The city not the project sponsor how section 802, 810a work relative to the replacement the types of trees and what is significant and is that a 36inch box . I had very specific questions. None of which mr. Rich even remotely touched on. So and i mean this is your problem but that was not what i originally asked. And none of that has been responded to at all, which is why i nicely said that mr. Richs comments were not wholly satisfactory. But proceed. Ill touch on a couple of things. As mr. Rich did say supervisor peskin, we are not at a level of plans yet. So i couldnt tell you the exact size of the boxes that will be put back in. But the street trees, as you mentioned, there are 15 existing street trees along california street that were referenced earlier. They are new Zealand Christmas trees. Those trees will be removed and replaced around the site perimeter with 88 new street trees. The street trees along california that were referenced are going to match the street trees that were recently replaced at Laurel VillageShopping Center. They are fruitless olive trees. There are some mediumsized trees but those will grow into fully mature trees. And the number of trees that are in front of the site, the 15 you referenced, will be replaced with 31 trees in the project. I cant tell you right now the exact box size, but we tend to want to maximize the size as feasible. And we are committed to working with the department of urban forestry and dpw to do that. So just so that this is a very complicated multifaceted project. And i am very interested in having over 400 units of housing. And i appreciate the fact that you had your come to jesus moment and did 25 percent and all the rest of it. Im actually focused in this sliver of it on item 3, which are properties of the city and county of San Francisco. So those are very different than property than trees on private property. And maybe i just need to defer to the City Attorney. All im asking for, because i actually did read, not every word of this, but a lot of it. So im just maybe City Attorney, im asking what i think is a very simple question. I found this, 15 street trees replaced by 88 street trees. 19 significant trees replaced by 49 significant trees. And payment of tree removal for 12 trees. What does that mean pursuant to section 800 802 810a of the code. I was going to say why dont we have the from dpw answer that. Deputy City Attorney john meddle man. John mandelman. The replacement of significant trees, which is under section 810a of the public works code and street trees which is under sections 800 are the same. So its the same replacement standard that applies. Ill read to you the basics. Thank you. The species needs to be suitable for the site conditions. Needs to be a minimum 24inch box size, have a minimum one and a quarter inch caliper measured at 6 inches aboveground. And theres a few other standards. But i think the critical thing is they need to be an equivalent replacement value. And as one might imagine its very difficult depending onsite conditions, the age of a tree, to replace the exact same kind of tree or move the tree in different locations. So replacement value is defined in the public works code. And i think this is probably an important part of this definition that certain trees are landscape material because of their size, species or historical significance cannot be replaced from available nursery stock. In such cases replacement value shall be determined pursuant to the evaluation formula adopted by the International Society arboar culture, et cetera. I think as mr. Rich had stated that with the experience of the urban forrester they would look at the trees when it comes time to actually replace them and try to determine an equivalent replacement value for the trees that would be replaced, either onsite or in the sidewalk. So the way we got from 15, 88 and 19 to 49 plus in lieu for 12 was based on an evaluation pursuant to 800 . Thats correct. When it comes time to remove the trees the replacement species would be guided by the standards in the public works code. Supervisor stefani. Thank you. Thank you. Just in terms of maintenance of the trees i just want to ask whether or not it will be the city or the project sponsor maintaining the trees. That is very clearly set out, it will be the permittee. Right. But i want to make sure Everybody Knows that. And i want to make sure, and we can confirm this as well, that its my understanding we are going from 208 trees to 512 trees, more than doubling, is that correct . John, again, john from the City Attorneys office through the chair i cant speak to the number of trees. But in terms of maintenance, for the street trees, which are the ones on the sidewalk, there is a minimum requirement for the permittee to ensure the survivability of the trees. So i think theres a two to threeyear initial Maintenance Period, at which point under pop proposition e responsibility to maintain those trees shifts to the department of public works. Unless theres a voluntary agreement between the project sponsor and the city to allow the project sponsor to maintain the street trees. That is to the trees onsite, the major encroachment permit specifies those will be the responsibility of the permittee. Im sorry say that again. I thought this provision on page 5 line 20 through 22 rules, the permittee shall assume all costs for the Maintenance Repair of the encroachment pursuant to the permit and no costs or obligation of any kind shall accrue to the public works or any other City Department by reason of this permission granted. I think theres particular provisions that apply to the significant trees that are in the agreement. The major encroachment agreement. So you are saying that the words in the ordnance are super ceded by language in the agreement . The permit and the agreement go together. So the board is approving both of those by this ordnance. I understand that. But what im asking is in so far as it says the permittee shall assume all costs for maintenance and you are saying the agreement actually supercedes that. That provision applies to the longterm maintenance obligations that are associated with the major encroachment which are for select portions of the public right of way. So the landscape planners corners differentiated paving but not maintenance of the street trees . Thats correct. The ordnance cant override proposition e. Public works once more. We have Many Development areas, for example, mission bay, various locations, where new street trees are installed. And in many of those cases historically what has been happening based upon approved legislation approvals that after three years Maintenance Period those trees are transferred to the city for operational maintenance. However in many cases, the Development Team or Homeowners Association decides that they would rather continue the upkeep of these trees after warranty and Maintenance Period and an agreement needs to be entered between San Francisco public works the Homeowners Association or developer or corresponding groups to have this documented and ensure that future maintenance would then fall to the Homeowners Association or the development group. If that makes sense. All right. Thank you. That does make sense. I appreciate it. Someone has a little experience with trees. I think thats part of the confusion is about the significant and definition of significant. I appreciate City Attorney defining that. For the purposes of this conversation, significant is important because the way in which they are treated in terms of the year of the tree, how old the tree is and the approximatety to the Property Line of the city determines whether or not the city has the right to ask for the replacement of that tree. Not necessarily the size of that tree as defined in what was read into the record. But its important to note that because they would fall under essentially jurisdiction and protection of the city. I think it is important to note that theres a significant number of trees being planted versus the ones that are existing in terms of replacement. But i appreciate the City Attorney making mention of the fact that proposition e was a mandate of the voters. Its not something that can be overridden. And i can say from experience in parts of the city where there are Homeowners Association and existing agreements between the city and the homeowners often get into conversation about the desire to remove those trees, maintain those trees or switch those trees out. When it falls under the jurisdiction of the city, the city has the right to protect those trees and determine whether or not they should be replaced of my so i certainly am in favor of anything in the public right of way determining in the jurisdiction of the city for that purpose in particular. I think this is an important part of the conversation. I understand that this is a significant green space and proximity to a lot of peoples homes. But i do understand that we are creating, in terms of the proposal the developer will be putting forward, a significant number of trees. I think that allows for the opportunity for the surrounding neighbors to be involved in the process of choosing the types of trees and working with the District Supervisor to choose the types of trees. We often do that in my district. We have conversations about the type of tree canopy that people would like to see. So i think thats certainly a worthwhile conversation but i wanted to add my two cents to some of the clarity around significant and in terms of the ongoing maintenance. Again, its important. This looks like it was sat down between the developer, the city and the permittee to negotiate an appropriate formula for the replacement of trees both significant and not significant and street trees. Thank you. Thank you for those very helpful policy comments supervisor safai. So before i turn it back to the sponsor of these three measures, i would like to associate myself with the comments of the former general counsel of the California Coastal commission, mr. Peterson and a previous speaker as it lets to parking in what i would say is a quite richly public transitserved area of the city. And mr. Rich, if you can address that and any additional changes that this committee might want to recommend should we be in a mood to recommend anything to the full board of supervisors. The floor is yours. Thank you supervisors. Ken rich. Somewhat unusually, the walnut component which is 184 do i have that number right . 186. Senior units is parked at one to one in the current proposal. And we can confirm various folks here from mercy housing can confirm that we dont need that kind of parking in the senior building. So one idea to put out there would be to reduce that down to a. 5 ratio. That would have the effect of not only reducing the overall ratio of parking in the project, but it would also allow for stackers to reduce the amount of excavation the project would require which then reduces construction time and construction impacts. So correct me if i am wrong but i think the Planning Commission already insisted on stackers. I dont know. I would ask one of my colleagues. Is that the case . The commission did want one to one parking. Some of it may be stackers. But what i was suggesting in terms of changing the Walnut Parking ratio would be a new change. And deputy City Attorney that would clearly not be a significant change. And as long as we afforded that without recommendation, we could forward that, is that correct . Thats correct. All right. The stackers requirement was not in the Planning Commission motion. It was just the maximum amount of permitted parking within the contained project. Okay. So you are recommending that the one to one in 186 be reduced to. 5 . Yes. We think that that will allow the larger units in the project were predominantly two and three bedrooms to be a reasonable rate and to be able to reduce parking on the site, reduce those impacts for folks who are generally not going to drive as much. Yeah. Thank you mr. Rich for that. We are not done. I think we can do better than that, actually. I mean, i really do. I honestly think that we can do a lot better. I totally agree not agree understand that people rightfully are concerned about a decade and a Half Development on the horizon. And i get that. But the longerstanding impacts and im not saying this in the context of ceqa, is that as our world changes as we are trying to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions as we are trying to get people onto other modes i mean, if i have i mean, this was recommended to us unanimously from the Planning Commission. Johnson, koppel moore but i think where they missed it was on the parking. Generally the Planning Commission looks at Something Like this and gives it the appropriate haircut. So if theres one thing this board of supervisors and this committee can do is give it the maximum feasible parking haircut. And to me,. 5 on the senior is a good start, but i think theres more there. Do you have a second offer . I dont think we have one prepared. But its certainly within the committees purview to have that discussion. And we are here to do that. All right. Supervisor stefani. Thank you, chair peskin. If you are making offers i based on feedback from the community, i think the fact that it went through the Planning Commission without a reduction in parking was actually somewhat surprising. But the need for parking in the area was explained at the Planning Commission. I am comfortable with the reduction from. 5 and from 1 to. 5. Going any lower than that right now i dont feel comfortable with that, based on the fact that a lot of the Community Outreach and a lot of the feedback i have received has been around parking concerns. And i know, yes, the world is changing, and yes we need to get out of our cars and everything. But maybe we can ask mercy housing, doug shoe maker is here. I think if we land at. 5, i think that would be a good compromise. And i would be comfortable with that. Mr. Schumacher, as to the walnut street phase 3 186unit land dedicated escrowed Senior Housing project the floor is yours. Im very comfortable with the. 5. I think ordinarily in other parts. City we are able to build with very little parking. This is a slightly higher income than we are used to developing Senior Housing for. And a location that is not as transit rich as some. So we are comfortable with. 5. And we often build with less. So you would be comfortable with less than. 5 . In this location, supervisor honestly, we are not familiar with developing housing for seniors at this income in terms of their parking demand in San Francisco. Its most of what we develop in San Francisco has been much lower income seniors than this. So i think. 5 is the right place to stop on the senior. So not to exceed. Not to exceed. All right. Deputy City Attorneys of which we have a number, this would be a change to the Development Agreement, correct . Because i dont think this is a change or maybe its an sud . Sud item number 4. Yes the committee would amend the sud. Whether it would also require a change to the da, we would from v to have to discuss. So supervisor stefani and it sounds to me and you are welcome to motion to this committee, but that would actually have to be figured out by attorneys as to items 4 and 5 as it relates to the parking. We may or may not have remaining questions about the trees. Supervisor stefani, what is your will . Thank you chair peskin on the entirety, on all three items, are you asking me or just trees and parking . Well you do have some amendments before us on the Development Agreement item 5 on the zoning map item 4 no changes to item 3. So we should probably discuss those. And then talk about what we want to do with parking relative to items 4 and maybe 5. Okay. First of all i do want to thank everybody for coming out today. This has been a project long in the making. I believe one of the public commenters said ive been involved in a long time since i was a legislative aid in 2014. More meetings at the jcc with the committee. I was county clerk for two years while this project continued. Came back as supervisor. Ive been supervisor for a year and ten months. And we are still talking about this project. So i want to thank everybody who has been involved. The neighbors have put a lot of effort into this, so has the project sponsor. The intent is to come up with a project that fits our community and provides us ohio more housing. Not everybody is going to be happy. But i think at the end if we concentrate on getting as much as we can in terms of what fits within our neighborhood and we focus on Affordable Housing, which district 2 hasnt developed much over the last decade, and we focus on Senior Housing which of course ive explained why that is particularly important to me, given what we are seeing with the state of our housing crisis for seniors in San Francisco. I also want to talk about the original development proposal. It had an