DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY PRESENTATION - - PDF document

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY PRESENTATION

Date: July 13, 2020 To: Julie Rosenberg, Executive Director, SF Board of Appeals From: Chris Buck, Urban Forester RE: Hayes Valley Update Following the most recent Board of Appeals hearing on July 1, I believe it would be helpful to provide an update on the status of our Hayes Valley work related to Appeal

• No. 19-098. I hope that this memo will give some context to the comments that were

presented and provide assurance to the Board members that BUF always has, and continues to, take any direction from the Board very seriously, as well as properly following the processes required by our ordinance.

• The merchants and restaurants of Hayes Valley applied for daytime closure of a

portion of Octavia St and Hayes St to allow for social distancing and expanded re-

• pening.
• To support these businesses that have suffered significantly

during the last several months, BUF’s internal arborist crews dropped everything to quickly address the trees on the 2.5 block area so that the work would not be happening in conflict with

• utdoor diners and shoppers
• Our communication to the neighborhood regarding the larger tree

work was already in motion. Doorhangers were distributed throughout the 2 Keymaps affected. Letters were sent to the printer and mailed, but the letters were not in time for this expedited portion of the work. We recognize better communication of this specific 2.5 block blitz would have significantly helped to let the neighbors know what was happening.

• The Board of Appeals upheld the Public Works order “on the condition the

removal not begin until a replacement tree plan is in place, which includes the species of the replacement trees, on the basis that this is in line with the Department’s intentions and provides transparency to the public.”

• We revised our species matrix after meeting with the public in

November 2019 and have remained open to feedback with a renewed series of meetings in the past several weeks that included the review of results of a neighborhood survey. These

insights were incorporated into an updated map and spreadsheet showing what will be planted and where.

• Some commenters at the last hearing indicated that the exact trees to be removed and/or

pruned was not known or available.

• 28 trees were planned to be removed. The rest will be pruned.

The exact trees to be removed/pruned were proposed and approved during the BOA hearing. This information is also included in the planting plan that has been discussed at several different meetings with community members. There has been no change to this plan since the Board’s determination.

• 6 of the scheduled 28 removals were completed early. Only trees

that were approved for removal and were located within the 2.5 block area near the intersection of Hayes and Octavia were

• removed. The remainder of trees in this area were pruned.
• The removals represent a small portion of the total tree removals

scheduled for the two grid areas that Hayes Valley is a part of, we wish to emphasize that the intention in removing trees at this time was solely to support local businesses re-opening, and was limited to 6 removals and pruning of only 2.5 blocks.

• Our contractor will soon complete the tree pruning, removal, and

stump grinding work in both Keymaps. BUF Cement staff and Landscape staff will repair sidewalks, shift basins as necessary, and plant trees within the mandated 3-month window.

• Concerns were raised that we were not protecting nesting birds.
• BUF tree crews have been trained in Bird Nesting Protection. We

make every effort to check for nests and avoid non-emergency work in trees with nests. The nest in question was actually a squirrel nest, not a bird nest. Nonetheless, our crews stopped pruning the tree with the squirrel nest when it was discovered.

• Claims were made that we did no 30-day posting for the removals.
• The trees were noticed to provide an opportunity for protest. The

trees were protested and later appealed to Board of Appeals.

• The 30-day notice of street tree removal in Section 806(a)(2) is

specifically and solely for purposes of allowing for an interested member of the public to request a Public Works administrative hearing under Section 806(a)(3). There is no requirement in the Public Works code that a notice is required both for purposes of a Departmental appeal and additionally to notify the public again that the tree will be

• removed. This has never been our practice, and could lead to

more confusion as there would be no further appeal right.

• Although not required by code, BUF has consistently placed door

hangers and sent letters to neighbors in advance of our crews or contractors beginning work in a neighborhood since the StreetTreeSF program began. We did so in this case but acknowledge that the expediting of the small area to support local businesses in the face of a global pandemic, without additional neighborhood notification, made our usual outreach confusing and led to the concerns that were raised at the July 1 hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to review this matter and provide a full accounting of our work. If there are follow-up questions, I am available by phone or email and look forward to the next Board of Appeals meeting. Sincerely,

Chris Buck

Chris Buck San Francisco Urban Forester

PUBLIC COMMENT

From: Kasey Rios Asberry <kasberry@humanorigins.org> Subject: Re: Hayes Valley Tree Removals contrary to permit Date: July 1, 2020 at 5:10:48 PM PDT To: "Short, Carla (DPW)" <Carla.Short@sfdpw.org> Cc: "Rosenberg, Julie (BOA)" <julie.rosenberg@sfgov.org>, "BoardofAppeals (PAB)" <boardofappeals@sfgov.org>, "Haney, Matt (BOS)" <matt.haney@sfgov.org>, "Mar, Gordon (BOS)" <gordon.mar@sfgov.org>, "Mahogany, Honey (BOS)" <honey.mahogany@sfgov.org>, "Marstaff (BOS)" <marstaff@sfgov.org>, "PrestonStaff (BOS)" <prestonstaff@sfgov.org>, Cityattorney <Cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>, "Smeallie, Kyle (BOS)" <kyle.smeallie@sfgov.org>, "Buck, Chris (DPW)" <Chris.Buck@sfdpw.org> Dear Director Short, Thank you for your detailed response. While working together to improve the tree canopy in San Francisco your clear communications are helpful. Let me give you the details that I am working from to ask these questions of you for further clarification. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• 1. No 30-day notification posting occurred prior to removals. Neighbors awoke
• n a weekend to chain saws. This is incorrect. All necessary public

notifications occurred prior to these removals. City Code Article 16 Section 806.2, “ (B)Thirtydayspriortotheremovaldate,theDepartmentnotifiesallinterestedSanFranciscoorg

anizationsand,totheextentpractical,allownersandoccupantsofpropertiesthatareonoracrossfro mtheblockfacewheretheaffectedtreeislocated.Inaddition, 30dayspriortotheremovaldate,theDepartmentshallpostanoticeontheaffectedtree. “

Understanding that we are not referring to the initial Notice of Proposed Removal but to the notification to neighbors that in 30-days the trees will be cut down. " This did not occur. Is it that we understand the language differently? Should we get clarification from the City Attorney’s office?

• 2. BUF/ DPW staff appear not to have known when contractors’ work would

commence or that posting needed to occur. This is also incorrect. BUF staff performed this work, in order to try to minimize disruption for merchants, as noted above. The larger area will be pruned by contractors starting in about a month. Hmm while staff didn’t know when the work would commence they were aware

• f the need to post because printing had been ordered.

From staff email on Tuesday Jun 30, 2020 "We were preparing for the first phase of the tree work which is expected to start in about a month with the tree removals to be done by our contractor. In preparation, we distributed doorhangers and have mailers scheduled to go out next week along with a couple other neighborhood communications. More recently, we became aware of an application to close 2.5 blocks on Hayes and Octavia for outdoor seating in support of restaurants reopening. I don’t know if the uptick in cases will delay or alter those plans, but we checked with our arborist crew to have them do the pruning and removal work on those 2.5 blocks since we don’t want the work to impede on the reopening. Especially since so many local businesses have really taken a hit, it underscored the importance.What went wrong, though, is that they were able to clear their calendars faster than we expected and had a crew there starting Saturday and again this week, making for the unexpected start. We should have communicated to you that this limited section was starting ahead of schedule. Despite all the pressure we’re getting to do the pruning and removal work, we made a commitment to you to keep you informed. "

• 3. BOA directive to BUF to create a tree replacement plan with appellants prior

to removals was ignored. This is also incorrect. BUF staff engaged with the neighbors after the Board of Appeals hearing, and had multiple meetings and email exchanges. BUF was planning to further discuss the replanting plan prior to the work, but again, because just a small section of the area was requested to be expedited for the businesses seeking outdoor seating permits, we proceeded with that small area. BUF staff have been in touch directly with

the appellants in this case since Monday. Yes while it seems the tree planting plan that BOA required as a condition of the settlement (see attached) was in progress it is not complete even now. My colleagues , the appellants, who conducted the species survey on behalf of the permit agreement had not been asked by BUF staff for the results as of Tuesday.

• 4. Nesting birds are being disturbed. There was a squirrel nest in one of the

trees being pruned yesterday, but our crew pulled off that tree. I believe the nest in question was in the silk oak which was not actually scheduled for pruning or removal. What is BUF policy with regard to Audubon Society Guidelines for tree pruning and removals? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As you note we are invested in preserving and amplifying the tree canopy in San Francisco. As a dedicated public servant you will appreciate though that its not about emotion so much as making sure that we are doing the best we can to meet the clear climate emergency we are in (and that Covid is a symptom of). Removing trees that we don’t have resources to replace and maintain runs contrary to this public environmental health need. Equally important to us is adherence to transparency in public process. We have a permitting process precisely to support you in pushing back against undue pressure from any quarter should that ever be a factor. It is meant I know to help guarantee fairness. I look forward to working with you to help strengthen our policy, our processes and our tree canopy. This work done in email after the fact is pretty difficult, I hope to work with you more directly when opportunity permits. Kasey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bloom Where You Are Planted ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Demonstration Gardens Healthy Street Trees Initiative http://demonstration-gardens.org San Francisco - Detroit Kasey Asberry 415-283-8570

From: Natalie Downe <nat@natbat.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 8:35 PM To: BoardofAppeals (PAB) <boardofappeals@sfgov.org> Cc: Joshua Klipp <joshuaklipp@gmail.com>; Lance Carnes <lacarnes@gmail.com>; Susan Cieutat <susan@sfdonors.com> Subject: Submitting my comments for public record This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links

• r attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello In addition to the video of the trees with nests in being removed that I submitted for public record earlier today. I would also like to submit my comment as I didn’t have time to finish. Kind regards Natalie === The trees came down in Hayes Valley a couple weeks ago which were removed in direct contravention of the conditions issued by this board. Destroying public trust. The appellants and I heard via communications with Buro of urban Forrestry that hayes Valley neighborhood Association requested this removal be brought forward. they didn’t have the right or authority to do this. The mandate issued by this board stated that transparent community input, into an agreed replacement tree species plan had to be in place before removals were allowed to start. Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association wasn’t even one of the appellants in the appeal that was heard and ruled on by this board. Perhaps counter

intuitively, the hayes Valley neighborhood Association is not considered by many people who live here to faithfully represent the residents of hayes valley. Buf should have complied with the resulting order from the hearing/appeal and worked with the appellants who were working hard to gain input and consensus from residents with an open survey and outreach with the community. A replacement plan that had community input has now been agreed on in the past few weeks, prior to that the so called october/November agreement and backup tree species was from secretive with meetings between buf & hayes valley Neighborhood Association which is why we requested open community input, the species agreed upon with hayes valley neighborhood association is ENTIRELY different from the ones agreed with the appellants. This was a set of different conversations, not a continuation of the initial

• ne. The plan wasn’t “90% agreed” as stated by Chris Buck.

=== My second major point has to do wirh the Unsanctioned major pruning work that happened to 3 silver oak trees on hayes st with what look to be visible nests in that should have been left alone for that reason. I emailed the video of this incident to the email address for public comment in this meeting today. BUF later said that this was a mistake that shouldn’t have happened and the city employees working on the trees thought on later investigation they were squirrel nests. Regardless of what they actually were, it’s still bird nesting season and bat maternity season till the end of August and any suspected nests should have meant that tree was left well alone and assessed by a biologist. It

should be noted that the workpeople should have seen these nests and that work only stopped on these trees when I emailed buf! Yesterday BUF has started the removals of the remaining trees. Since this removal is happening by contractors and not city employees like it was a couple weeks ago, I’d like to know the exact mechanisms to protect potential bird nests and bat roosts, to avoid the mistake of a few weeks ago. On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 14:45, Natalie Downe <nat@natbat.net> wrote: Hello, I wanted to add this video for the hearing tonight at 5pm. My name is Natalie Downe and my phone number is 4156715352 and it is for item 8. This is a video of an unauthorised non-ficus being heavily pruned by city workers (not contractors) apparently with visible nests. https://vimeo.com/442841635/59eedc99a1 Even if these are not birds nests they should still have stopped work when they saw something that could have been and then gotten a credited biologist to check further. Natalie,