06.23 Approved Minutes

City and County of San Francisco

DEpartment of the ENvironment

URBAN FORESTRY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

APPROVED MINUTES

 

Tuesday June 23, 2009, 6:00 p.m.

City Hall, Room 416  

One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

Order of Business

 

1.      Call to Order and Roll Call.  The Urban Forestry Council meeting convened at 6:05 p.m.  Roll Call:  Present:  Chair Milne, Vice Chair D’Agostino, Members Cohen, Sherk, Short, and Vargas; Excused:  Members Blair, Boss, Hillan, LeBeau, and Rodgers; Advisory Member Present:  Member Sustarich; Advisory Member Excused:  Member Nervo

 

2.      Adoption of Minutes of the May 22. 2009 Urban Forestry Council Regular Meeting. (Discussion and Action) Upon Motion by Member Short and second by Vice Chair D’Agostino, the May 22, 2009 Meeting Minutes were approved without objection (Ayes:  Chair Milne, Vice Chair D’Agostino, Members Cohen, Sherk, Short, and Vargas; Absent: Members Blair, Boss, Hillan, LeBeau, and Rodgers) (Explanatory Document: May 22, 2009 Approved Minutes).

 

3.      Public Comment:  Members of the public may address the Council on matters that are within the Council’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.  There was no public comment at this time.

 

Item 7 was heard before Items 4-6.

 

4.      San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Greening Programs and 2012 by 2012 Campaign.  The Council will hear a presentation on SFUSD programs and discuss how they can provide support for the work SFUSD is doing. (Explanatory Document:  San Francisco Green Schoolyard Alliance (SFGSA) Presentation) Speaker:  Nik Kaestner, SFUSD Director of Sustainability (Informational Presentation and Discussion)

 

Mr. Kaestner discussed current efforts to green schoolyards and introduced the new 2012 by 2012 Campaign.  Mr. Kaestner stated that he is looking for partners to help in the initiative to plant more trees in and around schools and asked for the Council’s involvement in this effort.  It was explained that the presentation was being given on behalf of the Director of San Francisco Green Schoolyard Alliance (SFGSA) who has been supporting gardens and other schoolyard greening projects for many years now.  Presentation topics included:

 

·         What the Green Schoolyard Alliance is About and Does.  SFGSA supports and promotes green schoolyards by providing resources, training, and advocacy to school communities to help them create and sustain outdoor learning environments.  Presentation page 2 shows a before and after picture of the Tule Elk Park Child Development Center that was paved completely into a green schoolyard that contains creative play spaces, more greenery, shade, and an engaging environment.  SFGSA is one organization among many that helps to transform these schoolyards.

  

·         Proposition A Bond for School Greening. Most of the SFUSD greening work is centered around Prop A funding that was passed in 2003 and a second time in 2006 along with plans for a future bond. These Prop A bonds will be used to green schoolyards and provide basic infrastructure support for schools that are already undergoing the modernization process.  Along with American Disability Act (ADA) and fire life-safety modernization work, each school has $150,000 to green its schoolyard.  Every one of the schools goes through a master planning process with a master planning strategist that helps them develop a vision for their entire school, which is the first portion of what the $150,000 would be used for.  A lot of schools fundraise beyond that or organize their community.

 

·         2012 by 2012 Tree Planting Campaign.  Another initiative that started this year is the 2012 by 2012 tree planting campaign with the goal of planting that many trees in and around San Francisco schools by the end of 2012.  There are three funding mechanisms for trees that include bond funding, the 2012 website, and Mayors Office of Community Investment grants.  Schools that have bond funding and are not able to rally support around school gardens can use the funding to plant trees around the school site.  The website www.2012by2012.com was designed for schools that do not have bond funding in this round or Mayor’s Office grant funding, want to start now, and have strong PTA’s in order to fundraise for trees on their own.  Rosa Parks Elementary School was the first school to use this mechanism and raised $5000 within a week to plant 25 trees on their campus.  Monroe is another school that is using the website and taking advantage of the Mayor’s Office of Community Investment grants that focuses mainly on the southeastern part of the city and will reduce the price from $230 to $65 a tree.  The school would contribute and possibly use the website to raise the rest of the money.  This website will serve as a model for other programs whether it is rain water harvesting or storm-water management. 

 

Mr. Kaestner asked the Council to reach out to businesses to sponsor schools to green their campus or to plant trees or whatever the business happens to be excited about. 

 

·         Stormwater management and harvesting is a third big area in terms of greening schoolyards.  Five schools are working with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to manage stormwater (page 5 of presentation). 

 

·         Green Schoolyard Alliance also does school tours so people can see what has been done in other schools and advocacy to recruit funding.  GSA also provides teacher and parent training, run a Growing Greener Schoolyards Conference, provides outside professional development, and manages horticultural resources on the School of the Arts site.  Other resources include a website, resource lists, newsletters, and hotline that provide garden coordinators information.  Photos from schoolyards and greening projects (pages 13-17).

 

Mr. Kaestner stated that it is important to SFUSD that all these gardens are curricular gardens so students can learn about food production, native plants, why gardens are important, and be connected to the environment. 

 

Council Chair Milne inquired which partner helps the SFUSD in tree planting efforts. Mr. Kaestner stated that Friends of the Urban Forest works with the Mayor’s Office of Greening, SFUSD, and Green Schoolyard Alliance as well as with maintenance operations to make sure tree species are approved of, are drought tolerant, etc.  Member Sherk offered her support for this program and stated that Life Frames Inc. and the Living Library is a member of the Green Schoolyard Alliance.  Member Short questioned how many schools in the district received the $150,000.  Mr. Kaestner explained that every school in the bond program received the $150,000. The bond is initially just for elementary schools, so about three fourths of the elementary schools have had bond funding assigned to them. The next bond would cover the remaining elementary schools.  Member Short reported that SFPUC is interested in rainwater harvesting on a larger scale and are looking for sites in the city.  Mr. Kaestner explained that SFPUC would like to use SFUSD but they don’t have available funding at this time.  They have submitted stimulus funding requests that are based on rainwater catchments at schools on a large scale.  The PUC is interested in using that water for flushing toilets which requires major retrofits of the plumbing system so if that option is possible has not yet been explored.  Mr. Kaestner stated that he has encouraged PUC to go after the low hanging fruit first, which is to use that water for the City landscaping trucks that currently use potable water on many areas. 

 

Member Short inquired as to who would be responsible for watering the trees and whether there was a plan for long-term maintenance as the school district has limited staff for this effort.  Mr. Kaestner reported that the $230 includes a three-year maintenance plan that would be provided by FUF, which is the required time to establish the trees.  It was explained that schools are not allowed to plant trees now unless they are part of the 2012 by 2012 campaign.  The objective is for FUF to guide the program.  In addition, there will be a checklist at each site to guide what the school needs to provide.  Most importantly, the school has to provide a contact and liaison that is responsible for those trees because the landscaping crew will not be involved in the tree planting or maintenance efforts other than the process, selection of species, etc.  .

 

Member Sustarich stated that his understanding is that FUF will maintain the trees for three years, and the school staff will take care of the weekly watering.  Mr. Kaestner explained that the school staff on site would be doing the weekly watering, but not the maintenance staff district wide. Member Cohen reported that the Council’s Arbor Day project in the Sunset District was a major collaboration with schools and described efforts to prune trees surrounding schools, donations received, as well as additional efforts. It was also explained that the three-year time frame for establishing trees is a misnomer and should be a longer process.  Three years structurally gets trees to a good start but would fall apart if no maintenance is provided thereafter. Fruit trees minimally have to be pruned once a year.

.

Vice Chair D’Agostino recommended affirming the reliability of the school contact so that sufficient maintenance is provided.  Mr. Kaestner explained that the program is structured, that there is a website, mechanism for funding, checklist for school, FUF and for the district, so everybody is clear about their responsibilities, but explained that a potential problem can’t be eliminated completely and is always possible.  Vice Chair D’Agostino recommended involving kids in charettes, etc.  Mr. Kaestner stated that would be part of the process.  Member Short recommended that Mr. Kaestner attend the Department of Public Works (DPW) Clean Team meeting and offered DPW planting technical assistance.. 

 

Member Short inquired whether there would be an effort to use any of the food that is grown in the school lunch program.  Mr. Kaestner stated that the long-term goal and separate effort would be to restructure the entire food system, which would require voter initiatives.  Currently, $2.50 is spent on food that is shipped in from Chicago as part of the national food program, Child Nutrition Act.   Efforts are in progress to increase the reimbursement in order to secure better quality food and develop an in-house system that would include a central kitchen with local food provided by farms in this area.  The kids are eating the food that they grow and it helps them make the connection that food comes from the ground, not from the aisle. 

 

Council Chair Milne stated that it is hoped that there will be more bond funding available specifically for urban forestry projects and supports that it is happening in the school district.  Mr. Kaestner explained that the next bond would be expanded beyond green schoolyards to include sustainability projects, energy efficiency, etc.  Mr. Kaestner was thanked for his presentation. 

 

5.      Review of the Annual Urban Forest Report Survey. The Council will review and vote to approve the revised Cover Letter and Annual Report Survey. (Continued from the May 22, 2009 Meeting) (Explanatory Documents: Questionnaire Cover Letter and Questionnaire Template) (Discussion and Action)

Council Chair Milne reported that the Cover Letter has been reviewed at previous meetings and includes Council’s recommendations for revisions.  Council Coordinator Hui reported that there would an additional revision to the Cover Letter that the Council had previously requested.  Upon Motion by Member Short and second by Member Vargas, the Cover Letter was approved with corrections (Ayes: Chair Milne, Vice Chair D’Agostino, Members Cohen, Sherk, Short, and Vargas; Absent: Members Blair, Boss, Hillan, LeBeau, and Rodgers) (Explanatory Document: Approved Cover Letter).  Upon Motion by Member Cohen and second by Member D’Agostino, the Annual Report Survey (Questionnaire Template) was approved with corrections (Ayes: Chair Milne, Vice Chair D’Agostino, Members Cohen, Sherk, Short, and Vargas; Absent: Members Blair, Boss, Hillan, LeBeau, and Rodgers) (Explanatory Document:  Approved Annual Report Survey).

 

Council Coordinator Hui reported that the Cover Letter and Survey would be distributed electronically by e-mail on Thursday, June 25.  It was explained that surveyors could complete the survey on the screen and send it back electronically.  Members were asked for recommendations on additional organizations and individuals that should have been surveyed in the past to send the survey to.

 

6.      Urban Forestry Council Budget. The Committee will discuss the state of the Urban Forestry Council Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. (Continued from the May 22, 2009 Meeting) (Discussion)

 

Council Chair Milne inquired about the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee meeting dates to hear City department budgets.  Council Coordinator Hui reported that the Department of the Environment’s budget has been approved and includes responses received from other agencies; however budget allocations can still be changed.  Council Coordinator Hui reported that she does not have any new information to report regarding allocation of department funding to the Urban Forestry Council from funding agencies.  Member Short reported that she believes the Department of Public Works budget was heard at the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee on June 22. 

 

7.      Discussion of Mount Sutro Area Urban Forest Plan. (Discussion)   

 

Council Chair Milne reported that this item is on the agenda because the Council has been provided information on the plight of the Mount Sutro forest.  Member Cohen expressed her concern that University of California San Francisco (UCSF) did not approach the Council with their plan. Council Coordinator Hui reported that she spoke with a UCSF representative who expressed concern about public comment received about the Plan and their future efforts to slow down the plan as a result. The representative had indicated that tree removal numbers that may have been mentioned at a public meeting weren’t based on actual UCSF plans for tree removals, but were an estimate by the individual making the assessments.  It was explained that UCSF does not have a defined plan at this point and would like to attend a Council meeting to present additional information once it is developed. 

 

Council Chair Milne reported that this item is on the agenda for the Council to collect information from the public and would then be continued until a UCSF presenter can be secured to provide information on the official status of the plan. Council Coordinator Hui reported that UCSF is creating a contact list to send information to on the plan as it develops.  Council members and the public were asked to advise Coordinator Hui whether they would be interested in being placed on the contact list. 

 

Public Comment:

 

Ms. R.K. Bose stated that she is a resident of the Forest Knolls neighborhood, which is located at the foot of the Mount Sutro forest.  Ms. Bose explained that the information she was provided on UCSF’s plans was primarily from a neighborhood circular and from a public meeting held at St. John’s Church.  It was explained that UCSF has plans to work on two areas that include South Ridge in her neighborhood and the Edgewood area which runs along Edgewood in Cole Valley.  The plan that was discussed at the meeting was to remove all trees that are under 12 inches in diameter, an unspecified number that are larger, and to remove all of the undergrowth and branches up to about 10 feet. Some of the trees and native plants would be retained, and the trees that are to be removed are to be chipped and left on the forest floor as chips, and then the larger trees are to be felled and left as logs.  UCSF proposes to remove only the trees that there would be financial benefit to in selling the wood. 

 

Ms. Bose stated that the Mount Sutro forest functions as a cloud forest and the area is very foggy.  Throughout the summer there are clouds and fog in the area and precipitated moisture under the trees.  There is dense undergrowth so dense that unless trails are cleared you can’t make your way through the forest, and the undergrowth is acting like a sponge for that moisture.  If you go into the forest, it is green and damp.  The concern is that if the proposed plan was approved, it would open up the forest making it dryer and windier, and more flammable than it is right now, so Ms. Bose does not see it as a fire mitigation plan, but an increase in fire risk. Ms. Bose also expressed her concern that a wildlife survey to assess the impact on wildlife in that environment had not been prepared. 

 

Mr. R. Rolnizky stated that he is a neighborhood resident and that his property is on the west edge of the Mount Sutro forest.  Mr. Rolnizky explained that he is concerned that he only heard about the plan to remove the 3000 trees in the Mount Sutro forest about five to six weeks ago when he heard about a neighborhood meeting to present the project.  When he attended the meeting, UCSF had indicated that they had extensive neighborhood meetings and were talking about the plan since 2001 or 2002. It was explained that the original plan was stopped in order to add a second area for tree clearing in the forest (the Edgewood area). Mr. Rolnizky expressed his concern that this is a guerrilla plan to chop down the forest and requested City input as is provided for any other major monument in San Francisco.  Mr. Rolnizky described the aesthetic attributes of the forest and how that would be ruined by the plan to clear cut the area and replace it with grass.  An additional concern is on the pesticides that would be used. Mr. Rolnizky asked that the Council consider protecting the Mount Sutro forest by giving it landmark status.  It was also explained that UCSF submitted a pre-disaster application to request money for fire mitigation for this project. Mr. Rolnizky also offered other ways to fight the potential of fires such as installing a sprinkler system throughout the forest.

 

Mr. Jake Sigg reported that he has been a steward on Mount Sutro for the past three years and has been working on opening up trails including the historic trail.  Mr. Sigg discussed previous inaccessibility problems with Mount Sutro and improvements that were made that allow for better accessibility for dog walkers and hikers that enjoy the area.  Mr. Sigg explained that UCSF decided that not managing this mountain was no longer an option and is rightly concerned about the fire hazard that it could present to the nearby residents. Mr. Sigg believes that from his experience working on the mountain, that it does pose a potential fire hazard and agrees that the university must take it seriously as well as residents in the neighborhood.

 

Ms. L. Carpenter stated that she is a resident of the Forest Knolls neighborhood and appreciates that the stewards have made a nice trail, but that any other further cutting would be increasing the fire risk.  Ms. Carpenter stated that after reading the UCSF plan, she decided that the fire risk was completely overstated and cited Ms. Bose’s comments that the forest is very wet all year round and opening it up further would substantially increase the fire risk because of the dryness and the windiness.  It was explained that on top of the mountain there is a native garden, and it is extremely dry and windy, and that would be the only place where a fire could start. 

 

Ms. Carpenter expressed her concern that there is also a plan to dump thousands of gallons of Roundup or other herbicides on top of the cut down trees so they won’t re-sprout.  It was explained that these herbicides would go into the watershed into their neighborhood and into the bay.  Ms. Carpenter stated that she is against people saying that it is better to poison and chop down a forest rather than to retain non-native species.  It was explained that there is current evidence that California native plants and vegetation are at risk because of global warming.  Ms. Carpenter stressed the importance of retaining Mount Sutro’s eucalyptus trees that are thriving in the area and not replacing them with native trees that may not do as well.  Ms. Carpenter also stated that she believes the use of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants for fire mitigation for this area is a pretense. It was explained that trees produce clean air and take in dirty air and during this time of global warming, it is against current wisdom to chop down huge forests.  

 

Mr. Paul Rotter, stated that he is a resident of the east side of the Mount Sutro forest and expressed the desire of the neighborhood to retain the forest as well as preserve its heritage.  Mr. Rotter questioned the credibility of UCSF’s plan being a fire mitigation effort.  It was explained that several years ago UCSF prepared an extensive study on development of the forest area and discovered that they could not afford the plan, so determined that the only way they could manage the forest was to cut it down.  Mr. Rotter stated that this is not a solution that is tenable with any good environmental plan.  It was stated that San Francisco is a valuable city, and people enjoy going to Mount Sutro to walk their dogs because it is a forest, not a clearing.  Mr. Rotter stated that Mount Sutro is not a fire hazard, that it is a beautiful wonderful place to visit and should be maintained. 

 

Mr. Rotter questioned UCSF’s motives and recommended that they make an effort to go into the neighborhoods and ask for community input.  Mr. Rotter stated that he has lived in the neighborhood since 1974 and there have been no records of serious fires in that forest.  The forest is defined by the California fire agencies as a moderate fire hazard, which is the lowest fire rating possible.  Mr. Rotter stated that Mount Sutro should have the eucalyptus forest that is there now and indicated that other oak and native species may not do as well in this particular area.

 

Member Short stated that it is important for the Council to hear a presentation and review UCSF’s Plan.  Member Short asked whether a fire ecologist was consulted as part of the plan as that would be the most logical approach to determining a fire hazard.  It was stated that it is important for the Council to review what is being proposed and to ask questions.

 

Member Cohen inquired whether the plan’s objective is more about fire mitigation or if there is a native plant element as well.  Ms. Bose explained that the memo that was circulated to the neighborhoods spoke of it as a fire mitigation plan and stated that FEMA pre-disaster funding was being sought after.  Ms. Bose stated that her impression from listening to the interaction between UCSF and a presenter that was supportive of native plants, was that UCSF kept deferring to the supporter of native plants and that the two were inter-linked.  Ms. Carpenter reported that UCSF was planning on planting oak trees, Manzanita and other natives to replace some of the trees that would be taken down.  It was stated that there were to be 200 trees to be planted and 3000 trees to be taken down.  Mr. Rolnizky requested that the Council make this into a citywide issue when all information is received from UCSF.   

 

Council Chair Milne stated that the Mount Sutro discussion would be continued to a future meeting in order to secure a presentation from UCSF.  Council Chair Milne explained that the Council is a body responsible for advising the Board of Supervisors and Mayor and would not be dealing directly with a state agency such as UCSF.  A recommendation was made that the public interested in this matter also follow-up with Board of Supervisors members because they are the body that have the authority to take action.

 

Member Cohen stated that this is the only forest that isn’t managed in San Francisco and discussed management, access, and ecology concerns associated with UCSF’s plan.  Member Cohen asked that the Council make a commitment to investigating these concerns as well as maintaining the preservation of the forest.  Council Coordinator Hui stated that she would provide the Council with UCSF’s 2001 plan once it is received.  

 

Ms. Fish, Council Secretary, reported that Member Blair had provided public comment on this agenda item that is included in the Council’s agenda packet (Explanatory Documents:  SF Tree Council Correspondence)         

 

8.      Urban Forestry Council Strategic Planning. The Council will review the Planning and Funding Committee’s suggestions on Council opportunities, constraints, strategies, direction, and assess their strengths and weaknesses. The Council will also discuss current resource needs and hear the Committee’s strategic planning suggestions. Sponsor: Member Sherk. (Discussion)      

 

Member Sherk reported that the Planning and Funding Committee discussed strategic planning ideas to increase the Council’s relevance and visibility.  Suggestions from the Committee discussion included forming an education ad hoc work group that would include Council members who would be interested in expanding what educational opportunities exist.  Another idea that the Planning Committee discussed was scheduling a retreat to discuss ideas.  Council Coordinator Hui reported that she would consult with the Deputy City Attorney and report back on retreat details. Member Sherk asked members for their input regarding the issue of relevance, the many opportunities that may be available, and strategic planning ideas to achieve this objective. Member Sherk also asked if Council members would be interested in joining a group that would focus on educational opportunities.

 

Member D’Agostino suggested (1) holding neighborhood meetings or “salons” similar to the Neighborhood Park Council’s that would contain a tree related or horticultural educational component and coordinating a collaborative effort with other City departments on related issues, e.g., brown bags.  Member Cohen recommended scheduling a strategic planning session, coordinating with agencies on urban forestry issues, and holding neighborhood meetings to encourage landmarking.  Member Sustarich stated that it is important for individual agencies to cooperate with each other within the agency.  Member Sustarich also recommended scheduling a presentation and including educational material on the Council’s website on disease conditions that may affect trees, e.g., pine pitch canker.   Council Coordinator Hui recommended contacting the presenter that discussed a similar topic at a Department of the Environment brown bag to make a presentation. Council Chair Milne stated that a presentation to the Council might help influence publicity on the topic and could be written about for the public’s reference. 

 

Member Short recommended referencing the Council’s Priority Work Plan that also includes efforts to address pine pitch canker.  Member Vargas stated that strategic planning should address what the Council is supposed to be doing which is advising the Board of Supervisors to understand the public and City department’s concern for trees.  Member Sherk explained that the Council finds itself in a weak position and she is interested in exploring what the Council can do in a proactive way that would result in helping the urban forest and adding validity to Council discussions.  Member Sherk stated that the Council could have another function in addition to advising the Board of Supervisors, which is to deal with the larger community. This effort would prove to be beneficial for the urban forest, the Supervisors, and the public. 

 

Member Sherk recommended that the Council consider ways to make the Council more visible, more proactive, and relevant in the public and City community so there is more reason for the Council to be here.  Member Cohen cited the lack of resources. Council Chair Milne recommended referencing the items on the Priority Work Plan individually.  Member D’Agostino reported that she would be interested in joining an educational work group.  

 

9.      Staff Report.  Staff will provide updates on Urban Forestry Council administrative and programmatic operations relating to research, planning, funding, outreach, and other related activities. (Explanatory Document: Staff Report) (Informational Report and Discussion)

 

Council Coordinator Hui provided a staff report and discussed (1) the cancellation of the Mayor’s Office meeting, (2) presented final landmark tree certificates (Explanatory Documents:  Landmark Tree Certificates), (3) announced website URL updates, (4) success of this year’s annual pruning workshop, future efforts and provided a workshop attendee breakdown; (Explanatory Document: Pruning Workshop Attendee Breakdown), (5) collaboration with the Public Library and education opportunities on the Green Stacks program; and (6) plans for distribution of the annual Urban Forest Survey.  See above staff report for additional information.     

 

10.  Committee Reports: (Informational Reports and Discussion)

Planning & Funding Committee, Chair, Carla Short.  The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2009, 4:15 p.m. at City Hall, Room 421.

Planning and Funding Committee Chair Short reported that the Committee reviewed the Annual Report Survey before the Council did and talked about the strategic planning concept presented today and there was also a discussion on illegal pruning.  Council Coordinator Hui reported that an idea that was discussed at the Committee was to put signs on trees that had been pruned in violation of the pruning standards and Deputy City Attorney Cabrera seemed positive that it is a possibility that if a fine had been levied, that a sign can go up on the tree that says a fine has been levied and why.  DPW code would have to be changed and she would be speaking to another Deputy City Attorney to discuss the process.

 

Landmark Tree Committee, Chair, Mike Boss.  The next meeting to be announced as required. 

Council Chair Milne reported that there has not been a Committee meeting for several months because of a lack of landmark tree nominations.  Member Cohen reported on neighbor opposition and harassment to the property owner’s nomination of the Moreton Bay fig that led to withdrawal of the nomination. It was stated that creation of a Conservation Ordinance would prevent this type of occurrence because the tree would automatically be protected. Council Coordinator Hui reported on concerns expressed by neighbors, e.g. effect on light and view. A discussion was held on proper pruning techniques to address these concerns.

 

11.  Chair’s Announcements: Terry Milne, Chair, Urban Forestry Council (Information and Discussion). There were no announcements made at this time.-

 

12.  New Business/Future Agenda Items. (Information and Discussion).  There was no new business or future agenda items discussed at this time.

 

13.  Public Comment:  Members of the public may address the Council on matters that are within the Council’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.  There was no public comment at this time.

 

14.  Adjournment. The Urban Forestry Council meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.

 

Explanatory documents are available to the public at the Department of the Environment, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., by clicking on the attachments with each agenda or meeting minutes, or upon request to the Council Secretary at the address listed below, telephone number 415-355-3709, or via e-mail at Monica.Fish@Sfgov.org.

.

 

Urban Forestry Council

San Francisco Department of the Environment

City and County of San Francisco

11 Grove Street, San Francisco, CA 94102

 

Respectfully submitted by,

Monica Fish, Council Secretary

 

*Approved:  July 24, 2009

ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:26 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:26 PM
ċ
062309Audio.MSV
(5729k)
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:24 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:24 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:25 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:23 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:24 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:23 PM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:25 PM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:25 PM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:25 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Jun 22, 2010, 1:25 PM
Comments