area . my architect was a successful concept when provided and in their concept, what we have is the very transparent glass wall structure with a very low profile roof so that we can see
8:26 pm
through the canopy and keep the businesses signage and law enforcement through the sidewalk areas behind. so the ceiling is reminiscent of clouds. it was sort of a very beautiful design. it's different than many of the other canopies that we have in other locations which arealso in other cities . the canopies provide baseline for patrons that are walking along market street and where the bart and muni entrances are. these are shared with muni so all the work that we'redoing here is shared . on the entrance and it's a shared cost.the once we have
8:27 pm
the basic design concept. this goes to engineers and architects to find the design and we installed two canopies, one at collins street and one at civic center and i believe those were in november 2018. the construction of those informed the design for our future projects which is the one that we're talking about here today. so the next step in our process is to identify what canopies which are locations that we're looking at two canopies on market street. the district worked with the city and stakeholders and others to identify constructio , constructibility issues, site-specific neighborhood chemistries, community impacts
8:28 pm
and in fact ordinances among other considerations and i'm sure there were a number of tasks and initial investigations into see what conditions were on those conditions. hopefully to improve the chances of success.we hope once we have these meetings with the city on market street projects planning department, the department of public works shows up in the city to coordinate our project design with their designs in various projects and then as we go along we coordinate our schedules and a big part of ours is the integration of the canopy project in my escalator contract because we have to have a canopy in place for we installed the escalators . so that we will have the
8:29 pm
protection in place. so those schedules, we tied together very closely seeing the impacts we suffer from a canopy project will impact our escalator project and hopefully not delay both projects ultimately. so and the design of this next canopy project, the district incorporated all the insights obtained during the years of the project to develop the final project span and as part of the final project plan the district hadmany constraints and always have the ability to act safety and efficiency . the city and local business community communicated as quickly as possible to limit any impact on business or city operations whichinclude impacts to the general safety , security of the establishment
8:30 pm
and the appeal of the area. the city has limits to the amount of space allowed on the sidewalk areas as a work area to perform work and the work phone but excavating , the department made aware of any unexpected hidden underground utilities on one basement. >> they felt the original canopy and other site conditions. we also have multiple obstacles that are around. there's street polls and we have kiosk. a lot of obstaclesthat we have to work around. bike racks , station signage and of course street. barricades exposed to construction that we have with chain-link fencing and that's for safety and security
8:31 pm
measures. sort of conceived again so law enforcement can see any of the activities that might be happening.and as specifically related to trees, once we learn from the canopies identified, maneuvering around multiple objects, obstacles using large pieces of equipment like forklifts for cranes, jail to install materials like this structural steel columns that we placed and tied together, the glass, very large heavy glass canopies that need to be in position and in place. once we get into its position we have large sections of our
8:32 pm
ceiling. it's a fiber reinforced plastic ceiling and at each station will have its own individual art piece within these ceiling panels. there's like panels or canopies so those have to be gingerly brought underneath the roof to position in place. and miss all the structural components and the same with steel cladding around these canopies. so there's a lot to work around. and if we have trees right in front ofthe canopy or at the rear of the canopy , then we can't position the grain at that location and it'shard to get , almost impossibleto get it working .those don't we talk about that a littlebit later . and in addition, we heard earlier that one of the
8:33 pm
concerns is if any trees were left in place, they could possibly be a ladder to access the proper canopies and attract a nuisance so we understand and we have designed a canopy that will stand the weight of the podium but we don't want to encourage them. to climb up the trees and on the canopies at risk the branches breaking .so that is a concern. and it is city property and the city gets to decide where they put these replacement trees. >> we let the city know and that is our additional concern. another concern is the maintenance required. the departments maintain canopies when trees shed their leaves and branches throughout
8:34 pm
the year, that makes more maintenance responsible for already taxed maintenance crews. are diligent but it makes more maintenance for's another concern that stands the test of time when these canopies are in place for all generations so based on the safety concerns these trees were just too close to the canopies and were analyzed by our architects and using the cities own tree rating diagrams and spreadsheets based on the condition i am prepared to report which was then used to,
8:35 pm
judging by our plan for who signed the contracts and which trees need to be protected and which trees could beremoved . so we have that information available to us in their contracts we do have the trees that are nearest the canopy look like they prevented the installation of cranes. then we would have those scheduled for removal with trees further in the back. we are requiring the contractor so the next step in the process in rough order of magnitude is process of the schedule being prepared to establish the baseline budget . entrances to the stations are shared equally by san francisco, muni and bart as
8:36 pm
noted earlier so the costs are shared equallybetween the agencies . we.identified what that cost was and of course any delays or conventions ... [inaudible] the schedule for canopies is closely tied to the schedule of the escalators and any delay could impact thatproject as well as other projects . we are working well with market street and we don't think we will have anything at least in their space but there are other city and bark projects that are operating so anyway, now we've got a basic design of our canopies and a preliminary design. that's been slated to go to the
8:37 pm
environmental through an environmental process . so what's what that information is available to properly assess, the environmental analysis is both to evaluate potential impacts to the environment with the addition of new canopies in the station as wellas the impact created during construction . environmental staff experts performed an environmental analysis at the market street escalator escalator again and they found the reports that you talked about earlier. that identified whichtrees would be removed . and the, they showed 54 trees in the environmental report that showed slated to be removed and this includes an analysis of the loss ofhabitat of the swallowtail butterflies . that use the plane trees to
8:38 pm
build their nest. and lay their eggs. it should be noted that tiger swallowtail's are not listed as a special status species but we all like them and anyway, the environmental report indicated that the loss of habitat for tiger swallowtail butterfly and other, there was no other significant impacts related to tree removal. there was mitigations related to the removal of trees. our bird nesting was recommended that the trees only be removed out of the firm nesting period outside of february to september timeframe. so the order or have a
8:39 pm
biologist review the trees for our next before cutting. so mitigations are in place. opportunities for public comment were provided and during that process there were nopublic comments . and the initial study mitigated a negative declaration which was adopted by the district board in june 2018. considering the findings of the environmental district then prepares its final design documents 275 65 and
8:40 pm
mitigations that we identified are incorporated into the design. they came back withsome of the tree nests . in accordance with environmental documents, the trees mostly adjacent to the front and rear of the canopy and these trees are dying to be removed at much further are protected in place.completed the design and canopy project in late december 2019 and after that we had at each phase provide process to show how the various stages of design have impacted the cost and any reductions or increases that are the result of being modified. so the next, we developed
8:41 pm
contract documents and advertise the bidding. bart advertised the contract in the fall 2019 and awarded the contract in the spring of 2020. senate construction. i've worked with senator on a couple of projects and they are very competent and good contractors to work with . the notice to proceed in may 2020 we started the clock of construction duration. based on the contract requirements to remove or protect trees was supported by the environmental documents. the contractor has applied to the bureau of urban forestry for the removal from that and again, this is based on the requirement to that we have on our process in the city spot. district has not appealed the
8:42 pm
decision of the vector regarding any of the removal of the trees over where the bureau of 34th street has identified trees to remain. and we've just respected the decision always the bureau standard process for the decision is in the best interest of the city. the city is our partner on this project and is responsible for half of the construction costs and those changes to the contract related to the tree removal since those decisions were being made. the contract work will be performed with the utmost care to protect these trees and of course the construction game as it is sometimes damage to tree roots are critical but we will
8:43 pm
do our best to prevent that. there are significant impactsto the project . the city has a permit through new trees were denied. trees remain immediately adjacent to the canopies take up the space of the contract requires to set up frames for forklift equipment to move while construction treated to be moved into place if you look at the sites that were shown in the pictures earlier the trees adjacent to the canopy you can see that would be the only spot to put a crane and offload materials to put into place. otherwise the contractor would have to find another place without trees but in cases where we would have trees on both sides that would be possible. otherwise we have to move out into the street and make closures and that would require us to perform the work at
8:44 pm
night. nightly mobilizations would affect the staging of materials. that would have to be brought in every night so there's always the inefficiencies cause us to potentially have delays and extra consequences. that's the main thing that would impact the cities and businesses and the public use of the sidewalk area longer than what i just stated. it affects also our duration to have a canopy built so that investments can be put into privatecontract . so depending on how much access is brought to the trees by an order of magnitude, working and denying inefficiencies we were
8:45 pm
could affect $250,000 on direct costs. plus extended overhead costs. that's a very rough cop process but it's going to be expensive. toconclude , district has followed its required process and development and implementations. the cities bureau of forestry has also performed their analysis based on their established process. the district did not appeal the decision to deny the removal of 1200 trees. and the district contractors request to remove and release the bureau's decision to allow it to removed the 32 remaining treessubject to this area was based on sound judgment of the
8:46 pm
bureau according to the evaluation process . district willrequest the board hold the bureau's determination . that would be the end of that. do you have anything else to add . >> i think you've discussed everything. what we're looking for generally if you wanted to chime in and have a chance to speak here. carl, anything else to add? >> thank you sterling, thank youmark . goodevening everyone . adam, executive director rosenberg,president honda my name is carl holmes assistant generalmanager . i had bart and i lead design and construction . i want to concur with what you heard in terms of our staff presentation. but i would like to add a little bit more context particularly what you heard from one of the appellants josh
8:47 pm
klipp in regards to what we were trying to do with applying for that agreement. i would want to just confirm that we do want to continue the process of removing the trees in order to install the canopies but we are adamant about wanting the additional fees and i believe those are the appraisal fees to be utilized for planting of trees, replacement trees let's say. either on market street for along the market street adjacent corridors.and then we are in the process of working with a company by the name of in the nature by the city in regards to a green roof scenario. but there's some ...
8:48 pm
>> 30 seconds. >> there's publications in regards to us being able to solidify that and it's regarding the ease of construction, of installing the plants on top of the roof as well as making sure that we have agreements with community business districts in order to water and maintain those things are in process , they are just not finalized and we also have an arborist that's on board in able to help us understand how effectively we can trim or pruning in order to protect the trees . >> i just want to remind everyone here that is inappropriate to make opinions or comments in the chat including members of the public or parties. you have time allotted to spea so don't put any opinions or comments in the chat or you may
8:49 pm
be removed from the hearing . we have two questions or does president honda have a question and thenvice president swig . >> president: thank you for your presentation. one of my questions and you have multiple speakers so whoever wants to answer is fin . were you part ofthe process that was doing a mapping and identifying the tree removal ? >> part of the process for the mapping of the tree that are shown in our contract drawings for removal, yes. and the trees i think we might be leaning towards the trees that were shown outside of our canopy areas. those are not included in our contract plans forremoval . >> so your group is just responsible for the trees that are in the immediate area of each of the canopies to be installed?
8:50 pm
>> that's correct. >> can you explain the trees that were removed because of storm damage that worked in your immediate group yetthe tree right outside the fence evidently wasn't affected ? i find that hard tobelieve. mother nature is not that definitive . >> i took carl holmes for a walk through that area and i was showing him where all the trees were located. he came across those trees and i was saying these trees are also going to be in the area that a motherboard project is going to be in, it's a substation project and i don't know if they need to remove trees or not. it turns out they did not. but when we came upon those, we saw that they were chopped off. and this wasbefore the fence
8:51 pm
was in place . i inquired with the local businesses. they said the department of public works was just in there and chop those up the other day and took pictures and showed me photos. those trees have been chopped off before that in place and for what was shown in those pictures. >> next question is in the report it indicates the tree that has a condition that has been removed two years prior . is that something under your purview?or is it right next to where the new installation becomes installed? >> yes, sometimes between when we design a project and we identify the trees that we nee to have removed , they either getremoved , there's different conditions. >> president: the question is there a report that said the tree is in fair condition and
8:52 pm
yet the tree has been removed and your report was dated after thetree removal . >> that would be abureau of urban forestry discussion . >> president: understanding that even with my nine year tenure the board has not been before us but trees are our regular purview. fortunately, the steward is here so i have more questions but last question is one of the appellants mentioned europe and i appreciate the video. but if you're in paris or in barcelona they are able to have huge canopies into their subway system with large stature trees right next to them. what is that not possible? are americans not capable or are europeans just smarter? >> i'm not sure ican answer that at this point .
8:53 pm
i'm dying to be able to efficiently remove the trees, to be able to complete the project in thetimeframe . >> i get it. it's just that in your 27 minutes of your brief, your description pretty much sounde like trees were just a nuisance in the process of the renewal , the mechanical renewaland improvement of the bart station . i mean, i didn't hear any empathy at all in regards to the tree removal. >> again, the project was designed in such a way that we went through this environmental process and the loss of five percent of the trees seemed to be not a significant impact. i love trees myself.
8:54 pm
>> vice president suede has a question and the board has questions so i'llmove this on. vice president swig you have a question . >> vice president: i'll have to control myself with this question. who's the senior leader, mister holmes? are you senior leader? i'm not going to waste mister daniels time with my question . do you know how many times during mister lou gayness presentation heused the word process ? >> i do not. >> okay, over twodozen . with with that lead you to believe that the priority of this presentation, the priority in this project is process
8:55 pm
versus a sensitivity to the citizens of san francisco and the world environment? and a macro view other than making sure that the escalators function properly? >> i'm pausing, i didn't know if youwere done . >> i've got more. >> we are sensitive to the trees and i understand we all did hear the word process and escalators but as i mentioned in my short portion of the presentation, we are working with one of the appellants and also trying to create cooperation with cvd's between the business districts in order
8:56 pm
to come up with a way to allow for greenery replacements alon market street . so there is sensitivity and also in terms of advocating for true tree replacement along market street or along the market street corridor , bart has a strong history of installing trees and replacing treesin the region . and so that is something that is important so it's just the way this contractwas configured , that isn't part of the scope but my support is strong in terms of that this project is not viewed as an infrastructure development and we walk away without any long-term benefits or improvements to the city and county of san francisco. so we are adamant in regards to
8:57 pm
trying to make sure that there is a betterment, not just from a ridership perspective but also just a better environment and that includes replanting of trees for it also includes what we are trying to finalize which we just weren't able to in this timeframe having greener roots which would be also an innovation in regards to something that i think those in europe would look upon our project as something that can be done in other countries as well as in other parts of the united states . >> vice president: when you get a sense as i did when i heard mister danatalk about , we've got to cut down these trees because we've got to get the cranes in more efficiently because to support our logistics and you know, our
8:58 pm
priorities are not to cost the city of san francisco and to stay within the contract that this whole thing, this whole diatribe, for me this whole disgusting presentation has priorities on getting the process done and priorities on money, money. priorities on construction efficiency . i'm looking at my notes. priorities on easier logistics rather than my life, my environment and the protection of trees in san francisco which therefore segue into the protection of the citizens of and francisco and a follow-up question. do you have any idea decimated the tree canopy in san
8:59 pm
francisco has been? and that this project would further decimate definitely the treecanopy in san francisco ? 2 questions. thank you. >> i would lean to mark in terms of the percentage of the decimation of trees. i believe it was five percent hesaid but i don't want to quote him or misquote him . i don't even want to say that percentage is insignificant. i again would like to remind those on the call that we are looking at a way to try to enhance the greenery on market street with this green roof idea. one of the reasons why we don't have it finalized is because we are not sure how easy it isto install . we're hearing it is fairly easy but we're in theprocess of getting that verified . the other is solidifying a way
9:00 pm
to make sure there's the right amount of watering and maintenance so that we don't create an eyesore that sounded like a great idea and all of a sudden we have something that has dead plants on top of it and then look even worse. so i wish that i could have come to you to say we have all this worked out but we have at least offered that commitment to pursue this. so that at the end of the day, we have a betterment to market street. the other thing is as we are lookingto remove the trees it's not an all out removal of 32 trees all at once . it would be something that is staged so that even during construction we are not creating harm to the environment or to the market street beauty. it's something that is staged let's say for every 12 months
9:01 pm
with a certain number of trees that need to be removed so there's two canopies sent set to be installed every two months soessentially for every year so theidea is to remove trees . let's say they're needed for that particular 12 month cycle . so that's just another detail but it's an area where we are trying to not just remove trees for the convenience of construction and for the sake of the station entrance canopy. but it's to do it in a staged fashion. the other element is the arborist that we recently hired to help us determine out of these 32 trees are there some trees that wecan protect ? and still install the canopies without ... i would hate for us to preserve a number of trees
9:02 pm
and find out we were not successful in doing that and causing the tree to die . so we're in that process as well, working with our arborist and contractor to find out what are the additional costs not just to have two smaller crane or one larger crane but at least we're trying to find that out . while we are trying to start this work in january for the first two canopies which if we don't do that the cost will even be that much more drastic not just on this but with the escalator contract.that's just a cost perspective but from a sensitivity perspective, we've got an arborist on board to help us try to do the right thing and so that we can effectively say how much can we travel and still give the construction complete so we just don't have those answers yet todaybut you are very close
9:03 pm
. >> once again , you agree with me that your priorities are all about money and getting this process done efficiently so you can start injanuary . and what i would ask you to address maybe in your next session is to consider this. this hearing was scheduled before. it was postponed because you all weren't ready. you coming to us today and in your testimony just this second you say you're not ready because you haven't figured it out yet and you really don't know what theimpact is going to be on the trees . you really don't have a plan and which, so are you asking us tonight to rule on something because i'm prepared to you know, not let you go ahead.
9:04 pm
because you're asking us to go ahead and maybe you want to ask us to postpone the decision tonight because think about this remodel. because it's true. you guys are really don't know the impact on the trees. you really don't have a plan on environmental mitigation. so why should we do anything but find for the appellant and place the people at risk for further further deterioration of the canopy andenvironment ? i'm going to give you achance to think about it for rebuttal . don'ttake too much time . >> thank you vice president swig. this is more of a comment going forward since this will be a long hearing and we will have a
9:05 pm
lot of public comment. understanding what's before us is simply the tree removal and this party has the option of upholding the permit for denying it. spend solely i know everyone has a lot of time. i would like that to be spoken on as far as the merits there's no ill will or impartiality towards parts but unfortunately youguys are talking about canopies . the city is in anemergency situation with our treecanopy . unfortunately that's what's before the bottom .thank you. >> clerk: i see mister rogers hand is raised and you can't speak until the bottle time you can put your hand down and i want tomake sure that alexis back with us . he did lose wi-fi .alec, are you back with us? >> president: i don't think so. >> clerk: wonderful. well, we're moving on to the department.
9:06 pm
the bureau of urban forestry. you have 28 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. iwill take up that much time but i will definitely . >> president: you always say that. >> i do. my wife knows if i say five minutes,double it . i'll do my best to address the trees subject to the hearing but also try to devote a good amount of time to hospital waves. i've been listening to the accounts this evening. i'm going to dive into the trees but also by the end of that proposal or at least discuss in greater detail what just in the last week some developments regarding some additional mitigation that are taking shape and then we will see perhaps where that goes this evening .i'm going to go ahead and share ascreen. let's bring this up .
9:07 pm
from current slide.>> president: alex,don't pause is time. just kidding . >> i had 26 minutes. >> i need tofind this powerpoint . >> 27 minutes, sorry. >> so you're not seeing a powerpointyet . >> we are not. >> hold on a moment. share screen. it's here somewhere. >> do you want me to restart time? >> i've got a few minutes. >> i already gave you a warning. donot use the chat or where going to disable it . it's inappropriate soplease respect theprocess . thank you .
9:08 pm
>> sorry aboutthat, i need to practice . >> president: i have a hard time turning on the zoom. >> here we go there should be a generic looking powerpoint in front of you . >> clerk: we see it. >> again, i willbe moving through so we can hear from folks who are probably more important than me this evening . we received 10 individual applications for removal. additionally it was a total of 49 trees proposed for removal a review process with staff and through a hearing process that number was whittled down to 32 trees proposed for removal. many of them are going to be removal of replacement due to the physical proximity of the new structure withexisting trees that will remain and or streetlights . one of the things we talked about our public works hearing
9:09 pm
is it's going to be a little bit easier for us to understand exactlyhow much room remains after these are installed . so an exact number out of those 32 which trees can be replanted or not, we have a fair sense of that but it's not too t because of all the moving pieces. so it's just something we've been upfront of the things i want to share with everyone is this spreadsheet that details which trees are subject to removal and i'll show photos of them. we will move through that part quickly. i'm sorry i couldn't speak first and try to address some of the questions one of the appellants' raised concerns about three trees that went missing. we have confirmed that three trees were removed at on an emergency basis by public works tree cruise and it was prior to any materials being placed on that site so i do want totake that item and essentially knock
9:10 pm
that back . that said, my team has said they've been in touch with mister carnes overspecific questions as to tree numbering . i've asked them every week for the last five weeks as we've addressed mister carnes questions. they assured me they had. the testing this evening leads me to believe otherwise. i'm going to request we meet with mistercarnes to address any lingering questions about numbers on market street . these are the trees, the subject trees. when a tree is removed without replacement our code directs us to assess either the appraised value for the tree. the greater of the this case most of these trees are in fair to poor condition and the appraisal is not greater than the basic in lieu fee. three trees are in good condition and these trees were
9:11 pm
denied for removal and these are the trees, just three that we're talking with bart about, meeting with their arborist understanding what tree procedures that were denied in good condition. so that if we eliminate those three trees from the next they are not removed, their protected during construction. there's the potential of up to $53,000 or more in in lieu fees. we have confirmed that we can designate those in lieu fees or specific replanting on side streets as our secondary core doors leading up to bart stations. again these are the two subject trees removed on an emergency basis prior to anymaterials being placed on site by our tree crew as well as the third tree . i want to say the good news is that mother nature tried to take these trees down. our tree crew got thereand
9:12 pm
through removed them in a controlled manner .overall i haveplenty of images to show . just walking through both the public and commissioners what we're looking at here. essentially trees proposed for removal are all directly adjacent to the individual canopy locations, proposed locations. the first 2 canopies that were installed a couple years ago the original application was for the removal of a bunch of trees and we quickly met with mark and let them know. there's no runway for equipment here. this is sanfrancisco and we expect everyone to work around critical structure which trees are certainly part ofthat . i'm just going to go through and share images of those trees . now, the western tiger swallowtail, the tigers on
9:13 pm
market. just when you thought people didn't care aboutthe urban forest, we care about greatly but it's been a tremendous story these swallowtail's are winding home . it's an incredible story. nature in the city is a great website that hasmore information about them. but these are the subject trees were looking at . trees directly adjacent to the proposed bar canopies. again these trees are largely in fair topoor condition. and going through those , in mostcases there's two trees directly adjacent to each end of the proposed art canopies . and due to all the infrastructure existing , we really want to see what those structures look like before we can say with absolute certainty there's room for replacement treehere. we've learned over the years that yes, there are some sidewalk placements . market street has been maintaining a list of all the some sidewalk complexes whether
9:14 pm
it's the actual transit infrastructure or some sidewalk basements belonging to the fronting properties. again just walking through the trees,the subject trees . preconditions being fair in manycases . poor to fair in other location . which you can see here this tree is leaning quite a bit of a very largeamount of the tree would need to be pruned off to make room for the proposed art canopy . so this was our process leading upto our public works hearing we had in june . it's making sure any subject trees proposed for removal is adjacent to the site. no additional trees for maneuvering. that's not being considered at this point. am of thesetrees are. >> small . during many great events it's almost a routine for the tree crew to start down by the embarcadero and start up the
9:15 pm
street and look for downedtrees so it doesn't surprise me that out of 32 trees , three trees beganto fail in the last several months . again, i will have my staff follow up with appellate lance carnes to address any questions thatlinger after tonight's hearing .one of the things we did also with bart representatives is we had them #the extent of where the overhead canopy would extend to really understand proximity not just to the lower footprints butoverhead footprints to get an understanding of what the impact would be to the existing trees . just showing these white hashmarks and a lot of work has been put into this by urban forestry staff as it relates to the terminal which trees we would becomfortable with removing . again, showing this tree coming close to the canopy but again the overall tree condition
9:16 pm
itself is poor. so again i havethis type of information. this is what was covered in great detail at the departmental hearing so i will cover this much more beyond what we've done already . what i like to do is save plenty of time to talk about potential plans for moving forward and what our current code can require. but again, showing the subject trees i think it's important always to view photos of the subject itself which in this case are street trees. i think it's definitely heartening to hear all of the renewed excitement about the trees on market street . with the western tiger swallowtail, one thing i want to point out is that the better market street plan as it existed prior to the pandemic envisioned and contemplated expanding the weight of market street. so this double row of trees as
9:17 pm
we seethem , most of the trees towards the curve would have been removed to make room for a separate biplane. so due to the pandemic, due to the impacts of the pandemic on businesses, impacts to various transit agency budgets there's no longer a plan to expand the width of that roadway. the bike lanes would actually be placed within the existing, between the existing curved lines. that's one thing largely for the public and one of the briefs that discussed the amount of trees proposed for removal as part of better market street and that's been scaled back considerably. the next phase of better market street will be 5th to 8th street and that will be going out to bid and being publicly noticed tree wise in the first
9:18 pm
half of this nextcalendar year. so fifth two eighth street but again no expansion of the current line . that's one. i consider that a positive. others different transit related folks like the original plan but i like the don't remove trees plan. that was a point i wanted to make. again, our code acquires whenever a tree is removed that it be replaced. if there's no way to plant a replacement due to the encroachment of the infrastructure and balancing the needs of other existing utilities, directs us to assess the replacement value, whichever is the greater of the this case, many of these trees will not beable to be replanted . let me stop and share. many ofthese trees will not be able to be replanted . that's going to result in a number of in who sees that the
9:19 pm
bureau of urbanforestry will collect . typically those these are for replanting street trees and where we plant them is dictated by the urban forest plan, planting trees in those committees that are facing the greatest inequalities in the environmental realm. so south of market tenderloin, these are areas that are designated already within our plan to plant trees . the proposal, one of the appellant's mister quick reached out to public works to say how can we designate these in lieu fees designated from this project for planting trees when they can't be replanted on market street for sidestreets. we confirmed with our interim director that is allowable. we've also appellant's has already been in touch with some of the local cds regarding
9:20 pm
treeplanting. i think there's a van diagram of our bureau of urban forestry and our need to plant more trees in communities served by urban forestry. there's a need for mitigation here so in many ways they give is the city or public works using those fees as designated for sidestreets corridors as proposed by mister klipp who would also include involvement from local nonprofits like friends of urban forest and one of the ways we can leverage our in lieu fees is to find out how many community members with these agencies would be willing to take on some of the watering and that the more people that are willing to take on one or more trees we can plant with those funds. so do we know the exact total of replacement trees in the
9:21 pm
sidestreets and corridors? it's really going to be a moving target butdepending on the level of partnership that we have , when this is proposed by mister klipp we did this in 20 fort street and with mission verde.there's definitely a roadmap for this. so i would like to hear during remodel a littlebit more from bart representatives . but certainly public works is willing to devote time and energy to working with bart, with the community, friends of urban forest and the association to plant these sidestreets that essentially approach the bart locations. so to recap again, i want to save everyone time.the code itself requires that the in lieu faded fee paid for remova without replacement . we are going to get potentially
9:22 pm
as much as $55,000 infees . it could be much less than that if the number oftrees can be replanted on market . we think this is a reasonable plan that mister klipp has proposed and i would love to hear more about that and a commitment from bart to work with us on that largely the work will fall to my staff . we have staff to have meetings and meet with these stakeholders. we already meet with the cvd's, cello west and others on a regular basis. identifying empty basins. some of them already have plans to plant so i feel like we can leverage what's proposed already and use these funds to come up with thedeficits. the delta on that . so that's representing staff. that's where iwould like to spend our energy. i reviewed the trees .
9:23 pm
most of theseare in very poor to fair condition . the three trees arein good condition .we're going to work hard to have bart attacked installation. but that's some great information overall regarding ballpark process and better market street and coming in a little bitearly on my time . thank you. >> clerk: thankyou. vice president swig have a question ? you are on mute. >> vicepresident: me and technology. thank you chris for coming in. we will present you with a trophy later . so everything you saymakes sense . what bothers me about the fees is it's a real easy way to justify cutting down trees and sometimes i feel there's no
9:24 pm
accountability. as to where those funds are spent and the trees get planted. 2 questions. one, you referred to me my last question related to the lack of clarity with regard to the park plan. again, we post some of this hearing as they were ready. and then tonight we heard that well, i'm paraphrasing and i might sound biased but i trynot to . well, we're not really ready. are going to see how it's going to be and how it unfolds along with that we heard a comment that well, if we got the cream coming in and a piece of equipment and we've got to take
9:25 pm
down the tree so we savemoney . so be it .that's kind of my biased phrase . you know, what do you feel about that? and what do you feel about putting the trees at risk without a plan andat this point ? >> my frustration comes when projects like this get approval i say the citizens advisory committee severalyears ago . gets approval to be built and cqea is fast and everyone feels like they checked their boxes and i think to myself it's been a couple of years, we will receive an application and we're going to be told this is all approved so i get frustrated that these conversations are held and had and some of the comments that
9:26 pm
bart made were that there were no public commentsduring cqea but what about our local tree advocacy groups right here on street level in san francisco ? my frustrations do come with theconversation really is would have been prior to design . and really understanding how many trees wouldneed to be removed . the applicant takes they had contemplated potentially something like in the 54th numberof trees that they received zero comments . i think one thing i've learned this year and last year in particular is anything that i think our staff can do to encourage parties to come together and meet is critical. i think large agencies after responsibility to recognize that and come to you all with as fully baked the plan as possible. our team met with bart and one of the appellant's in early october andthere was an opportunity in the last month to work more on that .
9:27 pm
so i think there was a missed opportunity and i hear your frustration on that point. >> second question hopefully is quicker. when viewing a project like this and i've seen this multiple times. it's not a criticism toward yourself but it's an easy pitfall. we hear you come in and say we're only going to take down these two trees and mister klipp reminds us 2+2 is four and 4+4 is eight and all of a sudden we torn down 100trees . and that'snot good . how when these projects are getting done and specifically how when this was being proposed by bart or being proposed in context with multiple agencies, how was
9:28 pm
context offered with regard to trees and that is well, it's only 32 trees and rather than its 32 trees or another 32 trees on top of another 32 trees that have been torn out of the cities tree population and this is not a good thing. are there ever any macro use? is there ever an effort to provide context as to the impact on well, it's only a few trees on the plague of tree removal in the city of san francisco versus what should be aplague of treeplanting in san francisco ? >> thank you commissioner.
9:29 pm
i think the one body that tries to get at this to some degree is the urban forest council in san francisco there's an annual report that every city agency provides to that body . there are members on that counsel to represent various city agencies like public works and there's at large positions for professionals oradvocates from the public . that's one mechanism for keeping track of the total impactto tree removals on the city and county of san francisco . to some degree the climate action plan but that's largely talking about what's needed moving forward. and then cqea, again, my layperson assessment is that it's completely weak on three trees . there's all this discussion about transportation and transportation flow and you're right. you can basically say it's 54
9:30 pm
trees and if we replace them or paya fee , we've checked that box. >>.
9:31 pm
>> think you. >> thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. if you are here to provide public comment, please raise your hand. kathy howard, please go ahead. miss howard. welcome, you have three minutes. >> catherine howard. at a time when the destructive impact of climate change is in the news every day, it is extraordinary that san francisco
9:32 pm
are removing mature trees. i appalled that the rebuttal compared removing trees to removing bicycle racks. trees are living things and should not be compared to a news rack. it shows a same -- shameful disregard for living things in our environment. this is not worthy of us or city departments. barth stated if the trees remain, they will drop leaves, and accumulate on rooftops and drains and this would be significant additional maintenance. it sounds like we are in the middle of a dense forest here. the few isolated trees will not have an impact. over and above that, these things are inconvenient, yet it is trees and other plants that provide us with the oxygen we breathe and support the web of life around us. the city cleans streets and sidewalks and repairs paving.
9:33 pm
if having a tree next to a canopy means a tiny bit more work, they could make the small effort to protect the life that sustains us. i also appalled of the comments on birds nests. where are the birds going to nest after the trees are cut down? little tiny replacement trees won't do it. it is an appalling lack of awareness. i really hope you will grant this appeal, or institute strong and forcible mitigations. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now hear from rhonda arbil. >> hello, can you hear me? >> please, go ahead. >> hi, i just wanted to say that water street -- market street is pretty much a concrete jungle. any of us who have travelled down market street on foot know
9:34 pm
that seeing those trees there really enhances your experience and the fact that it seems pretty clear that the trees were not considered in the design of the canopies, the barth canopies, which is actually kind of confusing when they're talking about the canopies. they clearly were not considered as part of the design. and nature always seems to be an afterthought in these developments that we are seeing in san francisco. like president honda and vice presidents wake have mentioned, trees are being devastated. they are saying it is only five%, but five% is a lot. and even though we have gone from 50 trees being removed to 32 trees, it is extremely significant. it is especially significant on
9:35 pm
market street, which hardly have any trees at all. i really hope that you grant the appeal. i think it is important for the future of our city. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from a caller whose phone number ends and 4616. you may need to press start six to unmute yourself. the collar -- go ahead, i see you unmute it yourself. >> yes, hello. my name is linda schafer and i wanted to talk briefly about process, which may not be helpful specifically, but it will make me feel better. as i understand it, the project that is being discussed, the initial project was to install escalators instead of stairs at the entrance to b.r.t. stations. by the way, i would like to know where verdun is in all of this. anyway, and, so the goal is to
9:36 pm
install escalators. that led to the need for covers to protect the escalators, but also to lock access to the areas where the homeless people might sleep, which is deemed undesirable. that lead -- that led to the need to remove trees to protect the covers. there is something backwards here. we knew that it was known that there were homeless people. if we are going to be designing modifications to our public transportation system that leads to removing trees to protect the modifications, it is backwards. why wasn't thought happening at the beginning?
9:37 pm
in london they just constructed large, gradually inclined entranceways into underground stations. no escalators, you just walk down or we'll yourself down on a wheelchair. i just think -- i wish we could go back to the very beginning and think about not designing covers for bart stations with flat tops. so then we need to talk -- then we need to protect the covers for another reason because we are worried that people might climb up on the trees to get to the tops of the covers. so we are protecting the covers i removing trees. i have trouble with a lot of that. thank you for listening. >> thank you. is there anyone else here who would like to provide public comment? please raise your hand. >> in the chat, miss bowler
9:38 pm
would like to speak. >> okay. please, go ahead. you have three minutes. >> okay, well, i want to say that listening to him describe the needs of the construction workers that are interfered with by trees, which they propose removing, killing, because they are in the way, sounds like tried and true colonialism, desecrating anything in your way
9:39 pm
in the name of progress. humans just come along until anything in the way of what they see is necessary progress, occasionally expressing regret. it is disturbing to hear this process at work. this loss of life is unnecessary and preventable and all rationalizations beside. i believe, by the way, the scrawny nests of the existing trees is due to what i heard of in earlier hearings to the fact that a lot of the underground soil was removed in order to construct bart.
9:40 pm
so intending to plant any new trees is going to be a very shallow process. and one last remark, it is kind of disgusting and unacceptable to do construction in order to get rid of sleeping people. >> we will now hear from michael nolte. >> i am involved with establishing some of the c.b.d.'s along market street. namely about three or four of them that have been on there. i helped them get established.
9:41 pm
these are all kinds of things that they need to rely on. not everybody can take an escalator. there seems to be a lot of issues here that leave us hanging. it is also the design of these overhangs. it will affect how our main street will look in the future for at least 20 years because, you know, i don't think they will be wanting to keep revisiting this issue and updating what they put in place.
9:42 pm
as far as the trees go, the trees were there first. the trees have their natural life cycle, and they have been called to many creatures who have decided to make it their home. i think the project staff have only cared about what they've got to do and everything else is second thought. as far as other comments along other meetings, a lot of times they are not -- they are only looking at what is being presented to them and they are not thinking about the whole picture because they are not given much presentation to think about anything else. it is probably just fixing the elevators or fixing certain things.
9:43 pm
that is how i remember presentations in meetings that i attended. >> thirty seconds. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from john nolte. please go ahead. >> good evening. my name is john nolte. can you hear me? >> not that great. can you get a little closer? >> can you hear me? >> okay, great. i attended meetings for a number of years on bart and also the presenters who presented and chose what topics to put into the presentations so that they would vote or discuss it. it was limited to those things and those items. the trees were left out. of course, they can't cover everything, but they chose what to put into the presentations. now we are here at the resin tatian and dealing with the trees.
9:44 pm
this is the second round of bart down market street. most of the businesses on market street are still recovering from that. now they are coming back again and trying to mitigate the businesses by doing two canopies a year. you already heard them, they already did this two years ago. where were the arborists back then? also, just so the commissioners know, there are more trees planted and more trees already being planned for removal on market street because of bart because of other issues that they are doing with bart. there are a lot more.
9:45 pm
thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? please raise your hand. >> i don't see any more public comments. we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> thank you. first i was struck by the language of the permit, which julie read at the top of the agenda item which was vague about replacement trees. i would proffer that the permit does not comply with public works article 16. they said when a tree is removed, it requires in lieu appraisal. that is not how we handle this in any other type of construction. bart should be no exception to the rule. it is not compliant with the law. i think it is important that if it is different or greater than what is in the permit, could be relative to what we are talking about in terms of any other tree planting. it is worth asking why there are
9:46 pm
trees on the removal permit that seemed to be nowhere near a b.r.t. station. third, to the extent that there will be any replanting, i would request that not be on market street. they mentioned they are partnering with the city and they know the city has better treatment. it is 56 trees on market. i guess we will be here before the board again and again and again. we are moving towards removal of 767 trees. the city will probably be asking to take them down in a few years. the arborist that was contracted by the construction company has not only recommended removal of trees that were denied for removal, so recommended removal of trees that were denied for removal, but has also recommended pruning, protected
9:47 pm
trees, and practices that would involve a lot of removal that seem to exceed city tree protection standards and possibly put those protected trees at serious risk of death in the future. so to put that into sharper focus, we are talking about not only losing the trees that have been approved currently for removal, but additional trees who weren't approved for removal on the corridor that has a less than four% canopy. we are talking about reducing our tree canopy because of an escalator roof design that bart chose. it was not included as part of the process.
9:48 pm
do we have a question? >> yes, you did mention in euro bottle, but it bothered me from the first presentation that you mentioned -- and it was mentioned by bart representatives as well, ongoing negotiation with cbd's and on the potential participating to sustained trees, and i understand it is ambiguous.
9:49 pm
these cbd management agreements have a fixed period. they are generally five-10 years. do you have concern that even if you go to the cbd and reach an agreement that these cbd's might not exist in 5-10 years because their management agreements only allow a five or 10 year term unless they are renewed? >> just to clarify something that was said earlier, i'm not personally the one in conversation with the cbd.
9:50 pm
they have a long history in a lot of relationships within the organization. chris would tell you that the general establishment maintenance period is three years. if it falls within a three-year period of time, then it should fit within that. >> thanks. i just wanted to raise that and maybe the bart representatives want to address an answer to that question as well on how they are going to deal with the 10 year and lifecycle of the cbd and maintaining an agreement that they strike. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now hear from lance. you have three minutes.
9:51 pm
>> please start my slide at 28. >> thank you. that is good. my time starts now. >> you can start whenever you are ready. >> okay. the first part of my talk, i talked about finding a lot of problems with the trees listed for removal. i found six egregious errors. alec, if you could go down to slide 32. this is a map of market street going from about the embarcadero at the upper right-hand side, down to civic centre on the lower left-hand side. the part circled in black is the part that i have looked at and other people in my group have looked at.
9:52 pm
there is another part of market street that has canopies. it is circled in red and takes us down to civic centre. you should definitely resurvey our market street assets. could you go to the next slide, please? one problem is i don't get accurate information from dpw. i made up public records request for the trees on market street. i was clear in my ask. instead, i was given trees that were not part of the group of 32. given that they have intentionally provided me the wrong tree locations, and without a credible answer to how this could have happened, i will request the centering ordinance task force hearing.
9:53 pm
we mention talking about three locations. i have a ring of dated i would be happy to meet with you and the sunshine ordinance task force to discuss this. thank you. >> are you finished? >> i will give my time to somebody else. >> okay. you can't yield your time to someone else, but if you are done, thank you. mr. rogers, you have three minutes and you are on mute. we can't hear you. mr. rogers? >> hold on. >> there we go. we can hear you. >> thank you so much and thank you for letting me know. first of all i wanted to say that i thought mark's wig is still -- is so correct in his analysis of this -- mark's wake -- mark dana who was claiming
9:54 pm
that the notion of the homeless can find these trees is ridiculous. there are no lying ranches on these trees. the homeless, i think all of us will understand, are underfed. they are not the most robust people in the world. they can't climb a tree with no low hanging branches, and then, market street is the largest, widest street in san francisco. why are these trees desire to be remove some time off into the future to make street that is already the largest street in san francisco even larger?
9:55 pm
mark dana claims maintenance costs us more work and sounds like donald trump asking for the forest to be removed from debris that is no longer desired because it fell from the tree. i think that his comment is inappropriate. thank you for asking for my comment. >> thank you. we will now hear from dan dell bridge. you have three minutes. >> okay. alec, you can start my slides. i just want to reiterate that san francisco has a legacy of beauty and i don't think bart
9:56 pm
cares about san francisco's beauty. if i were in the city, i would demand transparency far beyond anything that has been said by bart tonight. i don't get it. it doesn't make any sense. we complained about cleaning the tops, making them curved, the design of the canopy, to begin with, isn't right. they stretch way too far out from -- i can't even go there. i find there is something wrong here, and better market street,
9:57 pm
9:58 pm
9:59 pm
>> i will start this process by saying there has been discussion about safety and the removal of trees. neither our contractor nor bart's mandated or requested that those trees be removed. we are working under the issue that is still under appeal of the permits. that was entirely ancillary to any beyond that. again, we want to focus on the district's commitment to safety, efficiency, and speed in getting this done to limit its impacts to the surrounding area and surrounding businesses so things
10:00 pm
can get back to normal as quickly as possible. we are doing what we can with the limitations that we can in the grounds that we are able to work in as mandated by the city we will talk a little bit more about the safety and structural concerns and we want to describe our continued working -- work in progress and making sure we mitigate as much as possible under the permit. mark, if you can touch on the safety concerns and then we will pass it over to carl so we can address this moving forward. >> thank you. yes, safety is our biggest concern in the project.
10:01 pm
i think i explained it that we do have other obstacles in removing bicycle racks and things to move them out of our way it is a really difficult process. i'm sorry to use that word again, i know it is not a good one.
10:02 pm
those are our issues. it is less safe with the more obstacles you have. i feel like i would like you to know that the department does care about trees and the environment and taking cars off the road and using almost entirely greenhouse gas emissions for energy. we are committed to sustainability in all of the projects. we regularly planted trees. we do analyse all of our projects and all of our
10:03 pm
extension projects we have mitigations. [ indiscernible ] there were maybe three trees at lafayette station. and nine in the downtown berkeley blocks. the people we work with long ago, they liked the trees. i will pass you on to carl. >> thank you. a few things i would like to say before talking about the continued negotiations is that this design of the station
10:04 pm
entrance canopy was not decided by bart. it was a collaboration with the city and the county of san francisco and other entities. it was mainly the city that referred to this particular design, not bart. so we had other canopies, or at least another canopy that was a pilot in downtown oakland that personally ran and delivered that. it was a different style. however,, the city wanted something that was different and unique. so i just wanted to bring that up. the design was driven by collaboration with the city. the plan, the original plan was that as these canopies were installed, that it would be aligned with the better market street program. i have heard that there were concerns about that program, but
10:05 pm
that was the original plan. what we are trying to do is create a new plan which is what we are in the process of negotiating now with the potential green roofs, as well as advocating for replanting on the side streets that are adjacent to market street. the 3-5 years or the three years of establishment, i'm confident that working with the cbd that we will be able to achieve with the replanting. and then bart plans to be around for a while with sfmta. so instead of making sure there is agreements that are renewed or helping to subsidize in order to make sure that we don't have trees or green roofs that are not maintained. i also recall, even though i wasn't personally in this role
10:06 pm
at the time, but during the construction of the two pilot canopies, at least from what i was able to research, the idea was to install those two canopies so we would know what to do when we installed the other 19 canopies which are part of the contract. i don't recall seeing that there was this amount of concern with the trees. so that is also still a lesson learned in terms of making sure that we ask the right questions, even if we aren't getting a certain amount of feedback on the trees that were removed in order to install the canopies. i think, even with that, just the fact that we're trying to create a plan to allow for enhanced greenery on market street in the adjacent streets, hopefully can be viewed as a way forward for a better long-term plan and city and county of san francisco.
10:07 pm
one last point, i believe it would take about 30 days, but luckily with the holidays it took 60 days in order to finalize the agreements. i believe one of the commissioners had asked that question earlier. that's what we believe in terms of everything to solidify things. >> thank you. that will do for the district time. >> thank you. is bart finished? >> correct. >> thank you. we will -- we have a question from the vice president. >> mr. holmes, if we are doing a project at your house, and the project manager came to you with the lack of clarity that you were presenting to us tonight with regards to what will we do here, what will we do there, would you allow that contractor to proceed on your house?
10:08 pm
>> i think when we talk about lack of clarity, it is regarding having to come up with a modified plan. so even chris bock indicated that there is a moving target in terms of being able to ascertain which trees would be impacted on a more permanent basis if we were to try to replant for market street. so i comfortable with accepting a certain amount of risk, as long as that risk is identified so it can be mitigated throughout the process, but not identifying the risk, yes, i would be concerned, but the fact that it is identified and we are trying to show ways to mitigate, then i would be comfortable with moving forward with making sure that the risk is addressed while
10:09 pm
the work is complete. >> are you aware that by asking us to deny the appeal that you are asking this body to assume your risk that you have identified and taken the risk along with you on behalf of the city of county of san francisco and their citizens? >> can you rephrase the question? >> are you aware that tonight, if we deny the appeal, that we are assuming that risk, along with you on behalf of the citizens of the city and county of san francisco? >> i aware of that perspective and, again, i would like to remind you and others that we are also accepting the risk in
10:10 pm
terms of the fact that this design was not our preferred design. so, we have been working in conjunction with the city and county of san francisco and have agreed to move forward. i do acknowledge that the risk is shared, but we are the ones that are still in the driver seat in terms of trying to mitigate the risk and keep this moving forward and working with josh and the other appellant to make sure that, at the end of this, we should be able to say that this was a successful program, that we are able to enhance what is needed for riders to be able to safely enter the system, but also be able to say that we have something that has long-term in order to the green roof, as well as trees that maybe are not planted on market street, if
10:11 pm
they are not liable, but planted on the side streets as a result of our project so that we wouldn't want nothing to happen in regards to our replanting effort. >> this will be another question because you said this is not, you know, our preferred design. we really didn't like this design, but we will move it forward. and with that, you know, i shuddered because what you are asking, for myself and my colleagues is to kick the can down the road, approve a project that you really don't like, and take responsibility for doing something that you don't even think is right in perpetuity. is that correct? and my hearing that? you are asking us to take a design that you don't like and
10:12 pm
approve this project because you all have a process, there is that word because i stuck it in there on purpose. because you have a process that you are going through, and your priority is just to get this thing done in a timely fashion because it will cost more money if you don't get it done? is that where you are going here? and if anything, trees beach at -- be damned. is that where we are going here? i a native of san francisco. i get really pissed off when things don't -- when i hear stuff like that. >> my response is intended to clarify that when people say that they don't like the bart design, it was not necessarily a bart design in its entirety.
10:13 pm
it was a collaboration with the city, as well as other entities. we have agreed collectively to move this design forward. that was my intent in my statement. >> because it is your process and the priority is to get it done. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have a question. >> commissioner chain, you have a question? >> i actually just wanted to provide some thoughts, but i think i will wait. i will wait for that. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry. you have 12 minutes. >> thank you. i don't have any rebuttal at this time. thank you. >> wow. >> thank you. do you have a question? >> sorry, i have a question. [ indiscernible ] >> someone from the public mentioned there is a much larger project of tree removal on
10:14 pm
market street, and that our hearing and our multiple hours and my earning of $75 today is at bay. could you elaborate on that, please? >> thank you, commissioner. i only aware of one, possibly two applications for removal that are currently active related to some type of maintenance on an existing vault for electrical. >> sorry to interrupt. one of the appellants had brought up that there are ways going to be 800 tree removals. >> no. that is not true. the better market street plan was changed drastically by the pandemic. the numbers that were in play just a couple years ago have been reduced quite a bit.
10:15 pm
>> is that to like 10 or like 500? >> i don't think we have enough time this evening to go over that, but the comment is contemplating from embarcadero to octavia. >> thank you, chris. thank you. >> thank you. this matter is submitted. >> okay. who would like to start first? [ laughter ] commissioner chan, would you like to start first? >> thank you, president honda. i just wanted to chime in and respond to the comments that
10:16 pm
have been made by my fellow commissioners. i similarly a tree lover and honor and very much hold dear the limited tree landscape that is on market street and the rest of the city, for that matter. i do think it would be fair to acknowledge for a moment that the new work that is before us is not actually for us. that was a project that has been many, many years in the making. i left the planning department in 2017, and for a couple of years during my time at the planning department, better market street and their efforts there were still underway.
10:17 pm
i guess i say that just to highlight that during my time at the planning department all of this was still being planned with the many agencies, including bart, it is unfortunate that not all the other agencies are here to represent, but i do think it would be fair to acknowledge that it is not only bart that has been at the table making this decision. i know that m.t.a. was involved, the planning department was involved. dpw was involved, but i think we should at least acknowledge that part. it is not like unilateral decision that bart takes to design new canopies and then implements them. it is a really, really long and involved process. i think by the time it comes before us, the limited scope that we have is to hear about
10:18 pm
the tree removal, but i don't think it is as simple as that. it would be unfair to characterize it as such. i just wanted to get that one out. >> similarly, my comments will be even prior to the statement. i will not blame bart as well. i believe in this particular case. the process in this particular case is flawed. at the same time, i want to be productive going forward and not have a pincushion. i always say it is construction. no one pays about the electrician, the hardwood floor guy gets the worst of it because he is the last one on the floor. >> i feel this plan was poorly planned and bart is not responsible for the canopy design and the removal of all the trees and the additional
10:19 pm
maintenance as an excuse to remove trees is a pretty poor excuse. also, i of the opinion that this permit was issued in error. i think it is flawed. i think just from the testimony and material that was brought before the body this evening, that the mapping and tree removal and placement was faulty. at the same time, i'm not willing to deny the permit. i more looking at giving more time so that we can work with bart and with the public and the department going forward so we can have some positive results for all the work that has been put into this the far. many people have talked about market. like you said, rick gets really fired up.
10:20 pm
i believe that market street has always been an afterthought, and the plans were always kind of funky. now that we have made it a commercial zone, supposedly with noncommercial vehicles, it gives us an opportunity to plan in the future, as someone has said that market street is the largest venue. when you look from the satellites, they are the two streets that you see from the satellites. because it is the widest position, we have an opportunity, bart has an opportunity in the city has an opportunity to do something about this. i don't know what can be done, and i'm sorry for taking so much time. that is my comments. i would prefer that if we not kill this permit, but we give it some time. i would like to see a better plan between the people who have spoken tonight, including the department, bart, and the tree folks.
10:21 pm
commissioner lazarus? >> i basically in the same place that you are. i would like to give more time for these negotiations. i guess i did want to clarify potentially with our deputy city attorney that if at some point we want to mark a condition on green moves and perhaps a few other things, that that would be essentially kosher. i do understand, i think mr. buck said in some of these instances they will not know until they start digging, but i do think that more time -- in more time we might get a better sense of what can be dumb and i would feel more comfortable under those circumstances. -- what can be done, and i would feel more comfortable under those circumstances. >> good evening, commissioners. the code doesn't provide for the department to require things like green roofs, if that is what bart agrees to.
10:22 pm
it could be included in your order as a recommendation that they uphold their agreement. those requirements are not in the code. it is a one-to-one replacement or an in lieu replacement, as has been discussed. >> that is why i would like to clarify. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i want to clarify that this is not about me wanting to kill the project. the project is very important. bart has worked very hard on this project, and it was pointed out by my fellow commissioner that this has been many years in the making. it has been collaborative with many departments and far be it for me or this commission to come in here and try to do bad
10:23 pm
things and dismissed the project. i do, however, i just wanted to make that clear, i'm not looking to kill a project. i looking -- what i looking to do is get bart to review, and the department to review some of their points of view and strategies, and not place process in front of the priorities, other priorities in the city, including the macro priority or the tree count of the priority of protecting the environment. i think that there is a great deal of pressure and time pressure by two of the bart speakers tonight. we want to get this thing started in january. the world will continue if you don't get it started in
10:24 pm
january. will cost more money? yes. probably. i have always been of the belief that the priority should be doing it right as opposed to doing it because your process guides you in that direction, and something which is -- and the priority should be associated with the important things of life, just not because you have a time schedule. i would agree with commissioner lazarus. i would agree with commissioner honda. we could not -- that we do not make a finding tonight, that we do not support an appeal, but we ask for bart to close the loop and also -- and to close the loop on all the things tonight that they talked about, which haven't been resolved, and go back and see if there is a deal.
10:25 pm
review their construction and priorities and processes to see if we can have less impact on trees. we will review it so there is more clarity so when we hear this again, we can make our decisions based on the real facts, real schedule, the real strategy, and the right priorities. i would move this, extend the time on making a decision on this issue. >> thank you, vice president. commissioner lopez? >> just reading the room, it looks like we will move towards -- [ laughter ] >> can you hear me? >> yes.
10:26 pm
>> yeah,, i guess my, you know, request or suggestion would be to acclaim what some of my fellow commissioners have said is i think the permit holders, you know, well served to just be a little bit more surgical about focusing the tree removal on what is absolutely necessary. and i think, also, just coming with a little bit more detail and a little bit more robust of a plan on how to mitigate the impact of those. from my perspective, looking at the detail and accuracy that the appellant has presented, versus even some of the factual errors that have surfaced, and the broad brush strokes discussed by
10:27 pm
the permit holders, i think we would be better served to be able to assess this appropriately if we have really detailed and focused information on how to mitigate the impacts. that is my suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner lopez. >> thank you. i won't repeat. i just wanted to shed light. i share commissioner lopez's thoughts. i wanted to ask a question for chris buck. do you -- can you respond to the perspectives that this was not properly issued? >> thank you. chris buck, bureau of urban forestry. i strongly agree with that statement. i should have stated that for
10:28 pm
rebuttal. the permit is not issued in error. the code states that we do the in lieu fee, or a value, whichever is the greater of the two. i don't see an issue with the permit itself. as well as all the comments for mr. karn, i think there is a disagreement on that as well. there's no faulty info from public works. >> to make sure i understand properly, you think the permit has been properly issued and that the requirement is where they can't be planted and a payment would be required and that is what is agreed to is code compliant and would satisfy
10:29 pm
the requirement? >> thank you, commissioner. that is exactly right. >> okay. i guess, what i saw earlier about sharing commissioner lopez's perspective, i think whatever comes out of this needs to be surgical and specific, and i guess i'm not completely convinced that we need to continue this item. commissioner's wake -- commissioner's wake and vice president honda, could you specify? >> as a deputy city attorney, we do not have the ability, it is a one-for-one fee as the department has spoken. this board does have the ability to revoke the permit.
10:30 pm
in past history, in dealing with the development projects, they voluntarily come to jesus. they come back to the board with a plan, with suggestions that they work with the department and the people. if you want to hold a vote tonight and you don't think it needs to be continued, i would vote the permit be revoked. the thing is, bart and the department, along working with whoever they need to work with, if they need to start in january, that will probably not happen. the next question would be to the project sponsors and how much time would you need? and the direction i getting to, in any commissioner can chime in here, we want to see something better coming forward. if anything -- if anyone has any impact on that, we should be surgical on our wants so when
10:31 pm
this comes back to us again that we have the ability to come to a very decisive decision. >> i think you just uttered a very important word. that is, decisive. i would like to see this come back. and i would vote with you in upholding the appeal. >> let's be productive. >> i think -- i digress on my own statement. the word decisive, and also the word surgical. we have heard from the board presentation and we have heard clearly decisive decision on how this would work. this is what gave me the information. we heard that we don't like this design, we heard that, you know,
10:32 pm
we don't know that if we move this thing here or this thing here what will happen. if you will have to take out more trees, list trees, we heard a lot of indecisive behavior, and also with, you know, not of a lot of design in the first place. i would like to have bart come back with some clearer and more decisive direction. this is what we are going to do. that is realistic. in the appeal you never know what the hell will happen. what i heard tonight, too much ambiguity, and a lack of surety. i would like more surety, more decisive connections, and something less spent on the process of getting it done.
10:33 pm
>> can i add a little input? we can't do anything about the design. there is no time to do that. i think the appellant has been working with the department, as well as pg and e. and crafting an agreement together. i think that could probably work. i see my fellow commissioner shaking her head. other than that, we can't touch anything. let joshua, who is very good at what he does and he's doing this for free work with the department. in past cases, he has been very reasonable in his demands. and that gives us a shorter period of time that bart can come before us and we can improve their projects. we talked about good trees in barcelona and london and paris, but those cities also have something. they have a very significant and working underground system. we need that infrastructure in our city as well. going forward, how much time,
10:34 pm
i'm speaking to bart and potentially the appellant, do you guys need, and potentially the department, need them to finalize or come to agreement so bart can get their stuff going? raise your hand if anyone would like to proceed. >> are you addressing all the appellants as well? >> joshua, the council, or whoever wants to speak for bart. i will start with joshua. >> i in communication with carl. i will move as fast as they can move. >> do you need a week, two weeks, a month, two weeks? >> carl? >> i think 30 days is what we're looking at. >> is that good for you, carl? thirty days?
10:35 pm
>> thirty days is what i hearing. can you hear me? >> we should check with the other appellants as well. >> you are on mute. >> then we will hear from glenn and lance. >> if you guys are sincere and i have to take you for your word, and word doesn't mean a whole lot from the things that i have been through so far, if i take you for your word and you really want us to work together, if you want us to work together, we need more than 30 days. we have to earn a living. i do. there is not the time that it takes, okay, but except you are here -- your service to the board is for free also. it is basically out of the goodness of your heart. >> she needs more than 30 days. that's her answer.
10:36 pm
>> please go ahead. how much time do you need? >> very short. can you hear me? >> please, go ahead. >> the market street trees are in poor condition because of poor city maintenance. >> we are just asking you how much time you need to come up with a plan. we are not discussing logistics. >> i'm sorry. why did the poor maintenance occurred? >> i have to put him on mute. he is not answering the question. >> i see the attorney, same thing, 60 seconds, sir. >> we can turn this around in 30 days if we have to. >> thank you. thank you for everyone's cooperation. i think there is a motion. >> we could put this on january 12th. it is a little under 30 days. or we could probably put it on the january 26th. >> i think we can get this done
10:37 pm
under 30. let's not try to solve it going forward. >> i would give them a little margin for error and acknowledge the holidays. >> i would do the 26th. >> julie, i didn't get a chance to speak. >> i'm so sorry. >> sorry, i apologize. >> i would go along with something in the order of 4-6 months to give josh and his negotiation team to come up with something. >> thank you. >> thirty days is too short. >> do we have a motion? >> i will make a motion to continue this to january 27th so that the parties can -- >> january 26. >> let's make the 27th so no
10:38 pm
one knows. make it for the 26th, at which point, the parties can negotiate and hopefully come to an agreement. >> okay. on that motion... [ roll call ] that motion carries 5-0. >> thank you all. i wish you luck. >> yes. we are now moving on to item number 7. >> we will need it with that amount of time. >> okay, we are moving on to item number 7 which is a special item. us discussion about the developmental report of fiscal year 21. >> can i interrupt for one second?
10:39 pm
>> i would rather move this along. >> last year you just read the report. and if you had questions, you asked me and we could adopt it. >> i just had to ask so i don't get killed later. >> okay. thank you. before you for consideration is the adoption of the fiscal year 21 annual report. you all had in opportunity to read it and i would like to know if you have any questions. commissioner lazarus? >> yes. first of all, as always, extremely well done. i just have one question on one little piece that i was not clear on your phrasing. i'm on page 6 where you are recapping the matters that were heard by the board. you say 77 matters were not hord and the first bullet is 20 pending appeals. i did not know what you meant by that. >> that means that they haven't been cited.
10:40 pm
they are still pending. may be they were rescheduled. they were on the board's docket if the board didn't make a decision on them. >> i guess because it doesn't line up with the style in which you did the other bullets. it threw me off a little bit i happy to talk to you about it online. i needed a little clarification. that was all. >> appeals were, i guess they are pending, but they weren't heard for some reason. for example, the parties wanted more time and they asked to be rescheduled or they are negotiating. we can talk off-line. >> that is fine. that was the only thing that i had in the entire report. >> okay. i feel like that is a success. >> for one commissioner, i don't know about anybody else. >> we have had the most efficient executive directors on the planet. going through them has always been a pleasure, to be honest.
10:41 pm
when you change the format, i'm like wow, that looks great. >> are there any other questions? it doesn't look like it. okay. is there any public comment on this? okay. so, -- >> i will make a motion. >> we will need a vote on adopting or approve the report. >> i will also make a motion that we should keep scott chance -- scott sanchez on the cover of the report. >> in perpetuity. i agree. >> commissioner lazarus has a question. >> no, i didn't. sorry, did i hit that by mistake. >> i would take a motion to accept the minutes and i want to thank our executive director and staff that we have at the board of appeals for putting this together and making things seem so effortless when we get here. and the only thing that we are
10:42 pm
dealing with is appellants and permanent -- permit holders. julie, alec, staff, thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you to alec. didn't he do a wonderful job tonight doing all those presentations? he is -- he did an amazing job. thank you, you worked so hard. back to the motion. we have a motion from president honda to adopt the fiscal year 21 annual report. on that motion... [ roll call ] that motion carries 5-0. that concludes the hearing. >> do we have another hearing? we don't have another before christmas. happy holidays, happy hanukkah. >> we will see everyone tomorrow night. >> that's right. okay. thank you, guys. >> good night. good night. >> good night.
10:43 pm
10:44 pm
>> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow.
10:45 pm
for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes
10:46 pm
back to how do we help companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general
10:47 pm
manager of the mission bicycle company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here. essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love
10:48 pm
the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on the team is kind of getting involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally. over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers
10:49 pm
that are facing similar problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us, so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a wedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a
10:50 pm
platform for changing and making the city something that it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening that. >> my name is angela wilson and i'm an owner of the market i
10:51 pm
worked at a butcher for about 10 years and became a butcher you i was a restaurant cook started in sxos and went to uc; isn't that so and opened a cafe we have produce from small farms without small butcher shops hard for small farms to survive we have a been a butcher shop since 1901 in the heights floor and the case are about from 1955 and it is only been a butcher shot not a lot of businesses if san francisco that have only been one thing. >> i'm all for vegetarians if you eat meat eat meat for quality and if we care of we're in a losing battle we need to
10:52 pm
support butcher shops eat less we sell the chickens with the head and feet open somebody has to make money when you pay $25 for a chicken i guarantee if you go to save way half of the chicken goes in the enlarge but we started affordable housing depends on it occurred to us this is a male field people said good job even for a girl the interesting thing it is a women's field in most of world just here in united states it is that pay a man's job i'm an encountered woman and raise a son and teach i am who respect woman i consider all women's who work here to be impoverished and strong in san francisco labor is high our cost of good ideas we
10:53 pm
seal the best good ideas the profit margin that low but everything that is a laboring and that's a challenge in the town so many people chasing money and not i can guarantee everybody this is their passion. >> i'm the - i've been cooking mile whole life this is a really, really strong presence of women heading up kitchens in the bay area it is really why i moved out here i think that we are really strong in the destroy and really off the pages kind of thing i feel like women befrp helps us to get back up i'm definitely the only female here i fell in love i love setting up and love knowing were
10:54 pm
any food comes from i do the lamb and that's how i got here today something special to have a female here a male dominated field so i think that it is very special to have women and especially like it is going at it you know i'm a tiny girl but makes me feel good for sure. >> the sad thing the building is sold i'm renegotiating my lease the neighborhood wants us to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday
10:55 pm
it is a very high labor of business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this and empowering them to learn
10:56 pm
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
10:59 pm
11:00 pm
11:01 pm
11:02 pm
11:03 pm
11:04 pm
11:05 pm
11:06 pm
11:07 pm
11:08 pm
11:09 pm
11:10 pm
11:11 pm
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
11:14 pm
11:15 pm
11:16 pm
11:17 pm
11:18 pm
11:19 pm
11:20 pm
11:21 pm
11:22 pm
11:23 pm
11:24 pm
11:25 pm
11:26 pm
11:27 pm
11:28 pm
11:29 pm
11:30 pm
11:31 pm
11:32 pm
11:33 pm
11:34 pm
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
>> the hon. london breed: all right. so quiet in here today. is it quiet? kind of quiet. well, first of all, thank you, everyone, for being here today. thank you for the boys and girls club for hosting us here in san francisco, and i really appreciate the continued to stand before you as the mayor of san francisco to introduce something that i'm very proud of and something that is long overdue. so today, we're here with a number of elected officials, nonprofits, and professionals, because the city clearly needs a change when it comes to our
11:37 pm
young people. during covid, we all know that kids suffered, and schools that were closed led to learning loss and mental health challenges that sadly continue to this day, but we can't pretend that these opportunities didn't exist in the past, but today, we can create a new path forward. currently, there are ten agencies that make decisions for our kids. it is so frustrating and confusing for kids when parents can't speak english and they have to translate for their parents. the thing about these programs, they don't necessarily have a
11:38 pm
coordinated vision, and the programs are confusing for families to access. we are here because we desperately desperately need to put our children first. there are a lot of people standing here today that really care about kids. supervisor melgar couldn't make it, but she supports our kids. supervisor raphael mandelman is here. former president of the board of supervisors norman yee is here, who led the fight in the city. we also have board members like jennie lam and former board
11:39 pm
members like hydro mendoza, who i can't tell if they're here because i can't see under the mask as well as the service providers to -- who provide services to our kids. and of course, we have our parents, some of whom you'll hear from today. getting this charter amendment onto the ballot is going to take a lot of partners, and i'm really proud of all the people who are supportive of this and with us today, including our young people, who probably -- [applause]
11:40 pm
>> the hon. london breed: i know we can put our kids in focus. in the summer of 2020, with our schools closed, we needed to support our kids, especially those living in public housing and congregate settings who had nowhere to go, nowhere to learn. that's when the city, under the leadership of maria su, with the department of children, youth, and families -- [applause] >> the hon. london breed: that's when we created the learning hub. the program that we created happened in a matter of weeks, so these hubs, they served thousands of young people with a safe place to learn, to be around other kids, to get access to other food and to feel normal during one of the most difficult times of our experiences. and what made the community
11:41 pm
learning hub successful was the communication and partnership with the city and communication and partnership with the nonprofit agencies. we would often ask why we aren't using the schools, and i had no good answer for that, and that's exactly why this ballot measure is needed. it has two main focuses. first, we will centralize the work we've done for kids. it seems like it should, but it's not. one of the most frustrating things as mayor is dealing with bureaucracy, and the agency that is responsible for what, and the expectation that nonprofits who are already working hard to serve our children have to fill out several different applications and meet several different requirements, and specifically, the measure will combine existing youth service departments into a single
11:42 pm
children's agency for the city and county of san francisco, which will be significant. it will create a unified vision, bring services and funding together in one place, improve efficiency by aligning all the spending that we make towards specific goals, and reduce bureaucracy so parents have one specific location to access services and programs. how do we allow children access to things that they may be interested in doing? this holistic approach will
11:43 pm
better serve families and kids. the next part of this charter amendment will be school board accountability. the other thing that is so critical to, i know, what everyone is most excited about, is, you know, the fact that we need to change what happens at the school board. i'm standing here with school board members past and present who have done difficult work. they know what it takes to make hard decisions and to focus on the core mission of that really important body, but unfortunately, the schooling board we have has too often focused on the wrong things at the expense of the big picture. people -- school renamings
11:44 pm
instead of getting schools opens, massive school budget deficits, parents who feel like they're not being heard, and kids who have not felt like they're being prioritized, i get where they're coming from. as mayor, i don't have control over the school district, but every year, the city provides millions and millions to the school district. i'm not just talking about the $25 million we gave them for covid along with the various district partners who provided support for the challenges that they were experiencing. my responsibility is to ensure that those city dollars and resources are being spent well. we need to set some basic, basic accountability standards if we're going to keep spending that money, so children first will do just that.
11:45 pm
it will require the board of education to self-certify every year that they've met some of these basic guidelines, including undergoing regular training to improve their effectiveness, conduct extensive parental engagement to ensure all parent voices are heard, and allow the superintendent to manage other staff, which unfortunately is not happening. approve the annual budget and ensure that it aligns with the overall goal of the district and conduct annual self-evaluations to ensure that they are working together as a collective body to achieve these long-term goals. now this is about good government and accountability. it's about ensuring that the city dollars are being spent wisely. it's about a reset of the board
11:46 pm
of education, and most of all, it's about our kids. no longer will this city give a blank check to the school board until it demonstrates some level of improvement and accountability to serve our children. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so we have a lot of work to do, not just to get this charter on the ballot, but to pass it and take action. we have to show that this city cares about our kids and their families. let me just say, as a kid that grew up in san francisco, you know, my grandmother was the person that was completing all the paperwork and doing all the things that needed to be done
11:47 pm
to make sure that i could participate in all of these programs. i was completing all the forms. i was completing all the forms, working with my grandmother, and at the time, a lot of people with the nonprofits, they were on the forefront with me, hearing me through this process. we thought technology made it better. in fact, things have gotten way more complicated, and it should not be difficult for kids to participate in programs, for them to receive a good education and the support that they need and deserve so they can thrive, so their lives are made better. we owe it to them to think about their future, and part of that is making sure we're grading them. not just on math, science, reading, and writing.
11:48 pm
and right now, we're failing. we're failing our kids, we're failing our families, and so this charter amendment is about doing something different, doing something better, because i know we can do something better because they serve it, and i want to take a moment to recognize the leaders of the department of children, youth, and families. thank you, maria su, for helping to lead this charter amendment. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you to all the families who have provided their input. we are truly grateful, and as i mentioned to a number of folks before from various nonprofits and agencies and parents, this has really been a collective effort, and long overdue, and we're going to have to work hard to get this passed, but when we get it passed, and when we implement it, we all are going to see and feel a change for our children and for our
11:49 pm
future. so thank you so much for being here today, and at this time, i want to introduce the supervisor of this district that we're in, and who represents district 8. ladies and gentlemen, supervisor rafael mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, madam mayor. welcome to district 8, everyone. you know, if norman yee, london breed, maria su and phil halperin agree on something related to kids, you know it's got to go good. as another san francisco former kid myself, i know this is a
11:50 pm
really good ballot measure. i think this measure is a measured and reasonable response to some of the frankly chaos that we have seen coming out of the school district, and we have, as a city, a tremendous stake in what happens at the district. we don't run the district, but we fund it in significant measure, and this ballot recognizes that, as a condition of that funding, we should have some expectations around the quality of governance, and so i really appreciate that that is an important piece of this charter amendment. but i also really appreciate the thoughtful approach to the delivery to children and their families and the process that has gone on over many months. i have not been part of that process. i have checked in with folks along the way who have been part of it, and i have been
11:51 pm
really impressed to see folks digging in and helping kids in san francisco like they should. and plus, i called norman and asked him what he was doing. particularly, i want to thank maria for stepping up so phenomenally over the last two years. during this pandemic, some folks stepped up, but not everybody. but maria did. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: many of the parent leaders out in the audience stepped up during the pandemic, and thank you. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: and the boys and girls club stepped up during the pandemic. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: and so with that, i'm going to introduce rob connolly with the boys and girls club.
11:52 pm
[applause] >> well, i'll be brief. i really just want to welcome you to our columbia clubhouse in mission park. this clubhouse has been here 114 years, and the boys and girls club has been in the city for 130 years, so we've been helping boys and girls and families in the city for a long, long time. i want to welcome the mayor to columbia park. we got this just in time, and i think the mayor was able to get it for a little bit.
11:53 pm
you know, i guess i just want to say, mayor, thank you for prioritizing kids, families, and community. with that, i want to thank maria yu. when the mayor called for the shelter in place in mar 2020, we called up and say hey, we don't think we're going to be able to close. i says, we really want to figure this out, and within a few hours, working with the mayor and dr. colfax, and whoever else that i don't know, figured out how to keep the boys and girls club open during
11:54 pm
the pandemic. our sites that we had controlled completely like this clubhouse and several other places, we were able to keep open. across the city, we have five facilities, and you heard about alignment. we receive funding from a number of different places in the city, and it is very challenging for us at every level, administratively as well as programatically, and responding to the different needs assessments that come out, and all the administrative processes of who's getting funded by this contract and that contract. one of the thing that's we jokingly said, we ask the kids, what are your thoughts on this program? and they said, what program is that? it's the program funded by
11:55 pm
mohcd -- no, we don't ask them that, but they say they like this program because. really appreciate having everybody here, and appreciate the leadership, and the willingness to dig in and find greater alignment for families like ours, and we look forward to working as a nonprofit with the city in a successful effort, which we hope it is. with that, i'm going to introduce mario paz, who runs the location here in the mission. mario's been in his role
11:56 pm
leading the organization for 15 years, so mario, welcome. [applause] >> thank you, ron. i'd first like to thank the mayor and maria su for your continued leadership on behalf of children, youth, and families. we do this work because we love our children. it's our children, and san francisco has proven to be one of the most generous cities in the world when it comes to our children. i think about this assault from covid that we continue to have, and one of the things that we've found out is our most vulnerable are truly, truly the most vulnerable. the other important issue we learned is that it really, really, really does take a village, right? and we are that village.
11:57 pm
and we talk about that, but it really does take a village. but guess what? in order for that village to succeed, you need to be prepared, you need to be coordinated, and you need to be accountable to each other. this creates a village that's well prepared, well coordinated, and most importantly, we're going to be accountable. we're going to be accountable to each other, and most importantly, we're going to be accountable to the children. i grew up in the city. i benefited from many of the programs here. i grew up in san francisco. i'm a son of san francisco, and i'm proud of it, but i'm here to tell you, we can no longer afford to fail our children. we've shown the world what we can do in so many different, but why are we failing on this? we're going to work hard, we're
11:58 pm
going to hold each other accountable, and thank you all for being here, and thank you all for your leadership. thank you. [applause] [speaking cantonese language]
11:59 pm
12:00 am
12:01 am
12:02 am
>> okay. i will be translating. i have two children. my son is 13 years old, and my daughter is six years old. during the pandemic, sprisk provided a community learning hub to support my children through distance learning and children workshops. i have received covid information and community resources such as where to got vaccination and where to get the covid test, and my family has attended events like halloween festival and thanksgiving. i'm thankful for the san
12:03 am
francisco unified school district to provide wellness checks and meetings for parents conducted by the teachers. after my first wellness meeting, we received hand sanitizer from the teachers, and during the holidays, the teachers personally discovered study materials to my children. we hope the city and school district can continue to serve even after the pandemic. this will provide the services that parents have been calling
12:04 am
for since before the pandemic for education. thank you. [applause] >> hi. my name is chanel, and i am a parent of two children in san francisco unified school district. thank you, mayor breed, for allowing me to speak my voice today. this children first initiative is very important for the children because during the first 18 months of distance learning for my son, he was in middle school at the time and didn't experience his graduation, and the experience
12:05 am
of distance learning for 18 months impacted him a lot of he gave up after his younger brother went back to two days hybrid in april, he dove more into the internet. it was devastating for him, and he needed an outlet to survive, so he picked social media, and now, i'm seeing the consequences of that. he's so stuck now being a freshman now still in tenth grade. i'm a working mom, and my husband works, we didn't have 24 hours to watch him. i assumed he was doing his classes, but he wasn't. i think he was only on the internet, and now he's having a really hard time adjusting in person in high school. it all just broke my heart because our kids were not in school. i feel like it was damaging to our kids' physical health and
12:06 am
mental health. i understand that the district want today rename -- wanted to rename schools, but it wasn't a time for it. getting our kids back in school was our first priority. i hope this initiative will help our city kids and my kids. i'm optimistic that it will help the city kids. we're all overwhelmed, and we're all in the same boat, i get it, and we need to have all hands on deck starting yesterday. my hope is that we'll do this together, listen to our teachers, principals, and do this as a san francisco community. our kids need our help and resources. i'm afraid about those budget cuts. do we have enough mental health resources that they need after
12:07 am
promo distance learning. i am a mama bear protecting her cubs, and i hope we can do this right now. i'm a fan of prevention. if we don't do this, take action, we're going to affect our children's career potential. they can be artists, doctors, lawyers, scientists, and many more opportunities in this city. the school board has a big responsibility. if the school board was operating as they should be, we wouldn't be here today. early on, the school district didn't listen. they didn't take the help from experts. i hope the san francisco unified school district starts to put politics aside. take advice from experts and consultants and govern better for our kids.
12:08 am
i believe this children first initiative will help. it will move us forward helping our san francisco students be all right. to be clear, it's all about the children. thanks again for being a service for our kids. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you to our parents for their compelling stories, and the reasons why we're here today, and at this time, i just really want someone who has been many, many years and who put kids first. although she's no longer on the school board, she cares about the children and is always actively engaged and providing feedback or historical information or institutional knowledge to help us move
12:09 am
things forward in a positive direction, and someone who i'm sure if she was still on the school board, some of this would not be happening. please welcome former school board members rachel norton. >> good afternoon, everyone. it's really a mixed bag that i'm here today. it's sad that here's where we are, but this is where we are, and i have to say that san francisco is the envy of many other districts in california because of the incredible support that the city of san francisco gives our district. in 2010, when the last economic downturn happened, i had been on the board about two years, and i went to a california
12:10 am
school board association conference, and people said oh, we're cutting p.e., we're cutting art, and we didn't have to cut those because of the support that the city gives the school district. what happened during the pandemic, maria, mayor breed, the services that were provided to school children made a lot of difference for families. i think normally, of course, a school board member would bridle when the mayor who's not in charge of schools should tell the school board what to do, but those are the times
12:11 am
that we're not in, and somebody should step up and say that that's not important. every year, the board adopts governance rules as part of its policies and procedures, and yet, we have not always seen those governance rules or procedures to be followed by the board, so i'm very grateful to you, mayor breed, for putting this forward. i gather, since supervisor mandelman is here, that he is
12:12 am
cosponsoring. thank you. i'm also happy to see my former colleague, norman yee here, who, like me, spent many years in the trenches on the school board, and i think that this is an idea whose time has come, and i think it's time to start moving the district forward, so thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and i just want to add one more speaker just to stay a few word because our former president of the board of supervisors, norman yee, also served on the school board, and so i want him to say a few words before we open it up for questions.
12:13 am
. >> you know, i wanted to send the school district a message that if you don't step up in your leadership, then you're just going to, you know, lose it. the state's going to take it over, and they need to understand that. just because the state takes it over doesn't mean it's going to be better. it just means cutting without knowing our community, and thank you, mayor breed, for really introducing this charter amendment. it's been needed, and i've been pushing for these for decades. when i was president, i put in
12:14 am
a new council for children and families, but it just lacked a, needed a little bit more teeth. i think we started seeing the coordination of children's services between departments, and to work together, no more silos. it's really similar to what we did [indiscernible] i'm glad to be very supportive of this charter amendment because i think this would move the city
12:15 am
into the right direction. thank you very much. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, and i want to thank c.y.c. and sarah wong for all of her advocacy. thank you to the s.f. parent coalition for rising up and doing what's necessary to not only support your children but to support all children in san francisco, and thank you to katie albright for being with us today from safe and sound. we have a sector of people who truly love and support kids in san francisco, and i'm very positionate about supporting kids because i was probably one of the most problematic kids growing up. again, had it not been for the support of those places that i had to go as a kid, and
12:16 am
teachers and all those things that i was exposed to, i just don't know where i would be. the people that i grew up with ended up, unfortunately, in many instances, in the criminal justice system, they ended up dead, and they ended up on drugs, and i still see some of those people today in various places, and somewhere along the way, we failed them. if we don't do this and more to support our children, to protect them, to uplift them, to make sure that we get rid of the barriers to their success, that's how we make the difference for them so they don't end up in the same situation that so many people that i grew up with ended up in. so that's why we're here today.
12:17 am
we're here today because we need to change that structure, and we need to think differently about how we make things better for them. so i also want to just take an opportunity to really thank phil halperin for his extraordinary leadership over the years of supporting children, period. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, phil. he is one of the most committed san franciscans ensuring we are doing right through our policies, through our funding, and other resources, so we really appreciate you, and thank you for your work. so with that, i think i'll open it up to questions, maggie. all right. questions? yes. [indiscernible]
12:18 am
. >> the hon. london breed: so i'll say two things. there's the superintendent that's trying to govern and propose, from my understanding, a reasonable financial plan to address some of the deficit that the school district has, and then, there's a proposal by two of the school board members, and this is part of the problem and why we are introducing this charter amendment because the fact is the one that's introduced by the board members, if that passes, and that is the direction the school board goes into, then sadly, the district goes into phase two of a possible takeover. the last phase is phase three, and then, there's a done deal. the state takes over the schools. so it's clear if it goes to that point, then, we're headed down that road, and to me, the
12:19 am
fact that the school board members are moving toward that direction -- this will disqualify them from allowing them to play the $25 million that they owe to the city and county of san francisco. they're headed down the wrong path, and they need to let the superintendent govern the school board so we don't have school board members micromanage what the superintendent should be doing,
12:20 am
and i think that's part of the problem. any other questions? [indiscernible] . >> the hon. london breed: well, the city doesn't have control over the school board because if we did, we would probably not be in the situation we're in.
12:21 am
12:22 am
there is a financial requirement that we provide resources to support the school district. and we're attaching accountability to that. so it has nothing, from my perspective, to do with a take over. we also feel strongly that, with those public dollars, there has to be an opportunity for the public, including parents, to have at least some say in what's happening with the school district. and the concern that we have the most is how the board members are micromanaging the schools, micromanaging whether a principal should work at a
12:23 am
school because of political reasons, when in fact, the only thing they should be responsible is hiring and firing the superintendent and legal assistant. but getting involved because someone supported someone in a campaign, that's crazy. that's the problem, and this is not about anything other than fixing a broken governing structure. [applause] >> just one more question. [indiscernible] . >> the hon. london breed: i must say, a lot of this is something that i wanted to do for sometime, especially when the pandemic hit. it's looking at a disorganized
12:24 am
chart where funding comes from. early childhood education, dcyf, tay-u, and all of these things were all over the place and not coordinated. and then, the beacons and what's happening with the beacons. and i know these structures like the back of my hand, and there was a real disconnect between all of these agencies and all of this money and how our kids were not only doing in life but how they were doing in school, and so there's no direction. so we -- what we did had
12:25 am
everything to do with being treated like we're an a.t.m. machine with unlimited money, and then, when we would ask for it to be used for a specific purpose or what have you, there was no way to have any accountability attached to that. there was money that i provided to the school district for specific purposes that i still don't necessarily have accounting for who it was used for that purposes, including establishing wellness centers in every school in san francisco, and this was before the pandemic, and so i want some accountability for where those dollars are, and why haven't those wellness centers even opened in the first place? so that's been the focus of wanting to make sure that
12:26 am
there's accountability, and we get more, and we get more for our families and our children. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: all right? thank you, everyone. thank you for being here. let's get this on the ballot and get it passed, because that's what this is about. thank you. [♪♪♪] to order the december 10,
12:27 am
12:28 am
12:29 am
12:30 am
meeting of the redistricting task force at 3:06 p.m. mr. clerk, are there any announcements? >> clerk: i'm muted? >> you were a minute ago. >> i just asked if there were any announcements?


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on