>> thank you. >> this was a permanent revocation, and that was the action you recommended. how many revocations have you recommended? >> since i've been here, there have been three, i believe, off the top of my head. >> in how many years? >> two. >> i'm curious of the code of conduct of the division between when you are and aren't working as an artist. what is the -- your department's position on, you know, being respectful and courteous to the public in terms of the geographic or time or occupational boundaries of that requirement? >> it's while you're under the permit. i worked with the county

attorney. again, the plaza is the largest group of individuals. it is a market of upwards of 120 artists on saturdays. it is a community, and it is there because of these agreements. >> commissioner santacana: so that's not my question. what does your department view to be the limit? so he says he was in a parking space and wasn't selling. so if you're saying that the view is it's while you're selling, then anything that happened while he wasn't selling wouldn't fall under this code of conduct. >> i mean, technically, he'd probably already signed into the map already, so i included that in the materials that went to the original hearing? once he signed into the map, that means he staked it out, someone else isn't going to sell there, and that's your place. >> commissioner santacana: i see. >> that is usually 6:00 a.m. to

midnight, but that's not the time that people sell. >> commissioner santacana: okay. what time did he sign in? >> again, this is wednesday. no one's monitoring this? this is a word-of-mouth agreement that everybody adhere to these community agreements. >> commissioner santacana: okay. now you said you received this photograph in exhibit g from an anonymous witness, is that correct? >> correct. >> commissioner santacana: do you know, did you receive this digitally. >> it's an anonymous witness, a witness that fears retaliation -- >> commissioner santacana: i understand. that's what an anonymous -- >> okay. i thought you were inferring that i didn't know who they were. >> commissioner santacana: no. my question is, do you know -- do you have the digital metadata for this photo that would show when it was taken? >> i do not have the digital metadata on hand. i have it in my e-mail. i did speak on the phone to

this person directly and receive an e-mail communication from them about this separate and completely outside of the communication to rec and park that i received. >> -- >> commissioner santacana: and did they tell you when and where -- >> yes. they said because it was a park ranger, he would be kicked out of the plaza. that was everyone's fear. >> commissioner santacana: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? anyone here for public comment? okay. we will move onto rebuttal. mr. berrios? are you speaking on behalf of mr. berrios? >> i need somebody -- >> clerk: can you speak into the middle microphone, ma'am?

>> commissioner honda: she needs a translator. >> clerk: do you need a translator? >> please. >> clerk: okay. so you will have six minutes with the translator. if you could identify yourself for the record, please. [speaking spanish language] >> good evening. i'm here to support walter molina. it seems to me that the measures taken against walter are extreme measures because he needs the work. he has a son, and for him being there for so many years, i've seen good behavior. he's a good artist.

>> commissioner honda: i'm sorry. could you hold on one second. >> i just want to make sure that she understands this is not public comment. i want to make sure the translator can explain the procedures. >> clerk: can you ask her, is she representing mr. molina, because this is his time to -- >> commissioner honda: i mean, what is her relationship to the permit holder. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner honda: so she should have been public comment. >> i don't think she understood -- >> clerk: why don't we back up. this will be public comment at this point. thank you, so please proceed. she can just -- whatever she

wants to tell the board, she can continue. >> commissioner honda: continue. [speaking spanish language] so perhaps he was a little confused, but this shouldn't be the cause of him losing his job, his work. i feel that this is a measure -- i don't even know if i'm able to say, kind of racist? but why suspend it because of a situation that went out of

hand? because people who have committed the mistakes, they've made mistakes, and it was a confusing situation, for three months, for six months, or a year. my point is that this seems terrible for an incident such as this that a person loses his job for a whole

all i have to say, and i would love for you to reconsider and not do this damage. >> commissioner hond >> commissioner honda: muchas gracias. >> clerk: thank you.

is there anyone else here for public comment -- maybe the interpreter can ask on the record if there's anybody here for public comment in spanish? okay. thank you. we will now move onto rebuttal. if the interpreter, if you can tell mr. molina that this is his opportunity to come up, and that he has six minutes to speak through you. >>translator: he would like to do it in english. >> clerk: okay. so then you have three minutes in english. >> so i would like to remind you that i was stopped in one place and it escalated to where we are right now. everything could be done in the parking lot. nobody asked me for any license in the parking lot.

after they figured out i was an artist, they come back to me. i never come back to them. i would like to say sorry to the park and rec and sorry to the health commission, sorry to my fellow artists, and i think, like, even it's not fair the way i was treated, and i would never tolerate somebody treating me like that. it doesn't matter how much uniform do they have, but i would say sorry for the situation that happened. it was not my intent to happen there. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we will now hear from the arts commission. you have three minutes. >> thank you. i just wanted to clarify, actually, it's been three years since i've been at the program, 2017, 2018, now that we're into 2019. and i want to also point out

that this is not mr. molina's first offense. i included that information in the brief. in 2012, he was cited for battery of another artist, and in 2015, he was cited for alcohol at the gathering. the violation by a street artist of this article or any rules or regulations issued pursuant to this article of which the person has been given notice shall be grounds for suspension or revocation after a hearing for good cause shown. mr. molina was aware of his regulations pursuant to article 24 and the intent to deny renewal of his permit. the street artist committee held a hearing and found him in violation of numbers 2, 3, 15, and 17 of the code of conduct

and revoked his permit for good cause shown. in accordance with the program's governing rules and regulations, the arts commission request that the board of appeals uphold the decision of the street artist committee. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president swig: commissioners, any comments? >> commissioner tanner: well, i have a few. i don't know that they lead to any particular conclusion. we've got a lot of letters of support for mr. molina from various members of the artistic community supporting his hard work and his participation in that community. while there were two previous violations, battery, which obviously was pretty serious in 2012 and 2015, that was some time ago without any other issues. and i don't take lightly revoking someone's work away as

an artist to sell their work. at the same time, what is probably most troubling is the lack of any remorse shown in this instance. it seems like a he said, she said, where the sergeant is representing events one way and he's representing events another way, saying i didn't do anything wrong. to me, that's kind of troubling for events that would happen in the future. i would be more open to a one-year suspension of his permit, after which he would have the right to reapply, but i do think the arts commission is right to take this pretty seriously. >> commissioner honda: i will concur with my fellow commissioner. being on this panel for the last seven-plus years, we've had several -- the three revocations that they mentioned all came before this body, several, many times, with a lot, a lot of drama that it's

associated with. at the same time, as the department mentions, it -- the use of that particular space is at the pleasure of the rec and park department which is a complete separate department. i don't think it's fair for the other artists involved to lose their potential right to that space because of one particular artisan. so i ask the city attorney, do we have the authority to change it to a one-year suspension rather than lifetime? >> there has been noticed before the arts commission as a potential revocation or suspension. >> commissioner honda: and just to follow up, i, too, find it very hard to take someone's livlihood away. that's the way they feed their family.

that's the way they survive in this crazy ridiculous expensive city. at the same time, as my fellow commissioner has mentioned, there are alternatives, he may not be in this location now, but there are other alternatives how he can sell his wares. i think there has to be some consequences, and at which point, as you mentioned, he has some other alternatives. >> president swig: i'd like to ask how long has the artist been without a license at this point and been unable to sell his wares at that location? >> commissioner honda: can the department come up to the podium, please? i think that was partially in the brief. i don't remember. >> yeah, i included in the brief. so his license was not renewed after june 30, which is the fiscal year turnover, and so he has been without a permit since july 1.

>> commissioner honda: so it's been five months. >> president swig: almost six. >> commissioner honda: and was he still currently selling or did he abide by the restriction? >> that's a really good question. we don't really have staff there except on friday, saturday, sunday. i do know he's been at the plaza, i also inform everyone of their alternative options, particularly the peddler permit when this happens. >> commissioner honda: and you understand our position in revoking someone's livelihood. what is your comment i mean, if we do it one year, and i think he's leaning towards time served, to be honest, so that would be a six-month revocation. >> i mean, i think that sends a signal to other artists about what the consequences are about inappropriate behavior. we have implemented this code of conduct because there is a need, and i think the consequences are very important and a line needs to be drawn.

we do not take it lightly. >> commissioner santacana: can i ask you, if we suspend him for a year, and it's for six more months, what happens? >> you go through the screening process. the lottery is separate. once you've been approved, there's a lottery the day of, but the review is before the body that governs the artwork. >> commissioner santacana: to be frank, if you just deny him in six months -- >> commissioner honda: no, i believe it is -- >> i could make that choice, yeah. i could make that choice if i felt that it was inappropriate. again, i -- i have other things to say but you did not ask me. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> commissioner santacana: thank you. so unless -- are you finished? >> commissioner tanner: yes. >> commissioner santacana: i agree with all of your comments which land on both sides of

this fence. there's a lot for me on both sides. i do want to say that i'm fairly new here and this is my first time meeting you and seeing an arts commission case, and one thing that i as a commissioner really don't like is overreach, and there are a couple of things that i saw here which aren't influencing really at the end of the day my vote, but there are a couple of things here that i consider to be overreach. one of the claim in the sergeant's report is he moved his car in the end, which i think everybody has backed away from that claim. he didn't do that. the other is a claim that this picture is a picture of his middle finger, which frankly, i am not persuaded of the picture. i see -- >> two pictures. >> commissioner honda: there's two pictures, actually. >> commissioner tanner: there definitely is. >> commissioner santacana: i see two knuckles to the right of that picture. >> commissioner honda: what about the other picture? >> commissioner santacana: it's the same picture just blown up.

this biological question is not particularly important to my vote, but it doesn't look like a middle finger to me. there's a few other things. the point is that ultimately, it sounds like he did violate the code of conduct, and the question is what is the punishment to fit the crime? that's ultimately what we're all wrestling with, and since we're de novo, it's up to us to figure it out. i feel that six months is a little light, actually. i would go for a year for now. >> commissioner honda: make your motion. >> commissioner tanner: and before i make the motion, i want to say to the sergeant, thank you for your work. my dad was a law enforcement officer, and what you do is try to make things right and get people on the right track, and you try not to write tickets or take people to jail. i don't want this to reflect on your work with mr. molina, your work for the city and people of

san francisco, but rather to have a lifetime revocation from having mr. molina being able to apply for a license from the arts commission forever is a little harsh. and mr. molina, if this vote goes the way that it seems to be going, you better be on your best behavior if you ever hope to fallback into the good graces of the arts commission to have a permit. if you want to appeal that permit, you would not want to have anything on your record which would dissuade us from granting the appeal. with that, i am granting the appeal for a 12-month suspension. after the one year has passed, the permit holder can apply for

a permit. >> clerk: can we clarify for a date, june 30, 2020 would be a full year from the suspension. >> commissioner tanner: from today, yeah, a year from december 4, 2019. >> president swig: yeah. >> commissioner santacana: is it correct, do you do applications once a week? >> so currently, the applications are done quarterly but we're probably going to move to twice a year. >> commissioner honda: and when is that date? >> we are in a salesforce implementation at the moment, so i'm hoping to have the next screening either february or march of 2020 and then do six months after that. >> president swig: thank you. so -- >> commissioner tanner: well, maybe we should -- >> commissioner honda: yeah, but i think if you -- sorry, and then february, is six months later, if it's a year

from now, it'll cycle onto another -- '21. can we just say to the fall -- >> commissioner tanner: can they prorate fees? the president may be winning his argument. >> commissioner santacana: we can just do the fall 2020 application period. >> clerk: a date would be helpful. >> commissioner honda: she doesn't know it. >> commissioner santacana: in other words, it'll say. >> president swig: no, if you do know it, earlier than june 2020, then that will fall naturally into what you're trying to get at any way. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so what if we do this. what if i move that we grant the appeal and issue a one-year suspension to the permit holder that he can apply for a permit no sooner than june 30, 2020.

>> clerk: so you're going with one-year suspension, not a year and a half? >> commissioner tanner: with the idea that, as president swig pointed out, that the next cycle he would be eligible would be approximately one year from now. >> clerk: well, what about the final determination? there is a ten-day window and a request opportunity -- >> commissioner honda: no from today. >> clerk: final determination -- oh, from today. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. >> president swig: i don't understand -- wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. i don't understand. timeout. we're getting off track. julie, the goal was to do a one-year suspension from the -- for me from the time it was suspended, so that would be from july 1 to june 30, 2020, and then, he is free to apply

for a new permit. >> commissioner tanner: he can apply no sooner than the date one year. >> commissioner santacana: i think the director's question was just what was the determination date for purposes of our administration of this case. >> commissioner tanner: is it today? >> commissioner santacana: i think it's today. >> clerk: well, there's a ten-day window in which a rehearing can be requested. >> president swig: ten days from today. >> clerk: okay. we'll just go from june 30. >> commissioner tanner: we have the suspension until june 30, 2020. >> clerk: okay. and we have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the appeal, overturn revocation and issue a suspension ending on june 30, 2020. on what basis? >> commissioner tanner: on the basis that this -- this is a most appropriate consequence to the actions taken. >> clerk: okay. and

i work with brookfield properties on the 5m project. i also have a few other members on the project with me today, the project architect, and the project's landscape architect. both of them are happy to answer any questions, if necessary. i planned a very lengthy presentation for this evening, however, i'm happy to report that we have reached an agreement between the city and the department to find a location for the trees to be transplanted. i sincerely thank the folks from the department of urban forestry and oewd. so while the subject of this appeal order specifically pertains to the trees -- the

5-m project is at 5th and mission. as part of brookfield's scope of the project, we will be delivering half an acre of privately owned public open space known as mary court. this is a development agreement project that is also designated as a mayor's priority project due to the ex-tensive housing and projects it'll be delivering. all the project approvals were developed with the understanding that this project would bring with it an influx of new pedestrians to the site. keeping these howard street trees in the location conflicts directly with the approvals. we believe our goals and objectives for the project are

fundamentally aligned with that of the department of urban forestry which is to align the urban forest and make sure that every resident of san francisco has an urban forest at their fingertips. >> clerk: overhead, please. >> now, this area of soma has been long underserved by green spaces and projects. this area has been served by fenced-off service parking lots which do nothing for the location except serve as locations for petty crime. upon completion, these parking lots will be transformed by the addition of 45 new trees across the site. this is a sitewide landscape plan. in addition to the new trees

and landscaping, the face will feature a stage for performing arts, a children's play area, a dog run, all within a clean, safe, and well-lit environment. the four southern magnolia street trees in question are located on the horse street frontage planned on the four afour -- 4 and 5 natoma office building here. the project teams explored the options of transplanting, preserving and replanting the existing trees on-site. due to the typical growth of subsidewalk root structures, this would -- according to the

project's landscaping and arborist, it is highly predictable that the trees would not survive until the replanting date. these trees would need to survive approximately 12 to 18 months off-site. it is for this reason the project seeks to replace these trees with healthy new specimens. while we've determined it is not feasible to transplant and replant the existing trees within the project site, we've agreed to work closely with city agencies to aid identify a suitable nearby off-site location for these existing trees. now if unmoved, the existing location of the forestry trees in the middle of howard will be

in the middle of pedestrian trees in the foot flow. >> clerk: can you zoom out, please. >> as shown on the screen here, leaving them in place does not align with the city's recommendations for the suggested 6 foot minimum public right-of-way clearance inside public areas. while we're physically widening the sidewalks on howard street, we're max midding the shared public right-of-way in the existing sidewalk widths by planting trees in a new location based on our new design for development guidelines. much in the way that trees can be viewed as a public amenities, sidewalks are public utilities and we seek to do both in a safe manner. the project has proposed developed streetscape improvements that are consistent with our project approvals and city guidelines. this plan represents an increase of one net new tree.

the successful delivery of this project, the open space, and the community benefit fees that come with it are crucial for the city agencies that have long been in support of the 5-m project. [inaudible] >> thank you for your time, and myself and staff are happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> commissioner honda: so good presentation. two. how long has this project been in the works? >> nearly a decade. >> commissioner honda: and i bet you never thought that you'd be very finish line, and

a tree would stand in front of the finish line? >> i've only been with the project two years, but certainly not. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> president swig: thank you. so you've come to a settlement. what's your solution? >> so ourselves and the bureau of urban forestry will work together over the coming months prior to our planned removal of the trees if a permit is granted to find a suitable location in the city that's in need of street trees. and in speaking with representatives from the department of urban forestry today, it appears they've identified some possible locations for that. >> president swig: so i guess when mr. buck stands up, he will recommend specifically what that solution is and then we will move forward to agree with him as you agree with him. is that the protocol? >> yes. >> president swig: okay. great. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear

from the department. >> commissioner honda: how many minutes does mr. buck have? >> clerk: he has seven minutes. i'm confident he'll use them. >> commissioner honda: good evening, chris. >> good evening. chris buck, san francisco department of urban forestry -- san francisco department of public works, department of urban forestry. we received the brief and we were impressed with the details provided in that brief, and we both engaged in discussing how we move forward. also other folks from the mayor's office, planning, as

well. one of the issues that came up was the development agreement, so a project that's slowly moving its way through the city right now is 3333 california. really large development site where we actually did just include the trees as part of that discussion in a development agreement. so unfortunately, we -- all parties accept the plan that removal and relocation of the trees was essentially approved in the proposed streetscape plan. unfortunately, we have to look closely at the development agreement, and check with the city attorney's office and with the department of public works and say oh, it's close, but it didn't really account for the street trees. with that said, since that i am too, we've actually met with the mayor's office and other folks at planning to make sure that in the future, just like 3333 california, the trees,

street trees will be included when those discussions take place. there's just one thing that all parties will be engaging in from this point forward. the benefit of that is when the project itself is being considered, proposed tree removal can be considered as part of that, and that's just what occurred at 3333 california. and i'm just going to do, again, an abbreviated version of our presentation, if we could go to the powerpoint, to the computer. i just want to provide some context. so these are the four subject trees. they're southern magnolias, and they were likely planted -- we planted them in the mid2000s under mayor newsom's effort to revitalize. these are incredibly old. they're only about ten years old. the replacement trees that would be planted on-site with 36-inch box trees.

we probably disagree a little bit with the appellant. they won't be the same size, but they'll be a good size to start out. the subject trees are not the largest in the world. there were a couple of protests received during our public works hearing, however, those folks who happened to protest happened to be attending the hearing for other items, so i'm not aware of any immediate protests of anyone in the immediate community specific to these trees. tree number four is the smallest arriving of the four trees. it's closest to the corner. there's conflicts with future visibility to the intersection. and i just want to provide these photos. i went to the site today. i always like to check in on-site to understand current conditions. the current conditions, as i looked at them today, are really problematic. we have a bike lane, we have bikes parked, and a pretty narrow path of travel that's

pinched down at this point to 36 inches. so i want to provide the photos. for the bureau, this issue is really one of consistency. i want to be honest, we're not looking to have every project transplant trees. i think it's a slippery slope. i think the reasoning behind approval is compelling. we had to give it very close consideration, but we've denied other requests to remove relatively healthy street trees. in this particular case, we're trying to say you know what? this is a massive development project. let's look and see if we can get the resources to move these in other locations. a smaller development project, we may not kind of be inclined to do that, but for this project, it's a ten-year project, we're looking at, we're really stuck being the ones saying oh, no, you can't remove these trees. so based on our meetings together and the appellant's

willingness to transplant the trees to other locations and seeing the writing on the wall here with this project, with no public protests, during this appeal window, we came up with a settlement that we would no longer oppose the removal of the four subject trees on the condition that they transplant them to locations in san francisco that are agreeable to us. leading sites that we have, delores street, it's mostly magnolia trees. we have huge opens there. some of them are 10 by 20 feet. we know we have at least four locations that require replacements along delores street. i would suggest sites that are closer, but a lot of the sites south of market are -- they have very narrow sidewalks, and we need a large area to have these trees excavated, moved,

and then put back into the ground. again, on the slide, giving you some of the challenges on the site. i didn't want to come in and just say we had an agreement, they've agreed to move the four trees, but they've used specialists in tree removal. potential sites are along delores. if there are any in soma, we will consider them. depending on the timing, public works may be concerned with temporary timing. there's a view of trying to activate some space that could be a potential space to locate the trees across from a highway. in my opinion, i believe the project sponsor should transplant the trees. i believe it's best that public works waters the trees. again if they're in soma or delores, it's a longer route

that is centrally located. if we're going to ensure the survivability of the trees, i'd rather be in control of the watering by our department. lastly, just to confirm, the four trees that are removed would be replaced with five 36-inch box trees on-site, but we're getting the benefit of at least moving these four trees off-site elsewhere in the city. i don't doubt the intent of them working with us. thank you. >> commissioner honda: i believe we have it. >> president swig: mr. buck, your suggestion is a little ambiguous, with all due respect. would you -- would you please

suggest what your recommendation would be? >> absolutely. that the transplanting be moved to four off-site sites in san francisco. >> commissioner honda: at whose discretion? >> at sites acceptable to public works. >> vice president lazarus: mr. buck, i have a question for your presentation. why would it not be an option to the developer to water the transplanted trees? >> the trees would need to be watered -- >> vice president lazarus: don't you water street trees? aren't the trees under your department's priorities just now? >> it was actually a detail we hadn't discussed yet, but the trees that are transplanted

will be needed to water weekly for about three years. >> vice president lazarus: oh, i see, because they've been transplanted, it would be beyond a normal watering schedule. >> yes. i would prefer to keep it in house. >> commissioner tanner: my question is about the survival of the trees. is it your opinion they could be successfully transplanted to another location? >> i do. it's a lot of work, but i believe in this particular case, it would be successful. >> president swig: and the cost of the transplant and moving to the new location is at the cost of the permit holder? >> correct, and it would be a considerable cost. >> commissioner santacana: and do you know roughly what it is? >> commissioner honda: yeah. i knew -- >> at least $5,000 to $10,000 per tree, potentially a lot

more. some quotes can be $20,000 per tree. >> commissioner honda: they similar to a 48 box or 36? >> they're roughly the size of a 48 box. >> commissioner honda: and what would be the cost of transplanting a 48 box? >> the 48 box would be less expensive because you're arriving with the tree instead of having to dig it up and having a lot of resources. >> commissioner honda: i mean, roughly, what are we -- half the price? a third of the price? >> i would say that 48-inch box planting would be half the price of transplanting. >> commissioner honda: why don't we just get them to do double, brand-new trees with 48 box? >> sure. our department felt that that was being discussed at the departmental level, you know, should we require just a larger box replacement? but we had ocii look at

possibly transplanting trees along folsom, so we're trying to be a little consistent with some of our other recommendations. >> commissioner honda: okay. well, this is de novo, and trying to get more trees at the same price. >> that's why i wanted to add it's a slippery slope. you've heard us say before, the smaller the transplanted tree, the quicker it establishes. so we're not looking to turn this into a transplanting effort, but it is something that we felt like we should ask for. >> commissioner honda: and as many trees -- because we're the tree stewards here, right? does a 36 box have a much more -- higher survival rate than a 48 and if so, how much is a 36 for the same price? because i know as you go up, it gets exponentially more

expensive, correct? >> correct. and putting 48s back into that same location -- >> commissioner honda: no. hold on, mr. buck. what i'm talking about, my idea initially was have them plant the same amount of trees, but 48 boxes. but you've said the 48s, their survival rate is not so good. what does it cost to do a 36-inch box? >> i don't know that off the top of my head. >> commissioner honda: oh, do you actually know? >> roughly $2500. >> commissioner honda: so $2500. so to move these four trees at 15,000 to 20,000 is 40,000 to 60,000. so why don't we put 36-inch box

trees throughout the city and make everyone happy? >> clerk: commissioner honda, it's ao one to one agreement? >> commissioner santacana: we're not agreeing to anything. >> commissioner honda: you as a developer, rather than transplant these trees at such a high cost and have four trees, you know, divide by 2500, you as a developer can say you put in 100 darned trees or whatever -- is that something you would be in line to agree with? >> so are you suggesting that the tree removal permits would be granted and then plant four trees elsewhere? >> commissioner honda: no. i'm suggesting that the tree removal would be granted, and then whatever happens to these trees happens to these trees, and then, the 40,000 that you

would spend in transplanting and watering, and all that stuff, that you would give the department $40,000 to plant a bunch of these trees in your name. because these trees are going to be $10,000 to $15,000 each to move, so instead, you can donate $50,000 to plant magnolias in your name. >> i'm a bit hesitant to accept that at face value. i'd prefer to work here with chris to work out the details of that. it feels like -- i'd turn that over to public works in lieu of us performing the work themselves is sort of a different agreement than we've come up with today, and the old -- as i mentioned, we're already giving about $76 million in community benefit fees -- >> commissioner honda: no. i understand. you're going to be giving the

same amount to get the trees gone, and at which point, the check is done, and there's no other issues. >> i suppose we'd have to come to an agreement -- >> commissioner santacana: unless there's some reason we're not catching, it just strikes us as wasteful to transplant four trees at the cost of 24 trees. >> or at the cost of 100 trees. [inaudible] >> chris buck with bureau of urban forestry. so i'm understanding the commission, and i hear what you're saying. so perhaps what we could do, and i think you'd be open to this. the cost of the difference between transplanting these four trees and planting with 36

or 40-inch box, looking at what that difference is, instead of agreeing to transplant trees, look at that as an in-lieu fee donation, which is a tax deductible donation. anyone out there watching can make a donation today. that money would obviously supply us with several more trees. it's math that we can do. we wouldn't need to reschedule it, we would just essentially say, and i think it would be reasonable. like, the appellant could get a couple of quotes for transplanting so we can realistically see what that difference is. i mean, we're not -- you know, let's -- we'd get a couple of quotes, and we'd look at what that difference is, and the settlement would be for an in-lieu fee payment of that difference because it would get us more street trees, and we are looking at more funding for planting. >> commissioner honda: i think my president will add onto

that, that rather than going into a slush fund, he'd probably want more trees going into these boxes that are currently empty. >> am i reading your mind? >> president swig: there are 40 trees in the north beach that need filling. >> commissioner santacana: i think my question for the appellant is if we give you guys time to talk over the next couple of cases or if you need a cup wiouple of days to talk your client. you don't need to come back, but it depends on your confidence to negotiate a settlement. >> i'm confident we can negotiate a settlement. our conversations to date have been respectful and amicable. >> commissioner honda: i'm talking about later tonight or do you need to come back. >> clerk: if you have to come

back, it'll be in january. >> i'll be on paternal leave in january. >> commissioner honda: congratulations. >> but we'll talk and come back. >> clerk: so we'll hear the next case while you step out in the hall, and then, we can resume -- well, we haven't had public comment, so we need public comment. >> commissioner honda: okay. you guys go talk, we'll have public comment, i guess. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this? >> commissioner honda: oh, come on, you can speak. >> clerk: okay, so do we just want to put this case on hold while they step out? >> president swig: yeah, julie, we were going to take a break any way about right now, so if we can take a break. >> clerk: okay. we're taking a break. >

>> clerk: welcome back to the december 4, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are returning to item number 6. this is appeal number 19-111, and the parties were working out an agreement. so mr. mccloud, if you would like to approach and let us know. >> i yield to mr. buck.

>> commissioner honda: it's too early in the evening for you to be doing that, but okay. >> good evening, commissioners. >> clerk: we might put six minutes on because he has three after. >> this should be relatively brief. it was suggested that i should come up and explain the math on our settlement, but we can certainly from the appellant -- have the appellant come back up. so during the recess, we were discussing the resources to move the trees versus the benefit of using those funds for planting additional trees in the area. so the revised settlement -- again, they were already approving the plan, removing four trees and replacing five 36-inch box trees on that site. that's already committed to. so the settlement would be planting five additional street trees in existing empty basins

close to the site, but that would also cover three years of watering. so you might see, why can't -- say, why can't we get 15 to 20 trees? public works would like to lock in the watering. i think it's a lot less splashy. i think the cost of transplanting, we're throwing out some large numbers, anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000. public works has a recent quote on another project, so without any motivation to make that a high or low quote, the difference to transplant a tree and a 36-inch box tree, is 1500. planting an additional five trees, whi trees, so public works would be agreeable to this as a settlement in lieu of transplanting four trees.

>> president swig: the holiday gift is a little more like getting socks under the tree, but sometimes you've got to wear socks. >> yeah. >> commissioner honda: and how do we structure that because we are not in a position to be able to change the agreement, so that's an agreement coming from you, correct? >> correct. so the recommendation in the settlement between both parties is that we're -- public works supports overturning the denial, supporting the appeal, the condition -- sorry. on the basis a settlement has been reached between both parties, and if you wish to reference it, it could be based on the payment of five in-lieu fees to public works for the planting of five trees in other locations south of market. >> commissioner honda: and water plan for three years, you

said? >> those funds include the watering for three years during the establishment period. >> commissioner tanner: could i just make sure i understand this. they were going to remove the four trees shown, the magnolias. they are going to replace the trees with five trees instead of four, and additional planting of five trees with 36-inch box size. >> with 24-inch box size. >> commissioner tanner: why is that? >> that's what public works typically does. it would cost more money to plant a bigger tree. we use heavy-duty sticks and screens. approximate wou we would be doing the planting ourselves. that's why. >> commissioner tanner: okay. great. thank you. >> commissioner honda: so make a motion? >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: this is a special kind of night here because we haven't had this

kind of fun in a while here, but i'll make a motion to grant the appeal on the condition that there's a settlement between both parties that the permit holder will plant five in lieu trees, and that will include a watering plan for three years and also that the department report back to this board where those trees are located. >> clerk: okay. we have -- is it -- does anyone else want to add anything? so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition that it be revised to allow the determination to remove the four trees and continue the in-lieu fees to allow for the planting of five trees, 24-inch box size and three years of watering on the basis that this represents the greept of the

parties. >> commissioner honda: and the department will report back where the replacement trees will be located and it will be on the basis that we're getting more trees. >> clerk: on the basis that we're getting another tree. >> president swig: the tree canopy of san francisco will be enhanced. >> clerk: do you want me to add that on? >> commissioner honda: it's a joint motion. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 5-0. thank you. >> president swig: call the next case while i'm getting my -- >> clerk: okay. we are now moving onto item number 7. this is appeal 19-114, ernest tom versus department of building inspection, planning department approval. subject property is 3001 26th avenue, appealing the issuance on september 20, 2019 to ai

cheng liang of an alteration permit, convert existing roof deck to existing pop out, convert existing window to new door to deck. we'll hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes, mr. tom. >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome, sir. >> yeah. good evening, commissioners and executive directors. my name is ernest tom, and i own the house on 26th avenue next door to the subject property. let me give a little bit of history of the houses in the area. >> commissioner honda: overhead,