Jim, Can you work this and the suggestions in the previous e-mail into the latest draft? If not, can you put paste each part into the right section and I'll work on it? Thanks Sue P.S. These are good suggestions. On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Jym Dyer <jym@econet.org> writes:
[C]12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the elimination of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a private parking space.
=v= The "because" clause is unnecessary, as this is true even if the resident isn't blocking the driveway: the very existence of the curb cut means a public parking space has been taken traded for one or more private parking spaces.
=v= The root of the problem here is a huge misperception: the idea that adding off-street parking will free up room for more on-street parking. This never works. In fact, it always makes things worse, because by accommodating more cars, you get more cars.
=v= San Francisco will in some circumstances approve of a curb cut for a one-car garage, but a curb cut for a two- or more-car garage will *always* be approved. The destruction of a tree is always approved -- the process is simply a rubber-stamping -- since the huge misperception takes priority. (They figure a multi-car garage will free up more parking spaces, but instead, it only adds more cars to the streets.)
New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with each tree removed.
=v= Abandon the huge misperception and something becomes clear: a curb cut is always a private gain at public expense. Damaging public property, especially a street tree, should only be done for a compelling reason.
=v= There's another wrench in the works, as well. The ecology of the urban forest in San Francisco is suffering from a lack of a good succession of trees of various ages. More mature trees protect younger ones. When a driveway is put in, that usually only leaves room for one street tree. So, when that tree finally dies, its replacement can't have other mature trees on either side, to protect it. It'll be surrounded by concrete.
=v= One more thing: the current city policy of "per tree" mitigation doesn't take the maturity of the tree into account. You can destroy a 100-year old tree and "mitigate" that by planting a twig (with a 50% chance of living, and which is not likely to live more than 10 years in any event). So, instead of a "per tree" penalty, I'd suggest we adopt a formula based on the size of the tree. The standard measurement is called the "tree basal area," which is the area ("pi-r-squared") of a cross section of a tree at a point 4 feet from the ground.
=v= So, given all of the above, *my* wording would be this:
12. No new driveway curb cuts should be approved except to accommodate residents with physical disabilities. New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and any trees removed must be replaced with multiple trees, the basal areas of which must add up to the basal area of the original tree.
=v= If consensus can't be reached on that, I can suggest this:
12. No new driveway curb cuts should be approved if they will result in the damage or loss of a street tree, except to accommodate residents with physical disabilities. New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and any trees removed must be replaced with multiple trees, the basal areas of which must add up to the basal area of the original tree.
<_Jym_> _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo