>> you are a mindreader. >> ok. i don't know why it is listed under that section but that is correct. we would be striking section six lines 11-25 on page 236. >> say that one more time? >> section six what? what did you say? >> 11-25. i apologize. we have so many different versions here. >> that is what i have.

>> there are a lot of versions with different edits on the website. but i believe what the amendment was to strike section six in its entirety. and that section is on page 237 lines six through 20. >> it is on page 236. >> you allergic -- originally said section six, right? on my document it is 11325. >> the document you have printed out in front of you may include amendments that were circulated today which is why it is off. it is basically section six. the unquantified section at the end of the ordinance. in the public late notice document on 237.

>> you made a motion to strike section -- section six. page 236 or page 237. 237 on the public document. >> do we need a roll call or can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. >> through the chair, can i ask another question? on the points with the flower mart, i wanted to hear what you had to say one more time. >> we need to continue discussions with all of the stakeholders on this amendment. i have made a commitment to kilroy to come to some kind of resolution by november 13th to the full board. i am not making an amendment to strike this today. >> i heard that. i wanted to hear the other part

about the conversation. it seems pretty significant. >> we still haven't continued the discussion with all of the stakeholders. >> ok. >> ok. at this time, does the committee have any suggestions on how you want to move forward? >> i would like to make a motion to move this far with positive recommendation to the full board >> ok. can i recommend we do it without recommendation just for a couple of outstanding items? >> that is totally fine. i will change my motion to move this forward and got recommendation to the full board >> ok. do we need to do a roll call vote? we will do that without objection. ok. are there any other items before us today? >> for clarity that was item seven through 11?

>> yes. >> there is no further business. >> ok. thank you. we are adjourned.

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for

all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed

themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project

our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them

to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want

to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion

that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen

and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people

are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for . >> my name is angela wilson and i'm an owner of the market i worked at a butcher for about 10

years and became a butcher you i was a restaurant cook started in sxos and went to uc; isn't that so and opened a cafe we have produce from small farms without small butcher shops hard for small farms to survive we have a been a butcher shop since 1901 in the heights floor and the case are about from 1955 and it is only been a butcher shot not a lot of businesses if san francisco that have only been one thing. >> i'm all for vegetarians if you eat meat eat meat for quality and if we care of we're in a losing battle we need to support butcher shops eat less

we sell the chickens with the head and feet open somebody has to make money when you pay $25 for a chicken i guarantee if you go to save way half of the chicken goes in the enlarge but we started affordable housing depends on it occurred to us this is a male field people said good job even for a girl the interesting thing it is a women's field in most of world just here in united states it is that pay a man's job i'm an encountered woman and raise a son and teach i am who respect woman i consider all women's who work here to be impoverished and strong in san francisco labor is high our cost of good ideas we seal the best good ideas the

profit margin that low but everything that is a laboring and that's a challenge in the town so many people chasing money and not i can guarantee everybody this is their passion. >> i'm the - i've been cooking mile whole life this is a really, really strong presence of women heading up kitchens in the bay area it is really why i moved out here i think that we are really strong in the destroy and really off the pages kind of thing i feel like women befrp helps us to get back up i'm definitely the only female here i fell in love i love setting up and love knowing were any food comes from i do the

lamb and that's how i got here today something special to have a female here a male dominated field so i think that it is very special to have women and especially like it is going at it you know i'm a tiny girl but makes me feel good for sure. >> the sad thing the building is sold i'm renegotiating my lease the neighborhood wants us to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday it is a very high labor of

business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this and empowering them to learn san francisco, 911, what's the emergency? >> san francisco 911, police, fire and medical. >> the tenderloin. suspect with a six inch knife. >> he was trying to get into his car and was hit by a car. >> san francisco 911 what's the exact location of your emergency? >> welcome to the san francisco department of emergency

management. my name is shannon bond and i'm the lead instructor for our dispatch add -- academy. i want to tell you about what we do here. >> this is san francisco 911. do you need police, fire or medical? >> san francisco police, dispatcher 82, how can i help you? >> you're helping people in their -- what may be their most vulnerable moment ever in life. so be able to provide them immediate help right then and there, it's really rewarding. >> our agency is a very combined agency. we answer emergency and non-emergency calls and we also do dispatching for fire, for medical and we also do dispatching for police. >> we staff multiple call taking positions. as well as positions for police and fire dispatch. >> we have a priority 221. >> i wanted to become a dispatcher so i could help people. i really like people.

i enjoy talking to people. this is a way that i thought that i could be involved with people every day. >> as a 911 dispatcher i am the first first responder. even though i never go on seen -- scene i'm the first one answering the phone call to calm the victim down and give them instruction. the information allows us to coordinate a response. police officers, firefighters, ambulances or any other agency. it is a great feeling when everyone gets to go home safely at the end of the day knowing that you've also saved a citizen's life. >> our department operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. >> this is shift work. that means we work nights, weekends and holidays and can involve over time and sometimes that's mandatory. >> this is a high stress career so it's important to have a good balance between work and life. >> we have resources available like wellness and peer support

groups. our dispatchers of the month are recognized for their outstanding performance and unique and ever changing circumstances. >> i received an accommodation and then i received dispatcher of the month, which was really nice because i was just released from the phones. so for them to, you know, recognize me for that i appreciated it. i was surprised to even get it. at the end of the day i was just doing my job. >> a typical dispatch shift includes call taking and dispatching. it takes a large dedicated group of fifrst responders to make ths department run and in turn keep the city safe. >> when you work here you don't work alone, you work as part of a team. you may start off as initial phone call or contact but everyone around you participating in the whole process. >> i was born and raised in san francisco so it's really rewarding to me to be able to help the community and know that i have a part in -- you know, even if it's behind the scenes

kind of helping the city flow and helping people out that live here. >> the training program begins with our seven-week academy followed by on the job training. this means you're actually taking calls or dispatching responders. >> you can walk in with a high school diploma, you don't need to have a college degree. we will train you and we will teach you how to do this job. >> we just need you to come with an open mind that we can train you and make you a good dispatcher. >> if it's too dangerous to see and you think that you can get away and call us from somewhere safe. >> good. that's right. >> from the start of the academy to being released as a solo dispatcher can take nine months to a year. >> training is a little over a year and may change in time. the training is intense. very intense. >> what's the number one thing that kills people in this country? so we're going to assume that it's a heart attack, right? don't forget that.

>> as a new hire we require you to be flexible. you will be required to work all shifts that include midnights, some call graveyard, days and swings. >> you have to be willing to work at different times, work during the holidays, you have to work during the weekends, midnight, 6:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the afternoon. that's like the toughest part of this job. >> we need every person that's in here and when it comes down to it, we can come together and we make a really great team and do our best to keep the city flowing and safe. >> this is a big job and an honorable career. we appreciate your interest in joining our team. >> we hope you decide to join us here as the first first responders to the city and county of san francisco.

for more information on the job and how to apply follow the links below. >> good evening and welcome to the november 7th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank funk -- frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. commissioner anna lazarus is absent tonight. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls as a legal assistant. and the board's executive director. we will also be joined by

representatives from city departments and cases before -- for cases before the board this evening. we expect joseph duffy, the senior building inspector starting department of building inspection and deputy city attorney representing the department of public health. the managers with environmental health branch of the department of public health will also be here. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they don't disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. permit holders and respondents get seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for a rebuttal. people affiliated must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone

for rehearing request, the parties will get a total of three minutes with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, your asp not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules are scheduled. please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting a call or visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , channel 78. we will broadcast at 4:00 pm as well. now we will swear in our -- or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the centre and ordinance. if you intend to testify and would like to have the board give your testimony evidentiary

wait, stand if you're able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn and/or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. ok. we will now move on to item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not alternate but just calendar. is there any member of the public who would like to comment we will move on to item number 2 commissioner comments and questions. >> on behalf of the board we would like to welcome our newest commissioner, rachel tanner. welcome and good luck. >> thank you. it is off. first morning. i will turn the next one on and off. it is great to be here. thank you for the warm welcome. i am excited to join you all and be part of the board of appeals. thank you. >> i want to reiterate welcoming

commissioner tanner to our board and apologize i was not at her hearing. welcome. >> ok. his or any public comment on item number 2? seeing then, will move on to item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion, possible adoption of the minutes of the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. >> any corrections or just -- additions? if not, we will entertain a motion to accept. >> motion. >> we have a motion to adopt the minutes from the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. on that motion -- excuse me. is there any public comment on that? seeing none, we will go onto the boat. wow -- [roll call]. >> that motion carries 4-0.

item number 4 is a rehearing request at 2722 and 2724 folsom street. the appellant is requesting a repeal of a hearing. the planning department disapproval decided october 10 th, 2018. at that time, the board voted 3- 1. to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the apartment on the basis that the department did not err on the decision. the permit is for administrative purposes only. no work on the permit to. they are trying to document -- document illegal use. the subject building is a three-story building with two residential dwelling units. correcting previously issued c.f.c. showing the buildings of three -- a three unit building. i would like to ask commissioner tanner, did you have an opportunity to review the video

and materials for the appeal that was heard? >> i did. >> prior to this, i would like to disclose i am a partner in a project that hired the law firm of reuben and junius as council. there up appearance will not have any effect on my decision. >> thank you. we will now hear from the requester. >> thank you. good evening. welcome commissioner tanner. i am the city appellant. commissioners, as you know, is a case about the number of dwelling units in my client's home. any legal unit was erroneously counted on a old c.f.c. as a lawful unit and my client was directed by d.b.i. to apply for a permit to correct the c.f.c.'s error. we are requesting a rehearing tonight because we decided this case 3-1 on grounds that had already been decided in a formal preapplication decision.

under ab 28 kathy's decisions are binding and they are only appealable to the building inspection commission and not support of appeals. to exceed this jurisdiction is manifest and just. overhead, please. good evening, commissioners. >> overhead, please. >> good evening commissioners. the subject property is my home which i have lived in for 11 years. which i have owned for 11 years. i have been trying to follow the processes to make my home safe but the city keeps folk pulling the rug from underneath me. when i discovered my home had a unit count problem i was told to get an official unit counts. after applying for a unit to count, they refused. i was then told to apply for a preapplication determination. they determined my home has been and always is illegal to watch what unit building. and instructed me to get a permit to correct the record.

i applied for the permit to correct the record and b.d.i. has denied it. i don't know why i am being put through this but homeowners in city departments should both have to follow the rules. i respectfully ask the board to grant a rehearing his of the legal and binding preapplication decision under ab 28 can be honored. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. a preapplication meeting was held with d.b.i. and fire to review the history and documentation of this property. after an exhaustive review by d.b.i. and fire, the determination -- they determined based on the lack of required upgrades the proper classification of the building is a two unit are three. a signed preapplication is considered as a final determination for code related conditions. furthermore, if d.b.i. and fire

management disagreed with the findings, it could happen corrected and appealed. this was not the case. thank you. >> commissioners, i am happy to answer any questions. this is an issue that may have been missed in the last hearing. the binding nature of ab 28 and the preapplication decision which decided the subject matter of this appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now here from mr sanchez and the planning commission. >> hello. d.b.i. i would like to welcome commissioner tanner on behalf of ddf -- d.b.i. i am looking forward to working with you. on this case, i was not here for

the original hearing. although i am very familiar with him. mr patterson, this is the third law form now dealing with this case and probably over the last couple of years i have been involved with dealing with a number of dwelling units in this in the dwelling units. we do deal with a lot of d.b.i., , it seems more than ever we have a process called a unit clarification which has worked by a records people and then given to a senior building inspector who will look at the records, including the assessor his records, water department records, d.b.i. records, anything that could determine the legal number of dwelling units in a building. in this case, they came to d.b.i. with a package.

we went out to the building as we normally do and it was determined that it couldn't be done as a unit type verification because there were two cfcs on file for a three unit building. when it is working like that in the records -- there is no real clear-cut one, we cannot, it d.b.i. give an administrative permit to correct it. it would require a building permit with the departing department. we advised on that and that process was used at one point in the process and the planning department and planning commission turned it down. whether that was before or after the unit, it does not matter. and we then went to -- we try to get the two units in the building but there are two cfcs. again, just trying to get this resolved through a proper way,

he probably wanted to exhaust his options, at this body, which is the board of appeals and get the permit disapproved. d.b.i. and appealed that disapproval to the board of appeals. unbeknownst to me, and until i actually looked at this case, i noticed that there was a pre application meeting that took place and it has been referred to here tonight. the preapplication meetings and d.b.i. are very good process. they are one of the best deals that you can have. you can talk about your upcoming project and you can get code questions answered. whether you need sprinklers, what will be the requirements for fire ratings, et cetera. in this case i have never seen a preapplication meeting processed and use that term legal number of dwelling units. the preapplication process was abused here. i do recognize we do have ab 28

i have never, in my history of looking at preapplication meetings, seen a number of dwelling units decided at a pre application meeting. i have spoken to the gentleman who had done that us after the meeting with the fire department and i spoke to him today he is semiretired so he is hard to get a hold of every day. at this current time. i am looking at -- i have spoken to the city attorney office and i'm in the plan just process of looking into the preapplication meeting to see -- i just don't think that we should be at a pre application meeting looking back on c.f.c.s 30 years ago to determine if they were legally issued or not. that is a question for the inspection division. through this process, he dealt with me.

he dealt with the chief building inspector. he dealt with the deputy director as well. we all said, and we are standing over our c.f.c.s. if everyone got a c.f.c.s started showing up at d.b.i., then we would not be able to stop it. particularly these days with the number of dwelling units. they are in the process for that the planning department deals with it. i do not -- i do know we have a lot of documentation. there are so many records that show this as a three unit building. as i said, we are dealing with the city attorney's office on this one to see what we will end up with. there are questions about work that was done in work that wasn't done. upgrading the building to a type two, that is on a lot of what d.b.i. did during these reports. i see that even on condo reports today. buildings, whole buildings in

san francisco can be one hour construction. i am not too sure that is what we will do to the building to upgrade that was there already. so there was a circle made on that report. my argument is that the building was one arm before you even got that with the three units that were there. when he came into d.b.i. in october of 2017, his first -- as a building owner, i'm requesting a preapplication meeting with the members of d.b.i. to verify the type of construction of my building. that somehow turned into how many units i have in my building and in quite a lengthy letter that was signed off by jeff ma, that turned into a letter in november, a response letter that ended up being completely different from the questions that were answered of the original october 2017. and indeed, the last item on the

meeting, he actually, almost had jeff not stating he can have a single-family dwelling in the building. as i said, meat reading through this brief and not being at the last hearing, and getting into this more and whether you want to open up the appeal again, that is your decision. it is a complicated one. i am -- as i said, he has been at d.b.i. several times with us. that is the update that i have for you tonight. i am available for any questions >> mr duffy, i was actually a little surprised to see that particular subject matter as part of a preapplication. by the preapplication was issued is there anything in your rules and regulations that deal with the subject matter that can be presented and discussed at a pre application?

>> probably not but there will be soon. dwelling units today with the legal dwelling units, but we are going through in the city at the minute with legalizing units, you can't take a legal unit out. it is not advisable for d.b.i. and a preapplication meeting to be determined. even i spoke to mr mott today and he realizes that. if we did that in a pre application, what does it do the planning department and where does it go to? it is not the proper form in my opinion. ab 28, i could take you ten pre application letter sent d.b.i. as a guarantee none of them talk about how many dwelling unit should i have in my building? is a c.f.c.s valid? is it not valid? it is not what a preapplication meeting is for. if you want to read ab 28 like that, that is the one we have

for the guidelines. it is mainly used -- i'm sure he has many years of experience, it is usually regarding a project that you are coming in your edition -- addition, high-rise, because it cuts off a lot of stuff during the project. there is not really a project here. it is not a preapplication for a project. i just don't think it is there. but that is part of what i have to do in this case. because this was used. it is probably looking at what we are doing with d.b.i. in regards to preapplication and have a question possibly before someone comes in and asked them if they have gone through a process. is this to legalize a unit? it is -- is it something that questions at d.b.i. records? this is what it was all totally about. we have records in pbi. if there something wrong with

the records, they refer you to the building inspection division many times i have fixed a c.f.c. that was issued incorrectly. we do allow for that. in this case, we did not see that. he went with the pre-op meeting. anyway. we are not done with it at d.b.i. i think we have to look at it again and see where we are at. we can do that internally. i can work with him. i have no problem with that. i think he just tried to exhaust his option at the board with the disapproval and appealing the disapproval. >> any further questions? >> mr sanchez? >> good evening, members of the board. welcome, commissioner tanner. i hope you enjoy your time on the board as much as i enjoy coming to the board to do these

presentations. i will be brief on the matter. we outlined all the issues we had but to reiterate, this is not the first time that this project has been before the department. the applicant initially brought a permit in 2016 to remove one of the three legal dwelling units and we believe these dwelling units are based upon the permit history and they sought the permit and conditional use authorization was required. they reduce the legal number of units from 3-2. during the course of that process it was found that there were illegal units on the property. it just wasn't one of the three units. there were two additional units on the property. there was a total of five. under the planning code, the requirements are much more stringent for removal of illegal units. it is now illegal to remove an illegal unit. there is an exemption process if there is no path to legalization

which was found to be the case for the two units in this case. they were able to remove those units without the conditional use authorization. but what is before you now is a rehearing request and the appellant has raised information that they did argue and provide to you in the last hearing. it is unclear to me how this request meets the board's strict standards for a rehearing request. but it also is unclear to me what the ultimate goal or aim of the applicant is in this case. certainly if the board did find that this was an illegal third unit, they would be required under section 317 to remove that unit. but the first direction of the city agencies is to legalize the units. so we would ask that they go forward and legalize the third unit and not remove it further under the planning code when there is a discrepancy about or lack of clarity in the permit

records about whether or not a unit his legal. we are to assume that the unit is legal. in this case, it is not a question or a lack of clarity. the records indicate these are three illegal units. we would go with that and interpreted very clearly s3 illegal units. i am available for any questions the board may have. thank you. >> from your point of view, everything that we are doing tonight, we heard last time. so according to our rules, which are you must have new information that was not presented previously. this would not meet that test. >> in my opinion, they are presenting it in a different way but it is certainly they couldn't have presented as a last hearing, in my opinion. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners.

>> i concur. i see no new information or manifest in just. i make a motion to deny the rehearing request on that there is no manifest injustice. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the request for a rehearing. on that motion, president fung? >> that motion carries. the rehearing request is denied. we will now move on to item number 5. this is an appeal number 18-103.

subject property is 317 dorado terrace. appearing -- appealing the issuance of a public works orator. approval of a request to remove three street trees without replacement adjacent to the subject property. this is order number 188150. on october 17th, 2018, the board voted 4-0 to continue the matter to november 7th 2018 to the permit holder had the opportunity to discuss the potential outcomes including replacement of the trees with the bureau of urban forestry. commissioner tanner? did you have an opportunity to review the video materials for the appeal that was heard on october 17th 2018. >> yes, i did. >> thank you. we already had the appeal on this matter. each of the parties will get three minutes. would you like to hear from the

department head first? >> let's do that. >> okay. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm with the san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. thank you. just a quick recap, we had public works issue fine -- issue a fine for excessive pruning to bark eucalyptus trees that are adjacent to 317 dorado terrace. there is a small right-of-way area directly next to the building. where these trees were planted. publics will -- public worship -- public works issue the finest several years ago and it took a while. the owner submitted to us at the admin hearing and we waved the find quite a bit on a condition that they apply to remove the trees. at the time, we recommended no replacement because of the narrow planting area. it is right up against the base of the property. when we did post the removal notices on the trees, we

received an appeal from the appellant. since this time, since our last hearing, i have met with the appellant do walk at the site and not just look at that site, but look at other possible planning sights. we identified a site that can be planted and there's a couple of places where we can't plant. we also looked at what possible replacement trees or shrubs may be for this location. during this time, i have spoken with the property owner multiple times about -- what i was trying to do is come back to you with this with a bow on it. bringing both sides back and saying we have settled on suitable replacement species. i feel we are not quite there yet. and just a couple of things to reiterate, one of the issues that folks had the last hearing was the ability of public works to say that a property owner

remove the trees and replace them. we have, on a regular basis made property owners who we have issued fines to say, the condition of these trees are so poor that we want you to remove them and replace them. we had done not on a regular basis to be consistent. and original estimate of the site was not to replant trees there. it is right up against the building. we typically would not recommend that. and an ideal world, the property owner would go ahead and plant something out there that could be suitable and benefit to the site. we have not settled on what some of the species are. some of them would be a hollywood juniper which is an evergreen tree that gets planted up against houses on a regular basis or a couple of other species. we are still not quite there and seeing eye to eye on that. we will perhaps get closer to that looking for guidance from

you. i think we won't hear from other parties and perhaps after that i could follow up. thank you. >> thank you. is ms. miss chan here? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is lydia and i am the agent for danny and stella chan who are the previous owners. that is correct. we recently had been discussing with chris about the future plantation and here are three reasons i would object to it. so i understand that the trees were not suitable for the location to begin with. it would have been removed again if stella had the knowledge about the code, and had been doing it in the proper way. instead they proved -- printed and made it unhealthy. instead of asking the city to

remove it. they were told it was owner's his responsibility to maintain the tree at the time. if they had done it correctly, the trees would have been removed safely and no replacement would have been needed since it was not suitable [please stand by]

to the property. >> the trees are in contact with the wall. recommendation owners to trim the trees away from the wall to prevent excessive moisture build up on the right wall. the excessive moisture suconducive to fungus and

damages.