Our local redwood tree vs. a new house

[David Evans]

It looks like a small Nimby effort is brewing in my SF neighborhood over a redwood tree. A huge corner lot, with enough room for three homes, was bought last year. One of the build-able subsections of the lot has a redwood tree impeding development. And today I received this email appeal:

----

Neighbors:

Developers plan to destroy a significant redwood tree in Glen Park at 95 Nordhoff (at Stillings). A proposal to remove the tree was previously denied by the Department of Public Works but the developer is appealing the decision.

Plan to attend the hearing MONDAY, JUNE 22 at 5:30 p.m., CITY HALL - ROOM 416. If you are not able to attend, a letter of support would be very helpful. 

A notice for the meeting is attached. For further information, please contact: 

Savethe...@yahoo.com

----

The attached note also adds: "If you cannot attend [the meeting], please submit written comments regarding saving the tree to the Bureau of Urban Forestry, 1680 Mission Street, 1st Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103. Your comments will be part of the written record."

So I'm going to pen an appeal to mail tomorrow in support of sacrificing this albeit majestic tree in the name of our housing crisis and the need for more development. Anyone else feel inspired to write a similar letter of support, or attend the meeting on Monday? Not a big density project for sure, but a small example of resistance to change.

[Mike Schiraldi]

> A huge corner lot, with enough room for three homes

Actually, thanks to brilliant architectural work, they found a way to
turn this existing single-family lot into *four* separate
single-family homes, each fully up to code and needing no variances.
And they look pretty good, too -- interesting and set back from the
street more than the surrounding houses. Also, they're looking to
replace the tree they're tearing down with *eight* others.

The opposition to this project keeps hopping from excuse to excuse.
First, in a thread entitled, "The Manhattanization of Glen Park", they
claimed the project was completely out of scale for the neighborhood
and was going to need lots of variances. When that was shown to be
false, they said it was going to be taller than the surrounding
houses. Then, when it was pointed out that it wasn't any taller than
other houses on the block, the objection shifted to the houses being
boxier than the surrounding ones. Then it was shown that they're
actually less boxy. Then the story was that they were going to take up
all the street parking, and it was shown that actually (and perhaps
I'm misremembering here but I don't think so) each house was going to
have a two-car garage. Then the story was that the new neighbors were
going to create too much traffic on the local streets. I tuned out for
a while, and I guess the new excuse is the tree.

[Jehan Tremback]

I'd be really interested to figure out what the actual motivation of these people is. Having such a small microcosm of NIMBY in this neighborhood really brings it into stark relief.

Is it crankiness? Knee-jerk conservatism? Actual conspiracy to increase home values? 

Let's take a break from condemning these people for a second, and try to understand them, almost as an exercise in anthropology. Does anyone have any insight?

-Jehan

--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgO%3DwzWhFZz03ZFMPCFfk7u5hOCU3z8WwES71%2BrJu%3DPXnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Many of the houses on that street have no garage. I think they're
upset about the three new curb cuts.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CABG_PfTJF5nnoqcNJ4FVJEoC8n0wi%2BEg%3DUZUMWRw%3DdACz0SAkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Looks like you can submit comments via email to d...@sfdpw.org and
they'll be entered into the public record. Mention that you're writing
about 95 Nordhoff, DPW Order No. 183711.

[Mike Ege]

I don't suppose simply going over there and destroying the tree is an option? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgPj%3Do0RnVaUGWpTtqZpi%2Bs1RsHVHH9mKO6dDMpcQMQREg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Schiraldi]

That's not funny. Besides, the offense could land you in jail for six
months: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/publicworks/article16urbanforestryordinance?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf.htm$q=[field%20folio-destination-name:%27811%27]$x=Advanced#JD_811

[Mike Ege]

Personally I think the looks on the faces of the NIMBYs when the see the tree is suddenly gone, or when they see an angry mob enter their precious neighborhood and uproot the tree, might well be worth it. That said I was merely engaging in a thought experiment. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgO53uyjf3PQJnN7YDkXn0AMJjtVmLGeS9Xx3zDZU6_eMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Here's the letter I sent the DPW:

I would like to enter the following comments into the record for Order
No. 183711, regarding the proposal to remove a redwood tree from 95
Nordhoff:

If we build four new homes at this location, it will mean four
families will be able to arrive in San Francisco without displacing
anyone. Four new houses means four less-fortunate families that will
keep their homes instead of being kicked out of the city.

The project sponsor has found a brilliant way to turn one home into
four, fully code-compliant and without requiring any sort of variance.
And miraculously, they've figured out a way to do in an attractive,
non-boxy design. If we reject the proposal, they'll surely redesign
the project in a way that makes the buildings uglier and boxier,
outweighing any aesthetic benefits gained by preserving the redwood.

Further, I see that the project sponsor wants to plant eight new
trees! Future generations will walk down Nordhoff and Stillings, gaze
up at the eight beautiful trees, and be grateful that in 2015 the city
approved the plan that got them planted.

[Mike Ege]

In Re 95 Nordhoff, DPW Order No. 183711

Mike Ege <mi...@frisko.org>	11:45 AM (2 minutes ago)
to dpw, mohammed.nuru, rachel.gordon

I'm writing IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING the existing tree from this address. 

The tree in question is preventing four new units of housing from being built. 

Four new units of housing that WILL INCLUDE EIGHT NEW TREES in its landscaping. 

I would ask you to question to logic of those who maintain that saving one "significant tree" is somehow worth sacrificing a project which brings more housing (which is desperately needed in the City) AND MORE TREES to the neighborhood. 

I would ask you to consider what makes a single tree "significant." 

Exactly how did this one single tree become "significant?" 

Perhaps The Lorax took a piss on it? 

Certainly, green space is and should be a significant factor in planning, but by preserving this "significant tree" you are actually reducing net green space. 

You are of course also reducing potential housing, and as such, incentivising more displacement of existing residents who have less buying power. 

You may be aware that this has become an issue of significant concern for most of our residents. 

It's an issue which is significantly more significant than any single "significant tree."

Very Truly Yours,

Mike Ege

[Robert R. Tillman]

Too many people have too much time on their hands. There is also a basic human tendency to be a pain in the ass.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CABG_PfTJF5nnoqcNJ4FVJEoC8n0wi%2BEg%3DUZUMWRw%3DdACz0SAkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

Hence our need to throw back the ass pain.

I think we all agree this is a case where incredibly facile grounds are being used to stop housing; facile enough that I suspect the pulling of strings. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/5532F283-AF36-4DF8-9F46-1EF7663E7776%40pacbell.net.

[Robert R. Tillman]

I very strongly agree. If they feel the heat, they will see the light. :-)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAErTFboDzaYm_rTWjYa3nHwMG1SMPu%2Ba5z9NCR0mU7y2_GK56Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Schiraldi]

I added a final paragraph to my statement: "Finally, if the project
sponsor is forbidden from removing this tree from their property, it
will send a terrible message to landowners throughout San Francisco:
"Chop down your trees BEFORE they grow large."

[Sonja Trauss]

http://www.95nordhoff.com/

http://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/popup.php?op=view&id=90097745&crd=sfdpw&

Here's the hearing agenda.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgO-sA4A%3Dj_u6mrr%3DY9a2jfk27W8gWaSicj0T3BkqVVsXw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Monday June 29th 5pm - 8pm Phone Bank for Julie Christensen, near civic center. Email me to rsvp & for address.

[Robert R. Tillman]

Excellent point from Mike citing the law of unintended consequences.

A key mistake in analyzing any situation is to view it as static. Everything is dynamic. When you touch one piece of a situation in real life it does not affect just that one piece.

Robert R. Tillman

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAEMAOD7hUUd9QBLVrpAqVmmQ4R1aMAMeHtckK5DpAdfEux-7-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sonja Trauss]

Anyone else going to this? I'm going to head over to check it out. 5:30 pm city hall room 416 

[Daniel Camp]

I'm gonna try and make it. I might have to jump out for a bit to take a phone call at some point though.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAEMAOD5YiCWqR%2B0HVK4hoX7UNa-3EB%3D%2Bf03RAwTkZehTOLBTtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Evans]

Can’t make it from work in time, but so glad you’re both going. Will be really curious to hear your take on the hearing afterwards.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/SFBArentersfed/9vpOPeIk7BQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAPs1miTeZje53q4yrYnCX1vRcKSUHJ0YFvimLq3OBoPi6v_v2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

Got an ack back from Rachel Gordon on my letter. There may also be a friendly reporter in attendance. I myself wont be there, unfortunately 

[Mike Schiraldi]

Same here -- I'm curious not just about the verdict, but about how the
whole process went down. It's a real bummer that they don't livestream
hearings like this; if you ask me, any meeting that's important enough
to have a public comment period should be broadcast, too.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/9F86DB81-D6EC-4CC9-910D-00F82FD3599D%40mac.com.

[Sonja Trauss]

They aren't making their decision for a few days. It was weird, tonight was just for public comment. There was only one commissioner. He got tired of hearing testimony and asked people for and against to stand and then counted. 

[Mike Schiraldi]

Oh, if I had known that's how the system worked, I'd've not only shown
up, but brought my baby along too. (She'd count towards the tally,
right?)

[Sonja Trauss]

Yeah!!

[Mike Schiraldi]

Anyone who was there tonight want to write up a short summary for
reddit.com/r/sfbarf? Getting the word out that decisions like this are
influenced by simply counting the number of people who showed up,
instead of, you know, weighing their arguments or considering the pros
and cons of the situation, would be a good motivator to get more
people to testify. Or, failing that, it would at least drum up support
for the hopefully-upcoming ballot proposition about allowing people to
submit testimony over the Internet.

[Robert R. Tillman]

As Woody Allen is once purported to have said: ³90% of life is just
showing up."

Robert R. Tillman

>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgPj%3Do0RnVaUGWpTt
>>qZpi%2Bs1RsHVHH9mKO6dDMpcQMQREg%40mail.gmail.com.

>> >> >>>> >>> >> For more options, visit
>>https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >>>> >>> >
>> >> >>>> >>> >
>> >> >>>> >>>
>> >> >>>> >>> --
>> >> >>>> >>> This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY
>>list:
>> >> >>>> >>>
>> >> >>>> >>>
>>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce
>> >> >>>> >>> and
>> >> >>>> >>> unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below
>>\/
>> >> >>>> >>> \/
>> >> >>>> >>> \/
>> >> >>>> >>> ---
>> >> >>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> >> >>>> >>> Google
>> >> >>>> >>> Groups
>> >> >>>> >>> "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
>> >> >>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>>from
>> >> >>>> >>> it,
>> >> >>>> >>> send an
>> >> >>>> >>> email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >>>> >>>
>> >> >>>> >>>
>> >> >>>> >>>
>> >> >>>> >>>

>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgO53uyjf3PQJnN7YDk
>>Xn0AMJjtVmLGeS9Xx3zDZU6_eMg%40mail.gmail.com.

>> >> >>>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >>>> >>
>> >> >>>> >>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
>> >> >>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce
>> >> >>>> and
>> >> >>>> unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/
>> >> >>>> \/
>> >> >>>> ---
>> >> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>Google
>> >> >>>> Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
>> >> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>>it,
>> >> >>>> send
>> >> >>>> an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>

>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgO-sA4A%3Dj_u6mrr%

>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAEMAOD5YiCWqR%2B0HVK4ho

>>X7UNa-3EB%3D%2Bf03RAwTkZehTOLBTtA%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and
>> >> > unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
>> >> > ---
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
>> >> > the
>> >> > Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/SFBArentersfed/9vpOPeIk7BQ/unsubscribe.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> >> > SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAPs1miTeZje53q4yrYnCX1v
>>RcKSUHJ0YFvimLq3OBoPi6v_v2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and
>> >> > unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
>> >> > ---
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> > Groups
>> >> > "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >> > send
>> >> > an
>> >> > email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >

>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/9F86DB81-D6EC-4CC9-910D-

>>00F82FD3599D%40mac.com.
>> >> >
>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Monday June 29th 5pm - 8pm Phone Bank for Julie Christensen, near
>>civic
>> > center. Email me to rsvp & for address.
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Monday June 29th 5pm - 8pm Phone Bank for Julie Christensen, near civic
> center. Email me to rsvp & for address.
>

--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and
unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgN%2BPcX8OEB_Gb2QVxL
UvQTSmt79z0yytF-WBB_Cm3Ufug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel Camp]

I don't mind doing a short write-up for the subreddit, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.

Btw, for anyone who's still writing a letter to send to the SFDPW, one of the developers provided me with the following tidbits of info:

·         The tree is on the owners’ property, not the public sidewalk.  If it stays there, the owners won’t be able to develop on at least one of those new lots – possibly more.  That decreases the number of family homes that can be built at the site.  Given the current housing crisis, we should be encouraging the development of more homes in the City whenever possible;

·         Keeping the tree could result in a hazardous condition and a safety concern.   The owners’ arborist explained that just making repairs to existing building would require cutting into the tree’s shallow root system, which could create a hazard.  Neither the owner nor the community would benefit from the lot staying as-is without any new development, or by maintaining a dangerous tree of this size.

·         The tree may be large, but it’s not very healthy.  The owner’s arborist explained that it has been “topped” and has significant wind damage on its upper portion.  With those conditions, it’s not likely to grow further or regain its health.  

·         There are plenty of healthy, tall trees in this area that birds can nest in.  Removing this tree will not seriously impact the City’s bird population, and the owner will be planting up to 9 new trees that birds can enjoy for decades to come.

·         The developers are offering to plant 8 new street trees as part of the project, and they’ll  work with DPW to maximize their location.  That’s a net increase in trees, which is good for the entire community.  They’re also offering to plant a new redwood tree, 6 to 8 feet tall, near the public sidewalk on Nordhoff.  That’s a big size for a new tree, and over time it can grow into a neighborhood amenity.

[Daniel Camp]

I posted a quick summary of last night here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SFBARF/comments/3avn5y/historic_redwood_tree_vs_new_houses/.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Neighbors are lining up to protect the tree at the expense of at least one, and possibly two, new homes. As often happens, there's denial of the law of supply and demand, and quite a bit of, "What difference would one more house really make in the grand scheme of things?" (Unsurprisingly, they're not sympathetic to a similar question about what difference one more tree would make.)

David posted the following, which I'm repeating with his permission:

Since there are very few large, undeveloped areas in SF to build more housing, small projects like this are the best way for the city to adapt to the changing times and demographics. We need more of these all over the city, IMO, plus increased height limit near transportation hubs.

And then I wrote this reply, which I'm sharing here in case anyone wants to copypaste parts of it on future neighborhood discussions near you:

And when there *is* one of those rare large undeveloped lots, neighbors fight tooth and nail to ensure as few units are built as possible.

Examples:

* The 2013 Glen Park BART community-outreach meeting about possibly building housing in the parking lot across the street (virtually every attendee opposed the idea)

* The fervent opposition to building housing at the huge Balboa Reservoir site (http://westsideobserver.com/news/lekach.html)

* The thwarting of the 8 Washington plans, which would have absorbed hundreds of new wealthy San Franciscans without displacing a single person -- the ballot initiative that killed the project was financed almost exclusively by the site's rich neighbors, many of whom lived in an existing much taller highrise right across the street.

* The "Save Rincon Park" campaign (http://sfist.com/2015/06/25/gorgeous_residential_high-rise_proj.php), whose sponsors lie through their teeth by claiming that the two new residential towers "would create the overwhelming effect of a wall on the waterfront" and "significantly eliminat[e] sunlight on Rincon Park on most days throughout the year." (Neither claim is remotely true and as usual, the campaign is being financed by the occupants of nearby Infinity Tower luxury condominiums.) If built as planned, the projects would not only accommodate hundreds of new arrivals without displacing anyone, it would also keep 140 units at below-market-rate prices -- think about that: that means 140 families would get a brand new home at affordable rates.

* The Giants' plans to build tons of new apartments on their parking lot, including an unprecedented portion of the units being set aside for affordable housing, was forced to cut building heights by more than a third: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2015/05/giants-mission-rock-waterfront-housing-prop-b-sf.html

* The proposed new tower at 16th St BART, which would add hundreds of new homes, again without removing a single existing residential unit, and build double the required number of affordable-housing units (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2015/03/16th-and-mission-sf-maximus-affordable-housing.html). Once again, neighbors are overwhelmingly opposed, and using up-is-down logic like, "We refuse to see more of our neighbors displaced" (http://plaza16.org/visiondemands) and are fighting to keep the plaza like this: http://40goingon28.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-do-we-want-same-crappy-walgreens.html

What's the common thread running through all these stories, and 95 Nordhoff? Everyone agrees the city needs more housing, as long as it's built in someone else's neighborhood. Remember the concept of "think globally, act locally"? The way to do that is to support the creation of new homes in your neighborhood.

[Robert R. Tillman]

FYI, I live in Sausalito and can tell you that everyone in Marin opposes the building of more affordable housing. There will be some built, but not enough to make a difference. If growth in housing supply is to occur, it must come in SF where people actually work. The Wincup Building in Corte Madera created a firestorm here: http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20150201/controversial-apartment-complex-in-corte-madera-nearing-end-of-construction  By the way, it is only 180 units, and it will not happen again.

There was a small 7 unit project approved in Sausalito in the past year on the basis that it NOT include affordable units. The developer put up a sign on his property advertising this fact.

On a different point, there was a very well-received second unit amnesty program in Sausalito that added almost 20 units to the official affordable housing stock. I participated in this program myself. I think that legalizing as many non-conforming second units as possible in suburban communities is a very painless way to add to affordable housing stock.

Maybe there is a way of putting more units in Novato, but there is also no good way for people to commute into SF from there.

Robert R. Tillman