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- opening. o 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 outdoor diners and shoppers o 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.” o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. o The trees were noticed to provide an opportunity for protest. The trees were protested and later appealed to Board of Appeals. o 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. o 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 on 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 of 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