vegetation abatement, you're trying to create 30 feet around structures. so this is a large part of how we handle our wildfire abatable in our unmaintained and natural areas is that we look at this in terms of adjacent property lines to residential properties and these types of things to be able to create that defensive space in the case of a fire starting. we look through the fire property photo here and conduct vegetation management removal in the may-june time frame in advance of the wildfire season. that includes removal of

vegetation and dead wood from structures and properties to create that 30-foot defensible area and the focus is on flammable material, not on green shrubbery or trees, but those things that are high and have a high probability of a flash point. we also believe this type of management of vegetation is consistent in trying to also balance park and land management with biodiversity with other sensitive habitat preservation which is part of our mission. that's the proactive approach we tabling every year. on the reactive side if the department receives a complaint or a flagged situation, we immediately dispatch staff out there to evaluate it, take a look at it, and if we see a

credible fire hazard, we will do that fire management abatement at that site. we maintain a list of properties where we do this, especially where we have an adjacent residential parcel shared property line so we can keep up with this. if we find new spaces, we add them to that list. because that is the list we start with every year to do the wildfire abatement. those are enumerative and proactive approaches. on this slide you can see places where we do some of this work every year, glen park, glen canyon and others as well. another example of this taking glen canyon and glen park as an example, you can see we have highlighted on this overhead of glen canyon park four areas where there is an yachbt line to the park line.

when we do this in glen canyon itself, these are the four areas where we manage this through those practices we just laid out there. so if we get public complaints, 311 requests, if the fire department contacts us with something they heard, we go out and check it out and to maintain this immediate response to any suspected fire hazards. on the resources and challenges end, the -- there have been small fires in our parks by and large, it pains me to say this, but we do have legal encampments in the park from time to time. there have been arson events or just uncontrolled if they started the fire for cooking or whatever, it gets away from them. to date these fires have been

small. the fire department has been wonderfully responsive in getting out there. in our end we now have three environmental staff crews that go out to look with our park rangers for areas where this might be occurring to get this cleaned out and to make sure they're not going to be posing any kind of fire hazard while there. the resources we have right now allow us to do the effort they have ongoing. it's basically shared with our urban forcery division, by our natural resources section, and all the gardners that we have in all our parks and open space know how to handle this stuff and also how to participate in our abatement procedures. that summarizes my presentation. i'd be happy to answer any

questions. >> a few years ago, the board i guess supported the management plan for trees. >> [ overlapping speakers ] -- >> from your department. >> yes. our significant natural resources management plan addresses all of this in its very large context about urban forestry management, vegetation management, and these types of things. how -- i know that during that time there were many trees that were identified as probably dead or not very healthy. they were supposed to be i guess taken down. has that happened? >> every year, supervisor, we have several tree assessments

where we take a third party. one of the leading companies, actually internationally, they're placed here in pleasanton, they go out the and do an entire analysis and identify the trees and give recommendations on whether they should be removed, pruned, monitored, or if they're suitable for preservation. we do about six of these a year, depending on the size of the property. then once the assessment is in, the recommendations on those assessments comprise the work plan from our urban forestry unit the following year. >> and the -- in terms of

working with the fire department, have they gone out with you to look at in particular, i mean if not all, seeing as you have a consultant, but in regards to the innovations that you may have in the residential area, even 30 feet sounds like not much of a clearance. between you and i is about 30 feet, i believe. >> we consultant the fire department on a case-by-case basis. it's not an issue of regular meetings. as issues come up, we meet on site and see and discuss it and see what our analysis is. >> but if -- i guess my question is to be proactive, why wait for the issue. are there opportunities for rec and park to work with the fire department to actually go out and do -- look at some

situations and see what recommendations they might come out with? >> we actually chartered one tree assessment which was to address specifically adjacent property lines, which is more universal throughout the city. so it wasn't specific to stern grove or specific to glen canyon. it was a set of specifications how to manage adjacent lines between parkland and residential properties, that urban park face. >> i'm pushing this because i know rec and park has a lot of the parks. many of them in my district and many in other supervisors' districts are concerned, and i would love to see few like to

identify any hot sots. >> we'd be happy to do that. >> thank you.

>> as we mentioned mainly our approach is ke decree ating tha- creating that space around buildings and structures. for trees we try to thin as space allows. >> what i want to know is what specifically you have done in the park? have you done that or are you planning to do that? have you used goats? do you plan to? what are the aggressive

strategies you have employed in glenn canyon and mi and mcclaro. >> we have done those things. it is around the defensible space. to my knowledge, we have not used goats. managing grassland or trees within the property has not been our approach. it has been looking to find out where the areas we have to create that defensible space. >> you know we have had fires over the last couple years, not even in the areas that are over leo o what is the word? vegtateed? grassland fires. if you go to the forests the

discussion about the ladder. there is a lot of under brush, a lot of area that could be trimmed and pruned. i want to hear you talk more about what you plan to do there in the future. we need to anticipate that those fires had been blown over, you know, a lot of the park would have gone up in flames. >> i will be straightforward with you here. we have to look at that. we don't have a current plan at present. given the climate change discussion, given the fire discussion here, we are trying to hit the right balance. i don't have specifics to share with you for the park. >> it would be great if you could follow back up with us. thank you.

i already asked public works. this small area that jumps out on the map in terms of hazards. it is outside of your park. for the record i want to work with public works on that area as well. >> can you catch me up on where the park is and this thinks about native versus nonnative? >> we are at the point. we don't remove whole forests. we know within our parkland, not the city as a whole, there are three predominant tree species. we woman age it through -- would try to thin the forest as we can so that it is thriving better,

it is more resilyet, that type of thing. augusthere are those who hate ad love the augus the th it. it is part of the species here in the city and trying to manage through thinning, pruning or deadwood removal so that it will do the best it can. >> are you planting new? >> not to my knowledge. >> you know, in the presidio they have a wildfire risk assessment shaping the management of their land. there is, i think, i know a

great deal of anxiety, as i said earlier and concern from people living around some of these very woody areas, you know, a, about whether the 30-foot standard is the right one for a city as dense as san francisco. b, if that is being adhered to in the ways it should be. i know you are having sort of case-by-case consultation with the fire marshal. i wonder if it would make more sense to have a more kind of comprehensive check in on whether the standard rec and park is using is the right one. i think it would be meaningful to residents to know that there had been an outside check from the fire marshal or through an outside assessment, yes, san francisco publicly owned

properties are good, manage understand the appropriate way and brookly hills is not going to happen here. >> the record. we believe we are managing it is right way. i have not seen the presidio assessment. they will also evaluate low to moderate risk which aligns with the cal fire. the hazard assessment as well. it seems to be, you know, cohesive to me. we are always happy to seek third-party validation and to test best practices to make sure that they are still best practices. >> thank you. >> thank you. next up i will bring up the public utilities commission, and that will be joh john and damon.

>> good afternoon. the ss p.u.c. to talk about our in city fire prevention measur measures. we want everyone to unbopped p.u.c. land we have lake merced in the southwest portion of san francisco. while the pc is the owner of the area, actually, rec park takes care of the main affairs. i won't touch too much on the lake. we have the reservoir land. we have the track. that is mostly o on the west sie

of the boulevard as it comes down towards glenn canyon. not the east side but on the west side, which is your district, supervisor yee. then we have sunse sunset reser. these bottom four. the next slide. i am not sure if everyone knows where they are. we also have four areas, all in a close together location within san francisco. to orient everybody on the left of the photo we have the laguna reservoir. that is one of the larger areas in the city. we don't quite have large areas like pc opened and san mateo counties. we have large watershed lands. there are 27.75-acres. we have number two on this slide

here. right across the street from clarendon elementary school. we have the summit reservoir up the hi hill. then we have our twin peaks which is number four. the only reservoir feeding to the emergency firefighting water system. i want to orient everyone to where they are located. what are the proactive measures we are taking on these lands? removing leaf litter, underbrush, creating fuel breaks 30 to 100 feet, managing grass lands and shrubs. tree trimming and removal of

dead trees. what is really important to us is working with neighbors to identify property ownership and responsibility. a lot of times these are old lands with old, old real estate maps. it is my land or p.u.c. land? we went with a constituent recently around confusion whose land it was. we meet with the homeowners to make sure it is very clear. what are the more reactive measures? we work with sfpd and city agencies to get homelessen camp meantceenemeant cleaned out. we established ongoing relations with neighbors, not funneling through the general p.u.c. phone line, while that is great for a lot of calls, we want direct

contact t to damon and his crew. they can speak directly to our experts. they know the lands and concern in the area. we do a lot of those consultations. they have his cell phone number to come on out there. the local fire department to know the ins and outs of the lands. some of those lands are steep, hard to get to, we want to make sure they know the best weighs in and out, also to review what

we are doing with vegetation management and firefighting strategies. if there is any support to change maintenance on our land to increase ability to fight fires, we are looking forward to doing those tours. in the past it has been too long now to do them again. what are the challenges? biggest fire threats are from campfires, folks starting fires within our property. working again with police to make sure fences are up-and-in shape. we need to train staff to have training in the realm of fuel management. we have folks up country with this skill set. we need to make sure we are hiring folks with thi with thise

and training folks. we have adjacent unemployment private property. laguna is a well example. our land and the homeowner's land is well maintained. there is private property teen our land and the homeowners. they won't be able to develop it or maintain it. you have the area unmaintained. looking forward to getting guidance from public works and teaming up with them to get guidance so we can address those problem areas. i am happy to answer any questions. >> this is good. i am familiar with district 7.

i believe this last issue seems to be the problem of what you are dealing with. something that we need to be concerned about. >> why are you here? i have some handouts matching this.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. port government affairs manager on behalf of the executive director joined by the executive director for maintenance. unlike our sister agencies we feel good about our fire risk. looking at the map on the opaque projector we have three different types of properties that fit what was requested for this hearing. the first in dark blue are three types of undeveloped properties. they are all on the city side of the embarcadero.

all of these within 30 feet of commercial or residential districts. they are all paved. >> others for the theater project. rather than fire risk we feel like those make good fire breaks and offer some protection. with the exception of the south being the giant's ballpark parking lot. thithis is the purpose of the hearing. second what appears in light green here. the improved parks are mostly

irrigated landscape. it mitigates fire risk. for the most part these are on the water side of the embarcadero. we have a large fire break. for us. the prevailing winds are easterly blowing offshore. if there were a grass fire they would move toward the water, not away from it. >> this has been graded and road ways are added in and prepared for leasing. really nothing left. vegetation has been managed.

at the port, unlike other agencies, we don't have stands of trees for the 7 and a half-miles of water front we have less than 2000, some of which are on the properties on the maps. seasonably we take down the grasses on the waterfront that are not more fully developed. then we also have, you know, most of the land is rented where we have in the leases requirements to maintain the grounds. we keep an eye on that. enforcement action there. we also work with dhsh on

homeless encampment resolutions as potential source of fire. seasonal removal of shrubs and grass that gets over globe i grn -- over grown. it is how we work with the fire department, we host a fire boat. >> pier 70 and mission rock will include the extensions of the city at-large. we are fortunate to have a fire marshal co-located at the port. ken coghlan is a great asset. we are in close communication

with him. i have tom carter with us. he can answer any questions about our maintenance practices. with that we are happy to answer any questions. >> i don't have any questions. it looks like there is a chance of anything from the port igniting any major fires probably a low percentage. thank you very much for coming and presenting. >> next is the department. i somehow skipped department of public works. did i call you already? are you here? there you are. department of public works, are you here? jeremy.

>> good afternoon, i am jeremy spits with san francisco public works government affairs. thank you for calling this hears. a brief overview and then turn it over to our assistant super-attendant with the bureau of human forest tree and the deputy director of operations if you have any questions. public works is committed to fire safety and has a long history of partnering with the fire department. we are committed to greening san francisco and positively impacting climate predictions. it includes right-of-way and street trees and not many undeveloped parcels. we have proactive maintenance plans and work with the fire department to address areas of

concern even on private property. we have quick reactive response when hazards are brought to our attention. as i mentioned. we have very little space near homes or residential areas. our main areas of responsibility include medians and scattered parcels throughout the city such as along the boulevard and the areas around brotherhood bay and sunset boulevard. they are the full responsibility of property owners and some share with public works. we do regular outreach regarding maintenance, attending community meetings and partnerships with neighbors have led to great participation to community. community members come together

to volunteer. some good examples include the fill bettethefi l.b.e. rt and lt steps. >> we are committed to addressing fire risks. one example is the program we have been doing for many years but have revamped over the past year with the fire department along wher with the city attornr the south face of the burnell hill. there are parcels on that land. public works sat down and came up with a plan to notify those property owners of the responsibilities to clear parcels if the property owners were not responsive public works hired a contractor to clear them. we assessed the value of that

service on the property owners. i am turning it over to nicholas crawford to talk about maintenance on our own parcels. thank you. >> thank you, jeremy. nicholas crawford, trees and landscapes. i would like to talk about regmaintenance work, things we are doing to maintain areas, mowing, digging, removing weeds. our landscape team is trained with the bay friendly landscape qualification. it is our effort to use plants that are a good fit for this area and also any great natives where appropriate. in areas hotter and drier, those climates we are visiting more regularly to reduce the fuel there.

one parcel we use goats for vegetation management on steep hillsides and in areas with poison oak like the pink triangle. we want to retain trees because of their value, but sometimes we deal with conflict in the city where we may have to address that. i'lwe want the next tree to gron the best spot for the future. we have street tree sf created three years ago. it is now two years old. we are cruising through the city streets pruning them and removing trees as necessary. we provide reaga regular -- regr

maintenance. in terms every response. we get 311 calls that go directly to our staff inboxes. we follow by going out inspecting the site to see what is necessary and if it is necessary dispatching a crew sometimes within hours to deal with it. we rely on the community to provide that set of eyes and ears and be everywhere at all times so that we can get that information. we have also had to change some of our maintenance in response to weed growth when there is a lot of rain we get more growth to tend to more often. during droughts we have dryer grassy areas to mow and maintain in response to whatever the

weather is. to step back. the big goal is to plant more trees. we hate removing trees. we want more trees to offset climate change and that is our larger goal. we also want to be aware of fire risk and be proactive and responsive in dealing with that. thank you very much. if you have any questions, we are here. >> thank you for your presentation. i don't think we have any questions. next up. >> i do have a question for public works. i happen to live on one of the mentioned interesting spots under public work's jurisdiction, and there are fires out there all of the time. it is interesting there are certain parts of the steps that are managed by the community and there is no under story, and there are certain -- it is

weird. there is a street not built. the local followings have jurisdiction to the center line of the street. any cleanup that happens in this unaccepted public right-of-way. it is accepted for the purposes of building the stairs but not for maintenance is done by the neighbors. parts of it are immaculate and there is no dead and down brush oralisms. there are parts that are -- or limbs. i am not trying to rat out my neighbors. fire is there all of the time. they practice. there are two fire hose boxes. there is a hydrant there. i see the 28 engine there all of the time. i have never seen public works say this property is a total

fire hazard. it sounds like there is more than just the fil the fi l.b.e.t steps. there is a whole bunch of them. >> those steps look amazing. the care people invest in that is amazing. >> 273 you are right. going up from there to montgomery, you are wrong. the big change in two years is public works is pruning the streets within ter with -- withe internal trees. the neighbors stepped in to prune the industries. we are waiting. karla says she is coming.

i am not actually talking about the trees. i am talking about the under story. the stuff most flammable are thickets of dead bamboo, tons of ivy. the stuff we saw in the presentations like the rec and park presentation showing dead under story that is where a fire can start particularly given people camp there. i wonder. the question is do you have a regimen to go through on the fireside. i am not talking the tree pruning side. i know you are coming. that wasn't the question. the question is about this is all on the public right-of-way. fire doesn't come and say this is a fire hazard. fire comes and practice with hoses to see if they can get to the end of the lane and how fast. i have pictures of the 28 engine doing it.

carla. >> carla short, san francisco public works. we don't have a proactive notification program for those areas. we will go out and in. we will consult with the fire marshal. if they agree to notify property owners, we will do that. in response to this inquiry, we can do an inspection and consult with the fire marshal. >> i was in no way to suggest that. if you walk with hundreds of tourists every weekend, you will figure it out. >> thank you. i will ask the fire marshal, dan, i will tell you why i am saving you for last. now you have heard all of the departments tell you what they are doing, and if you have a response to whether or not we

could do more. this is a good time to let us know. >> here are some more copies if you would like them. i am fire marshal for the city and county of san francisco. my role is i oversee the division of fire prevention and investigation. my hopes here today is to speak

to code requirements. what are the minimum code requirements for vegetation management and wild land urban interface in san francisco? that is a good starting point. if we want to suggest solutions or strengthen the program, we should start with what is required and are we meeting that minimum? that is my intent today. if you have any questions regarding wildfire operations or training our deputy chief is here to speak to that. we will get started. my presentation will be brief, to the point. i will identify specific code sections. these are found in the fire code

and in title 19. chapter 3 and 49. 3 is general and 49 is specifically wild land urban interface. they are two different things. we will look at two maps. these are developed and published by the cdf, california department of forestry, adopted by cell fire. -- california fire. these identify the different fire hazard severity zones. then i speak to the specific details regarding these codes. here is the code section. title 29, part nine, chapter 3. general requirements speak to any structure adjacent to wild

grass, shrubs or not necessarily wild land urban interface. these are found in chapter 3 and title 19. what it says is you shall create a fire break of 30 feet up to the structure to limit the spread of fire to protect that structure. it is to remove any combustible vegetation. what is that? not green. we are talking about chapter three. it is dead vegetation. that is the requirements. that is the general rule of thumb. within chapter 3 it refers to chapter 49. that is where the wild land interface requirements come into play. >> if you want you can use that one microphone. they both work.

>> sorry for the distraction. here is a map of california. cdf put this out. it is for the whole state of california. the fire hazard severity zones. you will notice three different colors, four colors. white is federal land or local responsibility areas. you can focus in on san francisco. it is hard to see. it is all white that is a local responsibility area, not a state responsibility area. there are three classifications. moderate is yellow. high the orange and very high is red. there is a significant difference between local and state responsibility areas within chapter 49. there are different requirements depending if you are state or local.

here is san francisco. we look at the. thayellow.those are moderate ar, according to cdf. that is yellow, moderate. >> where isn't mi mcclaren parkn there? >> this come the division of for resty. this is a recommended map. the city and county of san francisco can say we declare this whole county high hazard. chapter 49 would apply and the rules would apply. this is a guidance given by the state, and that is what you will see as a draft as a recommended

approach. this did not capture everything. we will get to specific requirements. chapter 3 you can see the vegetation talks about weeds and grass, cut down remove any kind of combustible vegetation. title 19 same. highlighted in yellow here because under general requirements it refers to the 3g table. bullet two which should be item two. the next highlighted yellow. you need local authority for extra hazard with the specific site. he or she can ask for greater defensible space. you can ask from 30 to 100 feet. that is up to 30 feet.

this is chapter 49. it is the wild land urban interface requirements. the first highlighted area is cdf is the one that classifies the hazard areas. we look at applicability. is this applicable? under 4906.2, the first part is. state responsibility area and you are moderate, high or very high chapter 49 applies. in number 2. if you are a local responsibility area, chapter 49 only applies for high hazard designated areas. that does not apply to san francisco unless we self-imposuit on ourselves. that is the point there.

-- self-impose that on ourselves. that is the point there. the reason i mention the minimum requirements is not to discount the concern about fire hazards. i think it is a starting point, a benchmark to look at. if we want to increase that, we can do it at the local level. the fire department is open to having further discussions with you if you choose to do so. there are are three ways to do this. we have a 30-foot rule. we partner with other agencies. they have been very responsive. anytime we had a complaint, they have been very responsive. it is not a proactive program, though. when we receive a fire complaint. we have a proactive program with

dpw mentioned earlier where we send outletters every spring to clear is hillside. we can continue as we go on, we can task force this, team up with other departments to go visit the sites and come up a plan for each site or city and county of san francisco can declare the whole county high hazard and we will apply 49 throughout. that is an option. if you were to do that, then chapter 7 of the building code kicks in. that restricts you on the building materials you can use adjacent to the child land areas. -- wild land areas. >> the material on your roof, tile, you can't use wood shingles. where to put the vents, the openings, windows, it is quite

involved. >> would only apply to new construction? everything there would be grandfathered? >> correct, correct. when you talk about defensible space, it is for the structure to prevent it. none of these areas have a large street, a man made break adjacent to the areas. you take that into account in the 30-foot rule. i would like to mention the fire department does not have jurisdiction over federal land, state land, the p.u.c. also, with that said we do partner with all of them when it comes to fire department access and proper water supply. we are the responding agency. i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for stating the facts. i guess one reason why we are

excited to have you here is to rely on your expertise in this area. even though as chair peskin mentioned, the state may not have considered that of any threat, but if you were drawing the maps, would you include the park? >> absolutely. >> this is where we are -- i would love to have you work closer to either my office or our offices to see how we can define this. my guess is that probably our areas whether it is mic chairren

park that we could pay attention to. you made the offer to work closer with some of our other departments in terms of their land like rec and park. recand park mentioned they would be more than willing to have you work with them. can i have maybe a report back that in terms of when you say you are going to work together to look at these in a proactive way, is it something that we need to legislate or is it something that because we care about our residents that we would do this as just being good partner was the rest of the city. i would like to know what direction to take this. the more we are proactive. i started this hearing with the

statement that, well, you know, what might have been good 10 yearyears ago is something we nd to look at how we approach our urban forest areas and other areas that would have a fire hazard because of the type of weather conditions we are seeing these days. i just don't want to -- excuse the expression -- have our pants down on this issue. we need to do the best we can. you know, we don't want to end up saying i wish we had done it. that is my sort of challenge to the fire department to work with other departments to -- like you said, site to site plans. >> i think that would work.

i do not have a problem. i don't know if you need legislation for this. if we had a task force inspection. we would all meet together to come up with the criteria. what requirements are we going to implement ponziing certain conditions? how -- implement when we see certain conditions? where do we draw the lawns. unless we have an understanding how far to go case-by-case basis. that is number one. when we get with other departments this is reasonable approach then we go out and do the site visits. >> i appreciate that. anybody else? >> are there scenarios that you can model? obviously as we just saw, san francisco doesn't have an urban interface as many other counties do. historically, fire spray suppren

in san francisco is requiring sprinklers in apartment buildings. you and i have had that conversation about those grandfathered. i passed a law a few years ago because the law of 20 years ago didn't include basements and we were having fires in basements. we captured that going forward, not backwards. we are a highly urbanized area. all of our resource allocation has been around what is associated with a major event like an earthquake. we worry about extending awss and co-benefit pipeline to the west side and putting in cisterns. we don't have this conversation around the park merceds.

if we want to impose upon ourselves something that is more strings get than the state imposes upon us with the resulting impacts to surroundings property owners or future development, is there away we can model the risk and derm whether or not this is not worth our time and money and we should do what we continue to do which is cisterns and expansion of awss and new intake man folds on port property or something we will look back at when there is a huge fire that burns down half of district 11. we will say we were not concentrating on the wrong things or not enough things. i know you can't predict fire. can you model fire out of the

relatively small handfuls of the recand park. they have wasted the afternoon because you are not a problem. i am having a problem. university of california are great partners. is there a way to figure this out with some risk benefit assignment? >> each site has a different level of risk. tothe guidelines are there over the experience. they are there for a reason. they do call out for different grades and spacing of trees. that is from learning from past fires. it is already there. we can use those requirements where it is spelled out and say, hey, does this fall under, you

know, that hazard. if i had a flat space and my trees are relatively spaced, is that a lesser hazard than in glenn canyon? absolutely. the slope of the hill, proximity of the trees, canopies, the ground, the fuel on the ground. yes, we can on a case to case with experience with what is already out there derm what is a greater hazard than other areas. i don't know if that answers your question. >> this is not one size fits alsoution. whe-- fits alsoution. when there is a sidewalk and houses. it is more than 30 feet. it seems to me everything is about a defensible perimeter. the question is the standard is 30 but do we