the current conditions of bonview matches the original building plans, but does not reflect close to the sanborn maps. it doesn't even reflect 32, 42 and 44 bonview. the appellant submitted plans in 2012 such that he included the rear structure and elevation as well. you can see it highlighted. they mentioned that the four feet of the line of the existing rear wall of the neighbor to the south. [please stand by]

-- it's similar to 44bonview and this is needing upgrading immediately to the public attention. so pretty much the outcome is

that if the rear view would be removed, he'll have to be more of a financial burden and his family will be in shock pause they'll lose another bedroom. so, please -- >> thank you. you'll have more time in rebuttal. so we'll now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. subject property at 44bofview, located within the r.h.1 zoning district and the special use district. i believe that the district was added to the planning code in 1991. under this district it requires a 35% rear yard and approximately 24.5 feet for the subject property. and so the main issues here relate to the extension of the rear and the ground level

retaining wall and grading issues as well as the deck on top of that structure which for lack of a better term could be described as supported on four-by-four posts. the planning department does not have evidence that the defendant confirmed that that structure is legal. nor do we have evidence to show that it is completely illegal. and in addition to the permit holder has stated that they did aerial photo review going back to 2002 and we have additional photos going back to 1992 or 1993, and it shows that it has been in place for quite some time. and, in fact, it was used in part by the appellant for justification for a space in 2012. so those are some of the background on that aspect of it.

so we don't have firm determination for the board, unfortunately, at this point. based upon the availability of the records and it's possible that it was constructed in a time in the 1970s or the 1980s when such structure was allowed. but we don't have a permit to that effect, nor i think have we been able to research all of the permit records at this point. and i think that there are some concerns with the plan and the quality of the plans and the complete information that are on the plans. but as the appellant highlighted, the property line window which is not shown in the existing condition but you can see from the photos that i think that there's other things too, like the rear elevation is not properly showing the post. and there's room for improvement on the plan. also i think that there's concerns about the deck and what is shown as the existing and

proposed deck. i don't have kind of -- kind of the ability to definitively say what they're showing is correct. i think that based on materials that the ark pellant has shown, they're not accurately reflecting the deck. the deck and the plans are shown as being relatively flat against the top of the roof but the plans -- or the photo shown by the appellant shows that elevated deck by about two feet. the deck is allowed on non-complying portion of the building. i think that it's a legal non-complying portion of the building, however, we require a 10-day notice which was not done in this case. i understood from the appellant or the permit holder's brief, that a notice was done. and maybe i misread their brief, but i don't see any evidence of such notice. so i think that the primary concern that i have here would be related to that deck and we

could definitively say that the deck that is on top of that structure should not have been approved without the 10-day notice to the abutting property. there's the larger question i think from the board of whether that extension itself is legal. and, you know, the aerial photos it doesn't appear to have been in existence for 30 years or more. and it was cited in the appellant materials in the 2012 variance application as justification. and there's no evidence of any complaints on that until -- until now. but, you know, that is the situation that we have now. so i don't have more definitive answers for the board at this point in time but those are the best answer as we can give to the board now and i'm available for questions. >> okay, we have a question first from vice president honda and then commissioner swig and

then commissioner tanner. vice president honda? >> vice-president honda: so, mr. sanchez, the appellant filed -- it was approved because of the structure that he's now appealing. >> so the variances -- there's many factors and i have heard that variance back in 2012, and there are many factors that go into a variance. and it wouldn't be just because of that structure but that was part of the context and part of the justification that there are similar features in the surrounding neighborhood. it's not to say that the variance would have been denied without that. but it was part of the justification. and perhaps the appellant appelt have anymore information at that time and they didn't look further into the legality of that structure and that would have been more recently. but, yeah, it was part of the justification. >> vice-president honda: okay, since you were the zoning

administrator at that time that made the ruling, how large of a percentage would you say that -- that that portion coming out on the permit holder's building made a difference? >> i mean, you know, it's hard to go back in time to those years. but it is a factor. it's not necessarily the deciding factor. it's not going to be more than 50% of the reason for the decision. you know, it certainly gives support to the context of the neighborhood and, you know, if i'm going to have to put percentages on it, you would say 25% so it's the supporting factor but not the deciding factor. >> vice-president honda: thank you. >> clerk: we will hear from commissioner swigs. >> commissioner swig: in your testimony you stated or alluded to the fact that there were lots of problems with these plans, or

several problems with the plans. dican you briefly run through ad establish, just like a list and then let us know whether you think you need more time to work with the planning department, to work with these plans. and, therefore, to enable us to make an easier decision or do you think we near a position to make a decision tonight given the problems that exist with these plans? >> thank you. so in terms of the plans, the main issues that i saw and perhaps chief inspector duffy will have additional comments, but the plans do not show on the ground floor the existing condition of the property line

window at the bedroom. the rear elevation does not appear to depict the piers, or the posts for the portion that is extended. you know, i think that there are relatively minor issues but i think important details that we would want to have more complete and accurate plans. i don't know that we have plans that show the removal of the stairs. that's not on this plane plan sd that was work done without permits so i don't know that we have a permit that documents those stairs. and so i think that they're somewhat easily correctable but there's a concern in terms of the overall quality of the plans and this is based upon the

review of the plans submitted by the permit holder in the briefing materials. >> commissioner swig: should we -- if we were to make a motion tonight, and it involves citing these three elements that are relatively minor but they do exist, you can handle it that way? or is it more advisable in just anticipation of looking towards deliberations that we ask you to work more closely with the permit holder to revise the plan and to mitigate any ambiguity and move towards that clarity that would make us all feel more comfortable? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning again. i think that it's achievable through the hearing process tonight where we could outline that. i mean, it's primarily properly documenting the existing conditions which i think that is different from the plans. i think that the permit holder explained some of the issues

that led to how they develop the plans. you know, that they acquired the property after a lot of this work had been done and may not have had the benefit exactly of knowing what the previous conditions were. i think that some of those are probably pretty easily remedied. a contin yuncontinuance is alsoa possibility and we could probably do it either way. >> clerk: okay, thank you. we now have a question from commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. mr. sanchez, can you explain a little bit the relationship between -- kind of thinking from the appellant's point of view, the extension that is there now which we have evidence going back to it was there since the 1990s, that that extension was maybe would not be allowed today

because it extends too far into the rear yard. is that accurate? >> scott sanchez, planning department. that is correct. in fact, even without that extension, the building are all extend into the required rear yard. so because under the bernal heightings special use district the rear yard requirements were greater than that of the rh1 zoning. so there's a portion that contains probably the kitchens and it's probably identical for all of these buildings. that portion itself extends into the required year yard separate from the structure that everyone is talking about now. so, yeah, it definitely -- the building is definitely within the required reariard in bernal heights district. >> commissioner tanner: and such extensions require variance which got them the extension that goes into the rear yard is that correct?

>> scott sanchez, planning. that is correct. and assuming this is a legal non-complying structure, if it were to be demolished and replaced as it is currently located and situated, that would also require a variance. the plans that have been submitted by the permit holder do not show the demolition and recon strukdz oreconrecon struks the four-by-four posts but a variance would be required to replace it. >> commissioner tanner: great. and the plans seem to show that there would also be -- the infill below the bay, is that what is happening? i think that the appellant also raised concerns about the fill required and to your point perhaps the accuracy of that representation. do you find the plans to accurately represent what is happening and considering the slope of that yard, is that part of what needs to be revised? >> scott sanchez, planning again. so the plans don't show an

infill under that, they show the replacement of the post with four-by-four and six-by-six. there is some gradin grating wor that structure to sort of lower the patio at one end of it and raise it with the retaining wall as you get closer to the rear yard to create a flat area. inspector duffy, i believe, had visited the site and can maybe provide better comment as to whether the plans accurately reflect the site conditions. but it seems reasonable what they propose on the plans would be code compliant because they don't have a retaining wall more than three feet in height in the rear yard. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, that's all of my questions. >> clerk: okay, thank you. we will hear from the department building inspection. mr. duffy?

>> commissioners, d.b.i. so i got involved in this project and i'm the appellant with d.b.i. one morning and with the contractor and he was explaining that someone had started excavating next door and he thought that it was an addition that they were doing and he showed me some photographs and i was a little bit disturbed. we had an inspector that couldn't get access a few days before that. so i made it my business to go out there. at that point i was dealing with the previous owner and possibly the previous contractor and the architect. and i'm looking at what they had been doing and what they had shown on the previous permit. and it was a complete fabrication of not existing conditions at all. we ended up revoking that permit. and then this gentleman now who is the permit holder and had taken over the property, and the gentleman before who did the plans was mr. chan as well but he was ken chan and this is art chan. so i met with him a couple times

and went to the site. i advised them that they really needed to get a good set of drawings into d.b.i., the planning department. and as well as encroached in the rear yard to their neighbor and to speak to him about the concerns that he had about the work that was going to be done. i think that the neighbor -- the appellant was more concerned that there would be an addition in the rear yard and that turned out to have a patio, like a split level patio, which necessitated the forms being put in. and as far as the permit that's before you now, you know, they did work pretty hard to get that accurate. i'm not sure that the approved plan -- i think they are not the approved plans and the stairs in the plan -- i'm pretty sure they were shown as existing. and i thought that we had got the rear elevation really good on the new drawings, the ones that are retained and i talk

about the old drawings as the ones that we had to revoke. there may still be shortfalls in them. and i did see the photos in the appellant's brief on the deck and i think that deck definitely did not out to the edge of the roof. i think that the new one is misrepresented. possibly because they didn't have access to it earlier. so it's good that people work together and that's why we encourage that because that's something that can be pointed out between the two parties. it's hard for the departments when there's a set of plans put in front of the d.b.a. staff and for us to say what was there and what is 100% accurate when you're looking at something on paper. but i know that they have worked hard to get to this point. and it looks like there's still issues. in regards to that rear addition, we see that all the time, and scott sanchez will tell you the same thing. over the years in san francisco, it must have been before i got here, anyway, there was a lot of additions and bump outs done.

and at some point in time what is legal and what is illegal is very hard to figure out. and the neighbor, you know, he did bring that up with me originally. and we said, well, it's going to be reviewed by planning and building. and here we are now with the issue permit and it's very hard sometimes when someone buys a property and they've got something that is non-conforming that is over 30 years old that they didn't build. and the one thing that i noticed about it is that it definitely needed to be strengthened and they did that. and, you know, it's by a licensed engineer. so the window -- the property window, i probably missed that on the drawings. i believe that property (indiscernible) i don't think that though it's not shown as existing i think that the post shows it as being a solid wall. so i'm not that concerned about it though the plans should be 100% accurate. and maybe we need more time to just get these drawings tidied

up to where they are approvable. but i'm available for any questions and i can read out the notice of violation that we wrote initially but that's from the previous owner. so i don't know if you want to hear that from me. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. duffy. i don't see any questions -- yes, we do. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: so following up on kind of the same question that i asked to scott sanchez. should we -- you know, you said, well, these aren't the plans and these don't look like the final plans to me and yet we're having a hearing and these are the basis of which our decisions are being asked to be made. should we wait and get a final set of plans? should we wait and let staff sort out the ambiguities and maybe yourself sort out any of yours and get a fresh set of

plans that really look like what we're doing here tonight? >> we could give it a short period of time to do that, yes. that would probably be a good idea. part of the problem here as well is that commissioner swig is that we're in a covid thing. and we probably would have been approached to me by these people one more time beforehand and we haven't had that opportunity, unfortunately. but i could make it my business to have one more look at the drawings. i'm sorry that i didn't have that before tonight. but i would like to maybe get another couple weeks on this if possible. >> commissioner swig: i'm sympathetic to the challenges of the covid virus is presenting to all of us but we're making a decision of permanence here and from my lips to god's ears, i hope that our covid experience will be ending in the relatively near term. so i think that in the spirit that we are making something -- a decision on something that

will be permanent and we have to live with integrity for both the project sponsor and the next-door neighbor, the appellant, i really think that we should live with that inconvenience and got a proper set of plans. is that prudent? >> the deficiencies that mr. sanchez mentioned are definitely something that we would want to be right on. and the few things that he mentioned, i may have a couple, but maybe not as many as mr. sanchez, but i would want to double check on the scope of the rear yard. i thought that i had them and i thought that the rear elevation had been shown correctly on the proper set of plans that mr. chan did this for this permit. i thought it was right and that's pointed out that it's not right and i would like an opportunity to look at the full

set of drawings again with the permit holder and a very short recess so that we could -- we could have better information. >> commissioner swig: thank you mr. duffy, i yield. >> okay, thank you mr. duffy. we're now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here for public comment? if you called in and you would like to provide public comment, please press star, 9 on your phone right now. we will give it a moment. okay, the phone number ending in 0879, you have two minutes. can you hear me? >> yes, hello. hello, this is brian, sorry, i have been waiting here the whole time without any kids and then the moment that i am supposed to speak is when all of the kids jump in the room. >> of course. >> exactly. my wife was nice enough to take them out for a walk. and now, you know, between all of the people going over and

everything else, i'm excited to be here to be able to speak. i'm actually the neighbor directly adjacent to 44bonview, i'm at 52 bonview street so it's unfortunate that i get two minutes relative for everyone else speaking for so much longer so whatever the process is to join the -- to join the complaint against this flagrant violation of what is being built, i want to join. my comments are that from my perspective that there's a couple of playful words being used here. i see "legalized existing storage to habitable space." to me that is saying adding existing habitable space to existing structure. and to me that reads as adding mass and density to the building. and it seems like in a very substantial way.

and living here in the northwest bernal special use district, my expectation would be that adding dramatic amounts of habitable space to a building would require going through the well-documented processes that are there. in addition to that, i have a lot of issues with the deck that is being misrepresented on the plans relative to the previous illegal deck that was there, because if it's built in that manner that people would be able to sit and stand on their deck and look directly at my family in my living room, which i find to be objectionable. >> that's time. >> president lazarus: thank you for your time. >> also, no one reached out to me from this property about what was going on and made no effort. the previous owner or the present owner.

>> the next caller, phone number 7089. >> it's robert -- hello. >> welcome. >> i'm robert and i live on elsie street and i live in that house in the 1990s and i knew the owner then and i know that the lower kitchen was added on illegally. and it's on stilts and i was always worried that it would fall down. it's also nailed on to 42 bonview, which i think that is illegal. so i wanted to make sure that is looked into. and that it does not collapse and hurt anybody. >> okay. thank you. okay. >> you're welcome, thank you. >> we have a -- let me see, did we have vice president honda? would we have a caller here, 0789? >> i think we heard from that caller. >> president lazarus: okay, the hand was still up. and let me just confirm vice

president honda i did see your hand up. vice president honda? >> vice-president honda: i had a question for the caller but that's fine. >> president lazarus: okay. so just checking one more time. is there any public comment for this item, item number 5, 44 bonview and if you would like to speak and you have called in press star, 9. i do not see other callers so we move to rebuttal. mr. blazej, you have three minutes. >> i'll ask my father to do the rebuttal. >> president lazarus: okay. mr. blazej, lucien? let me see if he's still with us. >> he's on mute. >> president lazarus: okay.

alek, can you unmute him, please? >> i think that he's -- >> president lazarus: i just unmuted him. mr. blazej? >> i heard it. thank you. commissioners, first to just address the issue that was raised at why didn't we file a complaint. when robert bought this home 42 bonview in 2009 we saw what was next door and we saw that it its patently illegal and it was an unpermitted structure. and an elderly couple lived there and owned the building and we didn't want to cause them any problems so we didn't file a complaint. just for that reason. and because we knew that at some point we'd get to where we are today and that i expected a developer and an architect to have integrity develop and to

show plans that show what's there. and had that happened, we would have been clear as it is still clear right now that that additions an illegal unpermitted addition. there was talk about can the plans be made more accurate? the issue is not making more accurate plans, the issue is recognizing that this is an illegal unpermitted construction and the property line wall probably does not meet the fire standards in addition to the window. the roof of that additions two feet lower than the ceiling. and you can see it in the deck that was added above that it sits two feet above the roof. the plans that were submitted show -- they're inaccurate. they're a lie and they're meant to mislead and show the planners that this was always there and that this is fine and that's not the truth. and just to let you know where we're coming from -- we have no

objection to the expanding in that area. they can enclose 100-square-feet underneath that bay which they haven't done right now. my guess is they probably will, but they don't want to do it now. but right now we're giving them 100 more square feet of livable space. all we ask is that they rebuild that pop-out addition to meet the planning code. which means a four-foot side setback and three foot extension into the rear yard which is what is permitted. everyone knows that -- >> maybe with the time that we have, thank you for that, and just, commissioners, i'm completely happy for that home to have a rear bay, just not as far as it goes today. just that it comply with the code. >> president lazarus: okay, thank you, are you finished? >> we're basically asking that they reduce that area by 35

square feet. they're adding about 600 square feet underneath and there's another 100 square feet to be had that they enclosed up to a buildable area. so what we're suggesting and advocating is really a benefit to the owner and this project. we just want them to meet the code. thank you. >> president lazarus: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice-president honda: so either to the appellant or his father. so, i mean, what we're trying to look at here is how long have you been at the property next door, mr. blazej? >> 10 years. >> vice-president honda: okay, so, i mean, when you bought it, the property -- you knew that your father explained that the property was illegal, that you aplietd foapplied with a variann that illegal property but now you have a problem with it now?

>> p to put in context -- sorry, your father was the director of the planning department, correct? >> that's correct. >> vice-president honda: okay. so go ahead. >> just to be clear as i said that it's totally agreeable to the subject property at 44 bonview and having a bay expansion. we just ask that since the property is now being developed that that bay expansion to be brought within code. so that the expansion can stay, but just it should not go out on more than three feet and it should have a four-foot setback. and that's allowed by var variae and that's the same variance at 42 bonview street so i'm not asking for anything more than what we have at our home which is identical to theirs. >> i have a question for the

administrator. so, mr. sanchez, it's kind of hard because evidently the plans don't reflect the site conditions 100%. from the views that you have available to you, what was actually done here from the transfer of the previous owner and the transfer of the previous, previous owner? are you aware of any -- can you explain abou any of that? >> scott sanchez, planning department. i think that chief inspector duffy may have more details. i think in terms of what was done. but i can tell, as the appellant had said, that the stairs removed as well as the deck on that structure being removed and then i think that there were photos of retaining walls being constructed and required rear yard. that's the scope of work that i'm aware of. >> vice-president honda: so was the structure the illegal portion that is there, was it

added on to after it had changed hands? or is that the structure and the size that it was, you know, in the previous, previous owner? >> scott sanchez planning department again. no, i understand that the structure in question, the illegal bedroom or whatever it may be, appears to be the same structure that had existed since the 1990s, at least. so that does not appear to have been expanded. and the quality -- i agree with the appellant and some of the callers, i mean, the caller of that structure doesn't look great and, you know, just the roof framing and the size of that roof above it is questionable. but it doesn't appear to have been expanded. i think that the caller had talked about an increase in the size of the building and they are doing excavation, so within the existing envelope of increasing the expwai square fof the building at that basement

level, but beyond that i'm not aware of any expansion of the building. >> vice-president honda: i'm sorry to interrupt and i'm trying to wrap my head around it as one of the callers explained that he had been there for 30 years and saw the work being done and yet no one had a problem when it was being done. and it's been there for 30 years. now everyone has a problem with it. >> i don't understand all of that. but maybe the appellant can answer that better. >> vice-president honda: yes, yes, please. mr. ba blazej, you can answer tt question for me. >> commissioner honda, sorry for interrupting. i'm blazej, the appellant. and the real answer is that there's an elderly couple living in the home. i think that neighbors always had a concern with that structure but and the caller from elsie street was worried

that it might fall down at some point. that the owner passed away and moved out and i think that what we're asking now is that the bay can remain, i have no issue with the bay remaining. i'm just asked that the size to be reduced slightly to meet planning code. and since the property is now being developed and it's empty and actually has been gutted at this point, that this is the right time to bring the bay both into compliance with building standards and also with the planning code. >> vice-president honda: okay, and then i didn't understand -- i didn't realize that the property was vacant at the time so thank you for informing us of that. so evidently they'll have to go through the same process that you went through with the variance. so if they were to build it as it is now, would you have a problem with it? >> robert blazej, appellant.

yes, i would. what i'm requesting is that the developers modify the plan such that the bay still exists, but it's slightly smaller. the code requires that it be set back four feet from the property line, as is our bay. and that's to provide privacy, light and air. this illegal expansion was built right along the property line. and, additionally, the bay just extends two feet too far into the rear yard and it really should have went three feet into the rear yard. >> vice-president honda: okay, thank you. >> thank you. loidz w.>> president lazarus: we a question from commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: this question is for miss sanchez. can you explain on applying for a variance if they could apply variance from the setback requirements as well from the distance of the extension into the rear yard? or are there limits to the bounds of that request for

variance? >> scott sanchez, planning department. so to clarify one thing, i think that the appellant claimed that there can be some minimal reduction to the size of it to make it code compliant and that's not the case. i mean, this would actually far exceed what would be allowed under the planning code for a permittable bay window. the bay windows are allowed to extend three feet into the required rear yard and as i stated previously because the existing building structure already extends several feet into the required rear yard, i think that it's about 21 feet or so from the kind of main building wall to the rear property line based upon the plans submitted by the permit holder. so you are already about three feet or so into the required rear yard at that point. there is a feasible code compliant bay window and so any proposal they're seeking would need a variance. and it would be at least a variance from the rear yard

requirement. there's an additional requirement called mass reduction for rh1 in bernal heights and maybe they need to obtain a variance from that. but they could seek a variance to rebuild what is there now and they could seek a variance to build something identical or similar to what the appellant sought their variance for in 2012. soror they could just revert to something that could be completely code compliant and removing that structure all together. >> commissioner tanner: and if we were to condition the permit on the condition that the site conditions to be properly reflected, would you feel comfortable with this permit going forward with the current planning approvals otherwise? >> scott sanchez, planning again. if the board finds that there's enough information and the board's opinion to cite that

structure as legal non-complying structure, then, you know, we would need to properly document the existing conditions. one thing that i would have an issue with is the deck itself because that would require the notice. so i think we could have -- if the board finds that structure itself is fine and it's not illegal and i think we would still need to have the deck removed from the scope of work and have a separate permit that the property notice for the deck and then they could go ahead with the work on the interior work and the work to the structure to strengthen it. and another error that i noticed in the plans, they showed the proposed condition of the rear to be stucco and from the photos it appears to be wood siding. so there's details like that and, granted, i'm basing it on the plans submitted by the permit holder with their brief.

these aren't actually the stamped approved plans which is what we usually like to see. and so i would allow maybe the permit holder to speak to confirming that the plans they submitted with their briefs are identical to the plans that were submitted for review by the department. but there are concerns with just about the accuracy and the correctness of those plans. there's no excuse for them to i think to not know that the condition, and that's an inexcusable error on their part. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> president lazarus: we have a question from commissioner swig. commissioner swig, i'm going to unmute you. >> commissioner swig: i'm here. so, scott, this is -- this bay

is illegal. and so in these cases where we come across illegal stuff, it's a basement apartment that has been developed and sat there for 20 years, or be it this bay that was built illegally and it sat there for well over a decade or more. and we have -- do we have a trace here? where are on the way that we should be looking at this? should we quickly be quick be ee illegality by recognizing it as a non-complying structure, but now with compliance to current standards it would be okay? or should we -- should we go in

the direction of what i believe that the appellant is saying and make it legal? make it conform to the size and shape that it should be and not the illegal size and shape which it is? where should we go from here? i need some help. >> you know, the board's decision, we can't definitively say at this point that it is legal or illegal. you know, it does seem to be something that was added in addition to the structure. we don't have any evidence of permit, not to say that a permit does not exist. and the permit could have been sought in the 1970s and 1980s and not been located. i don't know what extent we have been able to research the records for that. my -- i hate to have gut feelings and my gut feeling is that it's probably not legal. that there probably wasn't a

permit. you know, and in that case i think that the board has traditionally, you know, had them to go through the proper process to legalize it. and this is unusual in that often when we see illegal additions, there are things that have, you know, existed for a relatively short time. and this is something that has existed for several decades. kind of plans have been made based upon that. in fact, the appellants themselves have submitted variances inside of the structure for jus justificationf their own bearings. so i think that there's unique facts that the board may consider but i don't see clear evidence of it being legal or, you know, for that matter, illegal. perhaps chief inspector duffy has additional insight as to kind of the likelihood of this being a legal structure. but it has been there for several decades. >> president lazarus: okay,

thank you. so we are still on the rebuttal portion and it's now time for mr. chan. mr. chan, are you available? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm mr. chan. so based off the appeal, i'm currently 20 years old and i'm a college student. and based on the appeal, as you can see from the report, 40% of bonview street doesn't even comply with the rear yard requirement at all. such that the adjacent neighbors on elsie street and i didn't mention elsie street, 50% of the homes on elsie street don't meet the rear yard requirements but we're not talking about that today. and we're talking about 44 bonview street and that existing structure has been there for over two decades. and in this case based off the inspector duffy's recommendation, and it's simply just a voluntary suggestion. and the neighbor has concerns, i would like to comply with them

and i tried to do best to comply and, yes, those are the plans that i submitted. however, i do not have the plans with me currently because the contractor has them with him and they are the p.d.f. that i generated and i sent over as a p.d.f. and the plans that i tried to user too blurry for the appellant's concerns. so, yes, i understand that there were elderly that lived there from 2000 to 2020, but this could have been brought up in 2019 when there was another change of owner, but it was brought up in 2020 during the pandemic. why was that? it's been 10 plus years and i respect elders, but why bring the burden to the young millennials? you should pass the puck to us and we have to deal with the issues that the previous -- two previous owners before for the action they did. and i have to pay for the fine that they did and i have to comply with it? yes, the plans were not 100% accurate. and i don't mind making a minor

revision to reflect the existing existing window and to change the stucco to wood siding. i don't mind to redo the plans one more time, but to reflect the actual conditions where properly recorded as a non-complying structure. the appellants want to demolish the whole structure, not 35 square feet. and to propose the bay like they did at 42 bonview, the project would take so long. and the project is ongoing and mr. zhou would like to complete this project because he's on the verge of bankruptcy now that during this pandemic, people are at the edge and, please, commissioners, i would take the extra effort to reflect the plans again and meet with the site inspectors -- >> president lazarus: okay, thank you. we have a question from commissioner tanner and then vice president honda?

>> commissioner tanner: mr. chan, to understand the accuracy of the plans -- while the plans that you provided in this brief were not accurate and you gave a reasoning why, is it your testimony that the plans that are on file are accurate so that the item such as the stucco versus the wood siding, or do you agree that there are changes that need to be made to make sure that it ak ar accurately rs the conditions? >> there are minor changes that could be made to make it 110% accurate and he took over this during an on-site building -- >> commissioner tanner: mr. chan, the existing conditions as it is today -- not so much existing between, you know, what happened decades ago but right now today to reflect accurately the conditions at the site. do you need more time to make sure that the plans accurate reflect? >> yes, more time would be reflected and i will make sure that this time it's 120% accurate and showing the exact measurements with the appellant

showing the size picture of the deck before, and and, secondly, the stairs that used to open from the door, i did not know how the stairs went down. so that's not why they're drawn -- because currently there's no stairs there. >> commissioner tanner: that's fine and if they have been removed and not in the violation, you have to work on the planning department what needs to be reflected. we want to see the site conditions as is to make sure that, again, in 20, 30 years if there's a new property owner they have this record. >> exactly. exactly. i would like to have even like him (indiscernible) and i really hope that the future owners, especially around the neighborhoods in bernal heights, that something they think that they feel is wrong, please bring it up immediately. why bring it up now? >> commissioner tanner: i understand your frustration. i do have a question for mr. zhou here on the line if you could make yourself available. >> yes, this is jian yu zhou.

>> commissioner tanner: how are you? >> i'm good. >> commissioner tanner: should a property that you are going to live or where you currently live. what are your plans for the property? >> yes, we plan to live there. my parents live on excellsior, so we were attracted -- because that is like a private street. and what we like about the property is it has parking -- two parking spaces. so that's -- yeah. >> commissioner tanner: great. >> yes, and then the park is across too. my boy is 4 years old. so he's very active. >> commissioner tanner: all right. and then i don't know if you had any contact with the neighbors during this process, either yourself or your agent in terms of some of these requests. have you met and discussed these or are these the first times during the appeal process that you're understanding their concerns? >> i had a first initial phone call for about an hour around mid-february and before the

shutdown. that was just me and the owner. and then the second time, the owner of 42 bon-view -- >> you're breaking up a little. >> so the second time was a zoom meeting through the owner, the contractor, and i was there and the appellant and the appellant's father and we all discussed the issue. and trying to com compromise wih whatever inspector duffy recommended, i tried my best to comply and accommodate everything. but last complaints that he wanted to do was to remove the rear structure and it was not feasible. >> commissioner tanner: again, please hold on. and then did you make any accommodations? in relation to the discussion that you had with the neighbor? >> yes, tons of accommodations such as in the beginning it was just a patio straight the rear becombackyard and this triggered privacy concerns. i added steps from the patio

walking down straight. that was one thing. and secondly closing off the property line window to ensure more privacy for them. and, third, since they thought that the structure was not stable and would fall down though it stood for three decades, i would go from four-by-four posts to upgrade to six-by-six posts, stronger footing to be there forever. >> commissioner tanner: that's all of my questions. thank you. >> president lazarus: we have a question from vice president honda? >> vice-president honda: no, this is to the permit holder. i know that commissioner tanner asked if you were going to live there but i'd like to be more specific. this is not a spec home for you to flip and resell, is it, sir? >> no, it's not. because my parents live on eunich. >> vice-president honda: and then the second question is, who -- which -- you have any licensed professionals that you have hired?

>> yes. >> vice-president honda: (indiscernible) you know -- >> yes, so the plan was done by arten. engineer tommy lee, he was the engineer and stamped it and reviewed -- he went to the house many times. we talked to inspector duffy about it just to ask him what we need to do to make sure that this is correct because the previous plan from my understanding doesn't reflect the actual condition. so we went back and forth many times just to get the plans done. and arten actually went to the building many times to just make sure that we want to show the plan accurately. you know, that's very important to us because, you know, when we lived there we have to have respect for the neighbors too.

you know, i didn't talk to the neighbor next door because i wanted to make sure -- because, obviously, the previous permit, they maybe left a bad taste. and they kind of lied in the permit it seems like. but to us we want to make sure that we did everything to address the notice of violation. >> vice-president honda: okay. and then now to arten. so, arten, you're a licensed architect? >> i'm not currently. i just graduated with a bachelor of civil engineering and i'm beginning my masters program. i'm currently responsible for the architectural drawing and for the structural drawing. i am provisioned by a civil licensed engineer tommy lee at his firm and we discussed the plans numerous times. and we brought this full set of plans to the meeting with the inspector joe duffy. and not only at 44 bonvview. >> vice-president honda: and last question.

it looked potentially -- if we go this way, how much time would you need to make sure that the plans are reflecting accurate to the current positions that the -- >> during the shelter-in-place, at least three to four weeks to ensure that everything is double and triple checked at the site with the contractors and with the engineer and everything one more time to go through every little spec. and to make sure that every professional will have this. and i will also meet every single inch and every single floor is shown and proposed. >> vice-president honda: you're only 20 years old? >> yes, i graduated with bachelors of engineering and starting my master this i maste. >> president lazarus: anything further from the planning department. mr. sanchez? >> nothing further to that. thank you. >> president lazarus: okay,

mr. duffy, anything further? >> just that, you know, this is obviously has gone on for a long time with this case as well, and i had suspicions that it would be. these are difficult cases for everyone. and i do remember being at the site and speaking, and the fact is that people need it talk to each other. when these things reach the board, i tell the permit holders that they need to get it sorted out and i did tell them that several times. obviously this is really hard. and the accuracy of the plans, we can look at them again and go through them one more time. and bee do not need a licensed architect (indiscernible) and the work is definitely something that needs to be structural

(indiscernible) and i think that it is. one comment that was made that i probably should go back and look at well is that it's only mentioned somewhere in the testimony that the addition was connected to the 42 bonview, and i wasn't aware of that, you can't have one building with another one so we need to address that as well in part of the follow-up. thank you. >> president lazarus: okay, we have a question from commissioner swig and then commissioner tanner. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yeah, i think that you just answered my question but i want to reiterate the question because that's the way that i am. yes, it bothered me that in public comments that the hearsay, albeit without a document, that a former resident observed that the building extension was nailed to the building next door to her. so do you need a formal request

or notice of violation to be filed? or is that something that in a potential further review of this project during the review of the plans, etc., that you would take care of automatically? >> i would need to follow-up with mr. lee, the structural engineer. so i wouldn't need a notice of violation but it would be a follow-up with him. >> commissioner swig: but somebody from your organization would inspect to see, let me see that this building is connected by nailing it into the building next door? >> yes, sorry, i should have said mr. lee and i would probably have to meet out there and i may bring a d.b.a. engineer with me. >> commissioner swig: thanks. that makes me more comfortable. >> president lazarus: commissioner tanner and then vice president honda. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: and a question with moving forward, would you prefer this to be a continuance so that you have time to look into the matter, or

a permit with conditions, including that the plans be accurate and the matter to be taken care of. what do you prefer with how the board handles this matter? >> i think that a continuance is in order to try and to get more -- another review of the plans and to try to get them as accurate as we can. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> president lazarus: okay, and vice president honda. did you have a question? >> vice-president honda: no, i don't. i'll wait when we get into -- >> president lazarus: okay. thank you. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> and i move for a continuous of this matter. i am not persuaded that the structure or the plans need to change significantly. and my issue is with accuracy of the existing conditions.

and it sounded like we may need to, regardless of what happens with this particular permit to separate out the deck because the deck needs its own noticing so we might need to remove the deck from this permit. that could be done when it comes back to us. and that would be a separate permit that would have the 10-day notice. but, you know, i'm not really persuaded by the co-compliance argument because this could be a variance request anyways so that's not really what is at stake to me is whether it's code compliant. i see that the structure has existed for several decades and, unfortunately, the permit history is not clear. i don't see why we would need to have the property owner to go through the variance process for a potentially illegal or non-conforming, we're not sure, process. so that's my position at this moment. >> president lazarus: vice president honda? >> vice-president honda: i concur with my fellow commissioner. i think that, you know, we get a lot of our information from the

department, both building and planning. and the representative from planning, mr. sanchez, says that there's no definitive whether it's legal or illegal. and at which point we would be guess figure it would be illegal. so i, you know, one of his recommendations were the same as commissioner tanner suggested that we would, one, remove the deck because that would require proper permitting. but, you know, i'm in line with what commissioner tanner said. >> president lazarus: okay, commissioner swig? commissioner swig? >> rick, you're on mute. >> commissioner swig: i know, i'm so on the draw. i would like to see this project clear and legal. and there are -- as scott said there's a little bit here and a little bit there and on top of

that we're not really sure that the plans are correct. so i would like to see a little bit there and a little bit there cleared up. i would like to see a clear set of plans that planning and d.b.i. have signed off on. and i would like mr. duffy to check on whether that bay which exists is -- i agree with commissioner tanner that going through the hoops of getting a variance and i really don't want to place that burden upon the permit holder, but it is a blight due to bad construction in the first place and i thank k for the safety of the occupants and the community that it's reviewed. so i would like to see this hearing result in a postponement for further review of plans and compliance and other minutia for

clarity. >> president lazarus: is there a motion? >> commissioner swig: a motion to hear this matter later. >> okay. well, we have three dates in july that are available. july 1, 15, or 29th? >> commissioner swig: i'll probably be sheltering in place. >> the first is fine for me and maybe the permit holders -- you can look for their availabilities. >> (indiscernible). >> mr. duffy, would that be enough time for you to four weeks for july 1st? >> yes, that would be enough time. >> mr. sanchez, is four weeks enough for you? >> yes, that should be clarify that the commission's direction would be to have the permit holder document the existing conditions. and for us that is typically the

conditions before any unpermitted work was done. so they'd have the plans show the stairs that were there, and the deck as it was, and i think they have a good start with the information provided by the appellant. that would be the baseline since they were mid-construction and then they'd show the project that they'd like it to be at the end. and as i understand it to remove the deck from the scope of work and they could pursue a further permit for that deck. >> okay. and then i want to confirm that both the appellant and the permit holder are available on july 1st? >> appellant available on july first. >> but based on one of the commissioner's concerns. do i need to draw an existing condition prior to any construction? and then draw -- construct the plans and then draw up those plans to show even clearer conditions?

is that what you're looking for? or is that -- you know, to make sure that everything is more up-to-date on everything. >> commissioner tanner: this is commissioner tanner. i suggest that you and mr. zhou work with mr. duffy and what we want to see approved by the building permits and they would be part of the record to submit to this board so we could view those plans. and those plans should have, for example, showing if it's going to be wood siding it should show wood siding. and if there's a window, to show a window on what claims to be the existing part of those plans. so we're going to want to you work with the planning and the building department to get those plans 100% accurate and approvable as they and back to us. >> any further device -- (indiscernible).

>> scott sanchez, planning. the last permit on this site i believe was 2006 for regrouping. there was a permit from 2019 that was withdrawn and a permit in 2019 revoked and this permit which is suspended. so there are no permits to get the building to where it is currently. whatever state that it is in now, there's no valid permit as i understand it. maybe chief inspector duffy could further confirm. but we'd like to see it -- before they bought it, last person bought it, the last condition as it was two years ago, that's the existing condition. and then to get to where they want in the end. so we have very clear documented the work that was done. that has been done and that will be done. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. i think that the issue is with the rear addition, existing. and that might be hard enough for him to do. and i know that arten wrote some

of the technology that we have. and the slope of the rear yard would be important for him and also the size of the deck. i don't think that the interior he's got much to do with it and the expansion on the ground floor is done basically. and so to me it's three items. the window, obviously, the property line window, that's not shown as existing. and i can work with him on that as well and i have been in touch with them anyway so i don't mind doing that again and i'll involve mr. sanchez as well. >> okay. so commissioner swig, i believe that you have a motion to continue this item to july 1s july 1st, so that the permit holder can work with d.b.i. and the planning department to get an accurate set of plans that show the existing conditions at the property, including conditions that existed before

any unpermitted work was done, is that correct? >> (indiscernible). >> okay. so on that motion, commissioner santacana? aye. president lazarus. aye. vice president honda. aye. commissioner tanner. aye. you're on, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: you can hear me now? can you hear me? >> i can hear her. >> yes, i can hear you. you're breaking up a little bit. but go ahead. >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> thank you. okay, so this matter is continued until july 1st, and president lazarus is allowing for a five-minute break at this point.

>> president lazarus: we will break for five minutes and be back here at 7:12. >> thank you, welcome back to the may 27th, 2020, meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on item number 6. this is appeal 20-031. lance carnes, versus san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. the public is yerba buena, between santa clara and san pablo avenues. appealing the ashance of a public works order to remove nine significant trees on property with replacement. the trees are removed due to structural issues, including basal decay, poor structure, thinning crowns, poor live crown ratio and previous failures. riplacement trees must be large canopy species in 24-inch boxes.

this is order number 202760. and we'll hear from mr. carnes first. >> hello, can you hear me okay. >> yes. >> you have to pardon my shelter-in-place beard. good evening, president lazarus, and vice president honda and commissioners. can you put up a slide 7, plea please? okay, so i'm here to request that the board uphold appeal 20-031, because the department of public works, d.p.w., had an

invalid tree removal calculation and did not calculate the fees appropriate. there's a deficit which san franciscoians need to plant new trees throughout the city. some background -- i attended a removal hearing for st. francis homes association of trees on january 27th of this year. and i was shocked to see that removal fees were far short of the correct amount. these fees go to plant new trees throughout the city. d.p.w. has a $19 million per year budget for tree removal and maintenance. but virtually no budget for planting new trees. when a neighborhood asking for new trees to be planted,d.p.w. cries they have no money for this. since assessments are a source of funds for planting new trees, d.p.w. can ill afford to

miscalculate fees. and d.p.w. essentially gave sfha a discount of $2,128. my first thought before filing this appeal was to allow sfha to make a donation of $2,000 to a tree planting charity. i contacted sfha and i made this offer. paul hill, an sfha board member, wrote back and said that the board would take it up at their april meeting. since this was past the deadline to file an appeal i filed this board of appeal in mid-march. today i have not heard back from sfha board member paul hill or anyone else at sfha. could you please put up slide 2. okay, so this is a copy of the removal application that i got

from d.p.w. records that had no contrast, it was tribed t electn scribed to a blank application for eligibility. can you show me slide three now. so i took the information off of that very poor copy and put it on a fresh application. and you will see that the application shows nine significant trees at 44 yerba buena avenue. which is misleading because there is only one tree at 44 yerba buena avenue. and because there are actually nine trees at eight separate property addresses. and slide four, please. which is the back of the application signed by sfha on

november 24th, 2019. and then could i have slide six, please? this is the d.p.w. notice of tree removal. which correctly lists the nine trees at eight property addresses. this piece of paper is attached to the subject trees so that the neighbors and others can read it and know what's going on. however, public works code does not allow aggregating multiple removals. in other words, there should have been eight separate removal postings, one per each address. slide one, please. okay. so these eight properties next to the nine tree pros posed for removal. as you can see there's a little

carat where yerba buena has two trees and the only property have only one street tree each. and the s.f. public works code, tree removals must be applied for by property owners. in this case there would need to be eight applications, one for each property. can we see slide five, please. this is d.p.w.'s removal fee schedule for yerba buena. and the key numbers are the ones next to the red arrow. one of the tee trees is $400, and four trees are $1,072 i believe. so d.p.w. assessed sfha the tree fee which is not correct. this fee would be applicable only if all nine trees were

adjacent to or within a single property. the correct fee should have been $400 for each of the eight properties or $3,200. and can we see slide seven, please. thank you. i would want the board to uphold this appeal so the tree removal applications can be submitted with the correct fees paid. and that's the end of my remar remarks. i would like to have her to give -- with my remaining time -- >> miss boehler. >> you have 30 seconds. >> she's on mute now. if you want to unmute yourself. >> can we just give them a

little more time because of this transition? 30 seconds -- miss buehler? >> i paused if you wanted -- >> okay. let me unmute miss buehler. i see her name, alex, but i'm unable to unmute her. >> well, perhaps she can join in on the public comment then. >> just one moment. are you able to -- >> for some reason it's not letting me unmute her. >> we can call her. >> she's an appellant or speaking in public comment? >> he's giving her some of his time. >> i think that the issue is

that if people don't allow you to unmute them there's a box that pops up when you say if the host is trying to unmute you and the person doesn't accept it then they are still on mute. >> okay. so she might not understand the technology and, mr. carnes, you did not indicate that you'd give time with her and if we had known that we would have worked with her. >> she can call in on public comment. >> well, she did call in. and i can call her, alec, can you give her a call. >> sure. >> i mean, i'm not sure that she'll answer since she may be on the phone now. but miss buehler if you can hear us, can you allow us to unmute you? i'm clicking on a button and you should be get a promp getting a.

we'll just give it a few momen moments. >> you just want to move ahead and perhaps she can work this out and participate in rebuttal. >> okay. so mr. carnes, did you have anything else to add at this point? >> no, i have completed my

remarks. >> her phone is busy at the moment. >> okay. it's unfortunate. so we'll just have to give her time hopefully we'll be able to reach her. i'm not sure, mr. carnes, if you have any way to reach her? >> i don't right now. >> okay. we're going to move on and we will hear from -- yes? >> sorry, i raised my hand. >> i'm sorry. we have a couple questions, my apologies. >> am i first? >> yes, go ahead commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: mr. carnes, help me to clarify your vote. is your vote to -- would it be okay for you to -- for us to uphold this permit with assessing what you think is

proper penalties or you want us to deny this permit and go back and have the department issue nine different permits according to the way that you think that they should be issued? >> yes, so just -- eight different permits, public works code says that it's the abutting property of the tree and one property has two trees. so it would be eight permits. but i made the homeowner association an offer initially. i didn't want to go through all of this. and i didn't think they would either. but, yeah, if the appropriate fees are paid. and d.p.w. is aware that the way they accepted the application is incorrect and will not do it again, i'm happy to go ahead. >> commissioner swig: i just

wanted clarification of your goals so we could know what is acceptable to you as the appellant. thank you. >> okay. >> a question from vice president honda. >> vice-president honda: yes. a similar question -- i just wanted to -- you're not protesting the tree coming down, only the dollar amount that was assessed, is that correct, sir? >> that's correct. >> vice-president honda: thank you for clarifying that. >> julie, i think that she's on the phone with the 8570 number. (please stand by)

>> i assume you've read the association's brief. again, i again, my name is michael fox. i'm the president of the homeowners association, and i assume you read my brief. i won't repeat it, but --

[inaudible] >> -- and it's the association's property on which they sit, and so it's the association's obligation to get the hazardous trees removed and replaced as soon as possible, which we've been trying to do since december. we followed the bureau of urban forestry's guidance, which they emphasize is typical for homeowners association like the st. francis homeowners association, and especially in a situation like this, where the association is going to remove multiple trees, it stream lines the process, it makes it more efficient where we're trying to remove and replace trees which have been deemed hazardous. and just again, because it was a focus of mr. carnes'

presentation, the only one who could apply to remove the trees is the st. francis homeowners association as we own the land on which the trees sit. the bureau of urban forestry understands this, and that's one of the reasons we work hand in hand with them on the reforesting program, something we've been doing in the neighborhood for quite sometime. again, this is not a situation of us not wanting to pay the money. we're paying what the bureau of urban forestry requested of us, and that's all that's required. unless you have questions, i will cede the balance of my

times. >> clerk: okay. let me see if we have any questions. okay. we don't have any questions, so we'll move onto the department of urban forestry's representative. mr. buck? >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. chris buck, urban forester with the san francisco department of urban forestry. >> clerk: can you speak up? we can't hear you. >> yeah. let me repeat that. >> clerk: yes. >> chris buck, san francisco department of urban forestry. public works accepted the application incorrectly. our issue here is that we do allow associations to submit an application when they're legally acting on the behalf of a constituent. so in this particular case, forests, st. francis would -- homeowners association

represents the owners as an h.o.a. and is managing the trees on behalf of those owners. so just like we did with forest hills association, we accept an application for multiple trees in a single application. and a few examples. if someone in st. francis would -- disagreed with the association's assessment, and they wanted to pursue removal of the tree, we would make that individual submit their own permit application. in this particular case, when we have a single application, the controller's office mandates that we do fee cost recovery. and what that means is that with a single application, we can post trees by a single application, we have a single public works hearing, and we have a single appeal. so in that perspective, we are recovering the costs of processing nine trees as a

single permit application. so from the perspective of public works and the public works advice attorney, this is a very clear case. we've accepted applications on above of an association before. it's not something that was done in error, and the fees that were collected are accurate, the $1,072 for nine trees is the correct amount that should be submitted. i believe i've explained it about as thoroughly as i can. the st. francis homeowners association is kind of equating their single application to the fact that the trees are all in a single entity, but it's really their legal ability to act on the behalf of those constituents. they're going to prune and maintain, remove and plant trees on behalf of those members of the association. they're very clear to us about this, and we ask that the

appeal be denied. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda? >> vice president honda: thank you. mr. buck, was the process stopped when the -- [inaudible] >> vice president honda: and brutalized? >> so i can check the status. a hefty fine was issued for the pruning. it's a practice that the association has been doing ever since they've been around, so it's a lengthy conversation, but we did issue a fine, and i can check the status on that. >> vice president honda: no worries. and after that, they're working with your department more closely? >> absolutely. actually have been working very closely since 2006. that's when a significant tree ordinance was amended in our urban forestry ordinance, so we do work very closely with them.

we have received -- if they have a one-off tree removal, they will submit an app, but if they are submitting for their joint jointly urban forest replacement plan, they will do that. >> vice president honda: thank you for explaining that. >> clerk: okay. i saw a request from mr. fox for that zoom link. do you need that? >> no. >> clerk: okay. and i don't see any more questions at this point, so i'm going to move to public comment, and i will go slowly. if you are here for public comment on this item and you called in, please press star-nine now. i'm going to take some time to ensure we have all the callers.

>> i think joshua klipp wants to speak. he's not a party, but he wants to speak on this matter. >> clerk: okay. let me find him. okay. mr. klipp, you have three -- okay. i just tried to unmute him, and he pressed his at the same time. okay. mr. klipp, can you hear me? >> yes, i can hear you. thank y . >> clerk: you have three minutes. >> thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. with the homeowners association, anyone has the ability to appeal those, and those are equally dramatically reduced in that process. in terms of the determination of the application fees here, i understand what chris is saying. that isn't, though, what the law says. in effect, what this allows is that it allows this reduced

fees for neighborhood that have the luxury of a homeowners association versus the neighborhoods that do not have that regarding the issue of hazardous trees. and also, in terms of the efficiency of processing applications, i would just like to point out that mass tree removals are something that the bureau does sort of pretty regularly around the city, so i'm not sure that it's fair to say that nine is that much more difficult than, say, 39 in hayes valley or 77 in the mission. this is something simply that is part of what the bureau does on a fairly regular basis. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public -- more public comment on this item? >> i believe -8446 is --

[inaudible] >> i'm trying to get her. there's somebody waiting. hold on. >> clerk: hello, phone number ending in -8446, i can call that number. >> operator: did you want to speak on this matter? >> clerk: hello. it's time for public comment. phone number ending in -8446? hello? >> hello? >> clerk: hello. it's time for public comment. >> well, now you can hear me. you put me on hold. >> clerk: are you miss boller? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. i just want to clarify with mr. carnes. do you want her to speak during your time or during public

comment, because she can't do both. you're on mute. i'll unmute you. do you want miss boller to speak during your time or public comment? >> public comment, that's fine. i'll have three minutes rebuttal, right? >> clerk: yes. miss boller, go ahead with what you have to say. >> all i have to say is the system is wholly inadequate. i protest the nonpublic hearings. i'm lucky enough to have the technology to try to attend this hearing, and i can't hear the hearing. i haven't heard a word for a long period of time, and i don't know why that happened. at any rate, the process is not acceptable. it excludes the public

participation that's needed for a proper hearing. that's all i have to say, and thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we now have a caller with the phone number ending in -8570. >> yes, hello. this is casey asbury with the demonstration gardens. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. you have two minutes. >> thank you. so this application, i was alerted to the fact that it seems like there was a large discrepancy in the permitting fees. it is a wealthy neighborhood, and it made me take a second look at it. i think that we should be taking second looks at our tree removals right now because we have been removing more trees

than we've been planting for the past five years, and this is contributing a real deficit toward our goal of citywide increasing our tree canopy. it's our policy of the city, and so we need to take a closer look on these removals. in this particular situation, i understand what chris is saying about streamlining the process. however, in addition to the fee mess, as we try to study what's happening with our tree canopy, it's very difficult to understand are where, what's being removed if it's not represented accurately in the permitting. so i understand that there's a -- there's a drive to stream

line, but we also need to understand where our trees are going. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: so if we can start to build into the process accurate reporting of where the trees are actually located because we only have one address, that will help a lot. and if we can apply that to other permits, that would be really helpful to those of us who are trying to help amplify our tree canopy. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? it's going to take a moment -- okay. if you called in, please press star-nine, and i'll know that you want to speak. okay. i don't see anybody else here, so i did move onto rebuttal. mr. carnes, you have three minutes. >> okay. thank you. i wonder if i could have slide

9, please. okay. so this is the actual text of the public works code article 16 urban forestry ordinance. i'd like you to read down a little bit where it says item b, section b, planting or removal by persons other than the department. if d.p.w. decides a tree has to come down, that's their deal. but if a neighbor decides that they want a tree to come down, they have to apply. a neighbor who desires to remove a street tree shall apply to the department on the designated form. the department may grant or deny the permit, etc. and then, down under -- you'll

see the fees are ten years old when this thing was written, but they've been updated. and then, down under section ii, roman numeral two, the director, in his or her discretion, may require the applicant to pay additional fees, but there's nothing for reducing the fees. if i could get the next slide up please. again, this is from article iii, department of urban forestry ordinance. department's jurisdiction. the department shall have jurisdiction over the planning, planting, maintenance, and removal of the trees in any street or public right-of-way as designated in section 2.44 of this code, and then, down

below, i've copied section 2.44. the word street is common and undisputed use by the public for no less than five years. the assertion that this is their property and they can do whatever they want with it is not true. the director of the d.p.w., this is his jurisdiction, so i would say that you need to -- the letter of the law here is very clear. i'm not a lawyer, and i can figure this out. so the letter of the law is very clear, and i think d.p.w. should comply with this whenever possible. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question. are you finished, mr. carnes? >> caller: yes. >> clerk: so we have a question from commissioner swig?

>> commissioner swig: just a question. in your review of all those rules and regs, did you ever come across anything in writing that supported the bureau of urban forestry's claim that they proceed or observed that homeowners associations are different from any individual homeowner? >> i did not find anything. what i presented in the code is all i was able to find. >> commissioner swig: thanks. i appreciate it. >> clerk: okay. so we're going to move onto mr. fox. you have three minutes to present your rebuttal. >> yes. again, i'll be brief here. our trees are not street trees because the homeowners association owns the parks and the sidewalks, and it's not a street tree where you would

typically apply the statute or the regulation, as mr. carnes just pointed out. so we're bound to work with b.u.f. to replace our trees within our significant parcel of property. it's a unique area in the city, and we have a robust reforestation program. the trees on this permit were, as i pointed out -- as we pointed out in our opposition brief, were identified by address really just for identification purposes, but identified on the recorder's maps as well as other maps which are cited in our briefs. those weren't abutting properties that extend to the street line. the parkway is a strip of

property that is indeed owned by the association. the trees are marked, and they're -- they have tree numbers, and that was indicated on one of the slides, which mr. carnes showed. so we have cataloged our trees, and we're replacing all of our trees. so in this situation, we're actually trying to make sure that we're reforesting the industry or at least our part of the city which the public does come through our streets quite often. so unless you have other questions, that's all i have in rebuttal. >> clerk: okay. let me take a moment to see if there are any questions. i do not see any hands raised, so we'll now move onto the department of urban forestry. mr. buck? >> thank you. chris buck, department of urban forestry. i just wanted to note that the city has never been shy about collecting extra fees, so we know that we can use fees and funds. so if there's a legal way to

get more money, i'm sure the city would do that. i've been working for public works department of urban fore forestry processing applications for 25 years. i've been asked this question over and over again, and it's been confirmed by the city attorney for the department of public works that this is acceptable. so the fees have not been reduced. i think that's erroneously characterized. and again, the abutting property owner, if we want to use that language, the individual homeowners are not applying to remove these trees, the association is, and the association has within its bylaws the ability to act on behalf of those property owners. and it's not about streamlining from let's cut the trees out as quickly as we can. would it make sense to have

nine individual appeals for nine trees all managed by one entity? no. so i really want to be adamant here. there's no question in public works' mind. we're not reducing fees. this is how we've handle the association for a really long time. these are significant trees on private property, so other property owners, you know, street trees are maintained by public works, and that's really it. from my perspective, that's it. if i knew there was going to be that many questions, i would have provided a letter from our city attorney's office. it seems totally unnecessary. again, we love fees, and we will get more fees if we can legally do so, and we can not legally do so in this manner, so we ask that you deny the appeal.

thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from commissioner swig. okay. commissioner swig, we have to unmute. okay. commissioner swig, please proceed. >> commissioner swig: so if we were looking at a sanborn map or regular map, these trees would not be shown on any property, so these are probably public trees under the jurisdiction of the homeowners association. is that what we're looking at? >> that is correct. >> commissioner swig: i think that is the most important point, that even though they're in front of people's houses, they don't belong to those people, they belong to the association, and therefore are treated completely differently

than what -- the rules and regs that we were shown by the appellant. am i reading this correctly, chris? >> yes, you are, commissioner swig. st. francis has very unusual jurisdictional boundaries. it's probably too large to get into right now. they look like the trees are in the parkway between the curb and the sidewalk, and yet, they're not considered street trees. it was only when we amended our ordinance in 2006 when they became significant trees, so the city only has jurisdiction from curb to curb, and so therefore, we only go 10 feet in, but that's the correct way to view it, is that the trees are not technically on individual property owners' property, they're in a parkway

owned and managed by st. francis. >> commissioner swig: so if i buy one of those houses, and it has a tree in front of it, that's not my tree. >> correct. the association is heavily involved in its management. >> commissioner swig: okay. that was my question. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, i don't see any other questions, so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president lazarus: commissioners, if there's no discussion, do we have a motion? >> commissioner swig: i'd move to deny the appeal in that the permit was properly issued and given the special issues of the jurisdiction of st. francis wood, which is like other similar jurisdictions throughout the city, and therefore, the fees are

appropriate. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis it was properly issued, given the st. francis woods homeowners association has jurisdiction. is that correct? >> commissioner swig: yes. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 5-0, and the appeal is denied. thank you. we are now moving onto item number 7. this is appeal number 20-029, joshua klipp versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry.

subject property is 625 5 street 525 brannan street, 38 and 88 bluxome street, appeals the issuance on march 16, 2020, to alexandria real estate equities of a public works order. and vice president honda, you asked me to remind you of a disclosure? >> vice president honda: yes. impart of i'm part of a lawsuit that involves one of the parties, reuben, junius, and rose, and it will not affect my decision.

>> clerk: okay. and mr. klipp, you can go ahead with your presentation. >> okay. i have a video that i would like to present. >> good evening. my name is josh klipp, and i'm an attorney and long time planting leader with friends of the urban forest. the presentation i'm about to give has many photos in it which members of the public are not able to see because they have no option to attend this hearing other than by telephone. because of that, i have asked lance carnes to post these to his website, which is sf4, as in the number 4, all.org. that is sf4all.org. if you're a member of the public, and you would like to see this presentation, you can

see it there. moving ahead, this lays out in detail how the department of public works laid out the plan. the posting period here didn't start until 30 days before the hearing was held. second, the notices were posted before the developer had even given the department a full picture of what it intended to replant. a removal application requires a replanting plan, if nothing else, so that the department can notify the public of what will be replaced and/or determine appropriate in lieu fees before posting them up. but here, the department was so rushed to give the developer the soonest possible hearing date, they ignored this requirement. it wasn't until the actual hearing that the department offered the developer to

replace the document. this developer's application was exempted from the applicable rules. moving ahead here, at the hearing, the developer gave multiple reasons why these trees were going to be removed. they've reiterated those in their brief, and i'm sure they will reiterate those again tonight. if you are going to allow this removal to go forward, however, i just want you to understand what you are allowing to be cut down. i have prepared a slide show of the trees that will be removed. here are the trees along brannan street. here are the trees long fifth

street. here are the trees along bluxome. while i was taking photos of these trees, i also took a recording of the bird songs emanating from them, which i will play for you now. comparatively, i'd like to share with you what the surrounding areas look like. here are a few trees on brannan directly across from the bay club. i am unable to identify what kind of trees they are because they are simply small, dead

stalks. here are some dead purple-leafed plumb trees planted by the developer. these sad looking specimens are also bracketed by these two empty tree basins. across the street on fifth, we have some ficus that looked like they've been topped and will invariably be tagged for removal by the ficus removal order. here's the few from fifth in both directions, showing almost no trees. here's the view down brannan, showing almost no trees. here's the view down 5th toward bryant, camping out in the blazing hot sun because there are no trees, and now because of covid, they have been forced out of the shelter. and here's a quick look at a map showing that this location is not only one block away from the city's largest homeless

shelter but also one block away from the freeway ramp and is located in a neighbor that has the smallest urban canopy in san francisco, and san francisco, which has the smallest urban canopy in the united states. so at this time, we are going to let public development govern what we can do with one of our greatest public resources in the fight for public health. while i was out taking pictures of these trees, i became acquainted with the bay club's maintenance person. after a rough start, we made nice, and while this gentleman was justifying his actions, he also said he didn't understand why i was taking photos of the

trees because they were coming out any way. specifically, he said that he was out weeding the tree basins recently and was directed to stop wasting his time because the trees were coming out any way. i said, you were told to stop weeding the trees because your boss said they were coming out any way? and he said yes. so it seems like we are here, wasting our time. you, the board of appeals are wasting your time because the developer has already assured them they have nothing to worry about. t this appeals process is a farce. nothing that people say or do makes a difference. this is for show, and you, board of appeals, your participation here is also for show. so in closing, i would like to ask the city, why bother with public participation when the conclusion is already foregone and in favor of these

developers? and what the board now intends to do with its time tonight now that we know it doesn't matter any way? thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. klipp. and you stated that the public calling in cannot see the video, and that's actually not the case. i'd like to correct the video. callers can watch the hearing either on-line, on our website, through a link to sfgovtv or on a cable channel, and that's set forth on our agenda and our website, so for the record, anyone providing public comment is able to view the -- the video. >> and julie, that was the information that i had at the time that i was making this. the agenda came out later, and i did not know that. it will come out in the second video, so i apologize for that ahead of time, too. >> clerk: okay. no problem. just wanted to correct the

record. okay. we're moving onto the determination holder. mr. kevlin is the attorney representing the determination holder. mr. kevlin? >> yes, thank you, miss goldstein -- julie. >> miss goldstein retired three years. >> the proposed tree removalist essential to complete the planning club project, a project that was approved by the board of supervisors in 2019. that was after an over ten-year process of developing the central soma plan, and as a result, there's quite a bit to this project in addition to the construction of the mixed use office buildings. the project includes the

construction of a community center and pool. a portion of the site is being donated to the city for the construction of 118 affordable housing units. there's going to be child care on side. it includes underground bolts in the sidewalks, and undergrounding of the power lines along brannan street. d.p.w. has specifically rai requested that the project raise the level of the sidewalks by approximately 1 foot to address flooding. this does require the removal of all 33 trees surrounding the site. the d.p.w. director has approved the removal of all trees in addition to one tree on a property adjacent.

i'll mention part of this streetscape plan is also going to increase the width of the sidewalks from 10 to 15 feet. i'd like to walk-through a couple of the issues the appellant has raised. the primary issue he brought up is about the tree removal notice versus the d.p.w. director hearing notice. the notice of tree removal must be posted at the site at least 30 days prior to the removal of the trees, and anyone can appeal that to the director. now if someone appeals, the notice of the appeal hearing must be posted at least seven days prior to the hearing. staff was -- [inaudible] >> they posted both the 30-day removal notice and the

seven-day d.p.w. director's hearing at the same time, so there was a notice that said it's a 30-day tree removal that the project -- that the tree removal had already been appealed, and that they gave notice, which was 30 days out from the d.p.w. director's hearing despite the fact that the code only requires a seven-day notice. let's see...i think that the rest we've really spoken to in the brief, and i think these are the key issues. i do want to reiterate, the tre trees that are approved for removal by d.p.w. must be approved to complete the mission. the project will vastly improve the urban canopy around the site, as well. we'd ask that you deny the

appeal and allow the project to move forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm looking to see if there are any questions from the commissioners. i do not see any hands raised, so we'll move onto the bureau of urban forestry. mr. buck? mr. buck? >> sorry about that. unmuted myself. so i'm going to go ahead and try, for the first time ever, to share my screen. please bear with me, share my screen. i'm going to go...okay. and so we can go to the public

works order on the share screen. chris buck, bureau of urban forestry, urban forester. this project, we did post for the required 30-day notice. it states the removal of 35 street trees awith replacement adjacent to the subject property. we have a number of times posted the 30-day notice to straight to hearing. we've done this a number of times. 3333 california street, laurel village in that neighborhood is an example. there's been a number of times where we've done that. we did post the required 30-day notice and hearing, and that's what you have before you, so i wanted to show that to, you know, everyone viewing here. and we spelled out the specific trees that were spelled out for

removal from brannan and bluxome. also, just wanted to verify to be able to prove to the commissioners that we certainly adhere to our rules, and i have date posted, january 23. the public works hearing was february 24, so we did post the notice 30 days in advance, and beyond that, mr. clip, the appellant, showed a good range of the trees. it is unfortunate, the trees along bluxome are planted right up against the foundation of the property, at the back of sidewalks. there's no chance of preserving those whatsoever if they're building kwwhat they're buildi. the three ficus trees have very poor structure. one of them has a crack in the center of it, and then, the

trees on brannan, our recommendation was to deny ten of the magnolias. we had this item go to the public works hearing, and the hearing officer recommended the removal of all subject trees after the item was fully reviewed at our public works hearing. the brief submitted by the applicant is very detailed in terms of why they need to remove the trees. we completely agree with the appellant and the sentiment of so many people in san francisco. we need more funding to plant trees. we need more urban forestry cover. unfortunately, the decision of public works is to approve the trees for removal. again, the applicant's brief, the respondent's brief is very detailed. regarding this narrative, and with all due respect, i understand mr. klipp's

perspective, but kind of trying to create this narrative to make things sound as fishy as possible, i get the desire to do that, i do. but we were reviewing plans. we didn't just approve this. we start reviewing plans years before through sdat, which is the street design advisory team. so the inspector who handled this, he had many phone calls with the applicant about the project. it first came to us about potentially the removal of three trees in conflict with vault, and we went ahead and said what's the timeline you're talking about, because they started talking about the removal of all the trees around the property, and we said your

timeline is too short. you need to submit for all of that now. at first, it was just undergrounding the power lines on brannan and three specific trees, and then, it grew into they need to remove -- submit the removal for all trees. so our process was adhered to. we did post notices for the hearing 30 days in advance, and as we've done for many other large projects, we've posted straight to hearing, knowing, yet, protest is not just likely but pretty much guaranteed. so again, as the permitting agency, i just want to provide testimony that our process was adhered to. the applicant and respondent provided a lot of details around the necessity to remove the trees. it is unfortunate, but that's what we have before us. there is a very robust planting

plan, and that includes planting trees for half of bluxome, and those trees planted in the park will not count toward the new trees that we're assessing in the development, and it's quite a few new trees in the development. so that concludes my presentation. i just wanted to vouch for, you know, the public works permit process and share with the commissioners that the process was adhered to as required. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a few questions. one from vice president honda, and one from commissioner tanner. vice president honda? >> vice president honda: so mr. buck. so the applicant says -- the application says 33 trees instead of 35. is that because there's two on an adjacent property? >> there are two on a nearby property that they're no longer pursuing for removal. >> vice president honda: okay. so instead of 35, it'll be 33.

>> 33, and so we didn't -- there was discussion in the briefs about tacking on bonus trees, which did not occur. >> vice president honda: and are they putting any -- besides the inside park, are they putting any street trees, or is this not going to be able to put street trees? i wasn't sure. >> okay. so in terms of shade, mature trees provide greater benefit. there's a robust replacement plan for all frontages. brannan, bluk ohm, and a brannan, bluxome, and 5 street are going to have a robust replacement program. we are getting tree-lined

streets on all three frontages, including the fourth, which is a midblock interior crossing, as well. >> vice president honda: so the 78 trees, does that include the midblock crossing or is that just the perimeter? >> my inspector and the project sponsor has more of the details, but i have been assured that the -- i believe the total number of replacement trees excluding the park is in the range of the mid80s. it could be 95, but i'd probably have the project sponsor verify the -- if the 95 are including that publicly accessible alley and the trees on bluxome. >> vice president honda: yeah, because the application says 78. last question, the appellant has pointed out that there's been some blight some other projects where trees were just

dead and dying. is there a watering plan for this particular project and a guarantee like we did similar on bryant recently? >> correct. so the property owner is responsible for planting and maintaining and establishing these new replacement trees until established after the trees have been planting. and we will not accept responsibility until the trees are in good condition. if that means that a few of them go through transplant shock, then we'll require them to replant and get it established again to three years. some of -- without a doubt, soma can use more trees. >> yeah, and i agree. and would you feel comfortable or would you recommend that we condition it, if the board decides to go that way as we

did in a similar manner for bryant street? >> which condition is that? >> vice president honda: basically, the developer is on the hook for these trees until they're good to go. that's pretty much what we did last time. >> yes, correct. it's required of our ordinance. they're required to get these established and maintained through three years and/or establishment. >> i'm sure conditioner swig is going to remind me of the conditions that we put in last time, but that's my question. thank you, mr. buck. >> clerk: okay. thank you. let me see if there's any other questions from -- yes. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. so the thing that is hard for me about this permit is that i think it's great that there's a development happening that's going to provide, you know, even more trees, and hopefully they all get well established, and that's great because the future increase is really positive. it's challenging, though, that

the trees have to be removed, and then, we lose all the value of those trees that they provide right now, and then, they actually release carbon as they decay. what is the department's policy or process of evaluation of replanted versus cut? tree by tree, are we really assessing what the fate of each of them really is to the degree they can be saved at the property owners expense -- and i sympathy that they have conditions as part of the conditions of approval, but removal doesn't necessarily have to mean that the tree is over. and so if you can explain how that process is handled and how it would apply here. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. the way -- it's been a booming

economy, 2009-2010, and we've seen that in impacts to street trees. the challenge -- i think the most important thing to understand just in general is trees establish a pretty wide network of roots, and so when you're digging trees up, it's very challenging work. it's hard to guarantee survivability. digging trees up is also a difficult project for utility. i once had a person in a back yard who had a 100-year-old cypress tree, and she said, i don't want to remove it. can you have someone do it? i was checking the departmental hearing. we have had other projects where some trees have been agreed to be transplanted. there is -- at some point, i wish we could do a study on the

amount of carbon required to actually dig up and transplant and hand water once a week for three years. the trees, when you dig them up, you're cutting out all the roots, not all of them, but enough to move them. you're starting the watering process all over again, and you need to add more water than just to a younger tree, so there's a lot of resources that go into transplanting and placing large trees into another setting. it's just really challenging in an urban environment. i think park settings, maybe there's potential there because you have a much wider area to put the tree in and better growing conditions to mitigate all that stress. it's just stressful to have the tree's roots cut that way, taken out of the ground, and

replanted. so there isn't a specific size cutoff, where we say 4 inches, no, we can't recommend it, but that's something that could be explored as a part of the conversation. >> and ju >>. >> commissioner tanner: and just to be clear, that's routi routinely not necessarily part of this evaluation. it's either just the trees remove or it gets removed. that's kind of the decision? >> there are scenarios. we've had a number of tree removal cases where an owner desires to install a garage and driveway where there currently is none, and when trees are young, and someone can replace that tree with similar size, we've allowed that when the trees are really small. instead of we can see the writing on the small and it's likely to get approved by planning, we'll say, okay, you

can plant a 36-inch box size or equivalent in the replacement size. that's something we've done when it's a smaller tree and we feel like there's discretion where we can get an in-kind replacement. it's difficult to do that in an urban environment with large trees. one thing we can have, we should have the applicant verify the box size of the trees to be planted, whether it's 24, 36, or 48-inch box size trees, but those are the challenges we face, and we don't have a clear pog, but i'm sensing that we may want to try -- policy, but i'm sensing that we may want to try to establish one. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. i just think it would behoove the city to try to do a

possible removal and relocation of trees. there were a number of assessments shown in the video, and i'm not a tree expert. they may not all survive, but there may be some that could, and of those that could, i think it would be good to note that instead of just removing them outright, so thank you for your help. >> clerk: okay. i just want to cleonfirm, if w want to have anymore questions. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i can't remember from two weeks ago what we suggested about tree maintenance. maybe miss rosenberg can jog our memories. >> yes. i have the minutes from two

weeks ago. >> commissioner swig: maybe you can get that when i'm done here, what were the terms and conditions. mr. buck, i don't envy your position at all. i am tremendously sympathetic to you, especially as we run into these metaphor cical car crashes of development all over the city. i would not like these trees removed, either, but i look at the, like, vanness street, where the developer or the contractor, he just removed them, and whether it was an innocent mistake or not, i'm not going to pass judgment, but they got removed, here, these trees are clearly -- have grown to a level much larger than it seems they were intended to do when they were planted, and

then again -- and then, there is no sidewalk. i doubt that you can get a wheelchair by. but then, we have important developments with affordable housing coming in, and yeah, we could work around them, yeah, we could remove them. but what are you guys doing -- i mean, this is going to happen over and over and over again. and what are you and d.p.w. doing to anticipate these situations? and in support of what i think commissioner tanner was saying, evaluate whether it's feasible to move a tree from one location to another or demise a perfectly healthy tree that's going to get demised any way because development is going to

destroy it. whenever we going to get something concrete so we don't have to discuss, in theory, something that's going to get destroyed every week? >> thank you, commissioner swig. chris buck, department of urban forestry. thank you for those comments. we recognize some of these issues -- not some of them, all of them. we've been working with the appellant, josh klipp, to tighten some of our rules and regulations around protection of trees and removal of trees, particularly when it's around development that's not, say, 100% affordable. in many ways, they're our largest supporters, our tree advocacy groups. we want to be able to deliver for them, so we are working on trying to make amendments to our code so that we would have

more teeth and perhaps a clearer path forward in these cases where there's large developments and discussions around mitigation could occur. whether that's just larger impact fees. right now, we have in lieu fees that are required of developers to pay, but if they can get all of their replacement trees in there, that doesn't account for the loss of the canopy that's removed. so in terms of clear path forward this evening, i don't have perfect suggestions. you know, your role is also a challenging one. we do want to work towards some kind of cohesive plan on this, and we are looking at trying to amend the ordinance so these can be sort of codified and less of a -- you know, for lack of a better word, a shouting match that comes to you every few months.

so not along on specifics, but i empathize with the commission. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions from the commission at this point, so we will move onto public comment, and i do see one caller raising their hand. this is the caller -- >> commissioner swig: julie, did you have an answer for me. >> clerk: oh, you want it now? sure, absolutely. i thought you meant it later, but i think the relevant part -- >> commissioner swig: give you a chance to look it up. >> clerk: i have it now. 833 bryant street. the two conditions that i believe vice president honda are referring to is requiring the developer to install and maintain an irrigation system for a minimum of three years, at which point, the department of urban forestry will inspect

the system to see if further irrigation should be installed. and then, planting trees and maintaining them for three years until established. there are more, but i believe those are the two vice president honda was referring to. >> commissioner swig: that's great. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we're now at public comment, so the caller whose number ends in -8570, are you there? hello? if you're the caller whose phone number ends in -8570, it's time for public comment. okay. we'll come back to that person. so miss boller? miss boller, we're ready for your public comment. miss boller, you have to allow

me to unmute you. all right. how about the caller whose number ends in -8570? okay. i don't think these callers understand how it works. i can call them, but i'm not sure if they'll answer. hello? are you there? >> okay. thank you. [inaudible] >> this is casey asbury with the demonstration gardens. >> clerk: hi. welcome. >> this is -- thank you. i would -- this discussion is very instructive. i appreciate it. i'm suggesting that this permit should be reviewed for revision to maximum the number of trees retained because 95 replacement trees is not as many as it

sounds, since it will take up to 20 years before the relevant infrastructure services are supplied by the new canopy, and we stand to lose as many as 30% of these trees not just from lack of irrigation but also the duress of the neighborhood. i also want to talk about this surrounding neighborhood. it has very little tree covering rendering it one of the hottest census tracts in the city. developers shouldn't be allowed to plan from the beginning to get rid of all established trees. it's a barrier of our collective imagination. transplanting is very difficult

on trees. it's kind of a dream when it works, so we need to revise our planning structure so that we're planting more trees. the placement and quality of tree health at this stand potentially renders them significant to article 16 section 810-a, as cal fire standards for urban forestry would require retention, so let's take another look. thank you. >> clerk: okay. miss boller, can you hear me? for some reason -- miss boller, it's time for public comment. you need to unmute yourself because you're not allowed me to do so. i can try calling her. i'm not sure if she'll answer.

>> okay. her phone number is busy. i guess we can try to get her comments later, but she was able to speak before. i'm not sure why she can't now. so miss boller, if you're here, you have to allow me to unmute you. i'm sending you a request to unmute you. okay. so i'll see if there's any other public comment for this item. >> operator: she says i'm listening on the telephone. for some reason, i'm excluded from getting onto the call for some reason. >> clerk: okay. she did put something in the chat box. does she want me to read that out in public comment?

>> it's not indicated that she does. >> clerk: okay. well, i'm going to read it any ways because she can't use the phone. in this instance, i'm going to read her comment. first, i object to holding a remote hearing at all -- [inaudible] >> clerk: and such institutions are now closed due to covid-19 restrictions. others would not even know there's a hearing being held ad foot traffic is so limited during this pandemic and isolation for health reasons. this is supposed to be a public hearing, but members of the public are denied from participating in the process. there are significant numbers of people who do not have connection to the internet. so a, to access and participate in remote closed hearings. so what can they hear right

now? comcast is offering free internet during this time, and there's -- [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. so that is miss boller's public comment, and -- okay. so i don't believe we have anybody else, so we're going to move onto rebuttal. mr. klipp, you have three minutes. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. great. okay. so i'm not sure about this straight-to-hearing posting process. the law requires 30 days, and i'm not trying to insinuate that something's fishy, i'm just pointing out the applicant's own e-mails about

how this could delay the construction process. i'm not constructing this project. it happens all the time all over the city. developers say a tree is preventing them from developing their project. if you take a look around at how new trees with developments are actually managed, i think i made that point in my presentation. these watering and establishment plans are routinely in place for these projects, but i would ask you to ask the department of urban forestry how many of these projects are actually monitored and enforced? we should be building these

into the costs of construction instead of at the end and hope it works out. we're at the tipping edge of climate change, and these trees are probably not going to be established by then, and that there really is no replacement for mature trees that our environment needs so desperately right now. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. klipp, and i just want to see if the commissioners have any questions. oh, yes, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: mr. klipp, you referenced the number of trees not being exact. that something you see as being important? obviously, preserving the trees is of the utmost importance, but having a specific number of replacements to ma

replacements to make sure that they're established? >> that's something that chris references in the work that i have done with his team in trying to write a revised article 16 is talking about a replacement that is a replacement. for instance, biomass replacement formulas instead of just one for one. right now, the law is you take out one, you put in one, and you've met your obligation, but i think all of us understand that doesn't meet the obligation to the environment. yes, i do think that the number is significant in the sense that the city needs to start looking at this from an environmental perspective, and without that information, it's impossible to do that type of analysis. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. and i don't see any other questions by the commissioners, so mr. kevlin, it's time for rebuttal, and you have three minutes. you're on mute. >> thank you, miss rosenberg.

a couple of things to go through here. just to be clear on the exact number of trees being removed, there's 33 trees being removed to the adjacent tennis club site. there is no trees being removed from the adjacent parcel on brazen street. we have proposed 95 street trees as part of our plan right now plus another ten trees in the midblock walkway that we're creating. now, the street improvement plan associationed with the project is still making its way through the process, so there may be other departments or other conflicts that come up, but as of right now, we think we can get 95 in, and that's going through the process right now. the arborist's report did look at the viability of replanting these trees, which is standard for an arborist report for a

tree removal application, and found that all of the candidates are poor for transplanting. i want to reiterate, this isn't a project sponsor scheme, this is a city scheme. this is something that winds its way through all the city departments, and then, the suppo the sponsor is told what they need to do. this is part of the city streetscape plan. i want to emphasize this project is literally constructing a new park between 4 and 5 street along bluxome street, so that's above and beyond, really, almost every project that moves forward in the city. and it should also be noted that this project is picking up a lot of slack. $7 # million in impact fees are going to be paid by this

project to the city. -- $76 million in impact fees are going to be paid by this project to the city. it's not only for streets a, b it's for parks and the benefit of the community, and it's a condition of the developer to move forward with this project. just finally want to respond to those couple of conditions that were brought up about the bryant street project. >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. of course, we'd have no problem with a condition that says that d.p.w. can take a look at transplanting the trees elsewhere. happy to accommodate that. but just happy with installation, these sidewalks are hugely complicated. we've got pg&e, we've got undergrounding wires, we're replacing the sidewalks.

i'd ask the board, that one is not necessary -- [inaudible] >> -- and then, there's a check by staff. so i would just ask hesitation on that condition, but the other one is fine -- >> time. >> that's your time. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda and then president lazarus. >> vice president honda: so you have no problem with us conditioning that there will be 95 street trees, and is that a 24-inch box? >> couple things, commissioner. we're not okay with you conditioning 95 trees because that's what we've proposed, and now the street permitting process is going through this vetting process, so there's going to be a number of agencies commenting on this. that's what we're proposing, but we ask that you don't condition that we provide those 95. >> vice president honda: what happens if you come back and put in 50?

>> clerk: vice president honda, i just want to interject, the law requires one-to-one replacement, so we couldn't include that in the order. >> and i would just say that the planning code requires additional street trees, and 1 for 20 street frontage. it's required by the planning code that we provide 60, so that is the planning code requirement in addition to the typical one-for-one replacement. >> vice president honda: and what size box are you using? >> 48. >> vice president honda: 24? >> 48. >> vice president honda: oh, you're using 48? thank you. >> clerk: president lazarus? >> president lazarus: as i'm looking at the plan, i see a number of 48-inch box, i see 36, and i see 24. are these, as the plans stand now, the maximum sizes for all

of those particular spots. 60 is rare for us to see, but it's really encouraging, so i just want to know how you arrived at those sizes in the current plan. >> that's exactly right. we had proposed three boxes that we think are adequate to keep the -- the trees healthy, especially considering the number that we're going to have, and that those are the box sizes that we developed through working with city staff. >> president lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: so mr. kevlin, the thoughts of the three years of maintenance is supports by the photos which were shown by the appellant, the palm trees that are worse for wear, the dead trees across

the street, and that is why we got to that in the bryant street situation. i'm understanding that any urban project that's going in is fraught with complexity and different utilities running into each other. however, what would you suggest for the benefit at the very least of the developer to prevent blight from dead trees or trees that are clearly failing, as we saw in the appellant's slide show? >> thank you, commissioner swig, and just to reiterate that. this developer is about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this project in addition to new streetscape and a park, so their intent is consistent with the intent of this board.

in terms of what additional conditioning would be necessary, if you want to reiterate that, and it's on the project sponsor to maintain these in good condition and get them to what mr. buck said, i think a stable, healthy condition, you know, in a check-in of three years -- if you wanted to do check-ins before then to make sure that all is going right, that all seems pretty consistent with what our goals are here. >> commissioner swig: thank you. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. buck, do you have anything further? >> good evening, commissioners. chris buck, department of urban forestry. so clearly, bureau of urban forestry needs to get in on some impact fees, you know, but i understand those go to very

important programs in approximate a number -- a variety of different ways. so the box sizes, we're very pleased with the replacement box sizes, and, you know, i think one -- one approach, you know, to this is the appellant brought up several images of trees that are not doing well very nearby. for sure, the empty basins need to be replaced by department of public works bureau of urban forestry. those purple plums are really being affected by the wind. i wish i could paint a rosier picture for our budget, but it's not looking good for new trees. replacement trees, yes, so one of the things that our team can do is canvas the immediate area for empty basins, and if there are trees that are in extremely

poor condition, move forward in removing and replacing those, and that's something we could work with the appellant on is establishing a perimeter so that folks who have lived there a long time don't live with trees in decline in front of their residences while folks in this development get new trees and a park, so that's something we can do in general. overall, i think we've touched at all the issues here. i think we'd like to create a set standard for planting trees when it's appropriate, and i think that's the summary that we have at this point. i appreciate the project sponsor clarifying some of the details that came up during the conversation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: mr. buck,

would you join the that i just had with mr. kevlin regarding how long it would be appropriate or diligent to ask a developer to sustain the care and being and stabilization of a street tree? is three years appropriate? is there a number? would you throw your two cents in as the expert here, and based on your experience, what we might add onto something to assure, ensure that these new plantings are maintained properly and for an appropriate period of time until stabilization? >> thank you, commissioner swig. chris buck, department of public works bureau of urban

forestry. yeah, that's something we could do. so new street trees need essentially about three years of watering and after that, they're big enough and healthy enough to survive. one of the things that we can do as a show of good faith would be to ask for a five-year establishment period. it wouldn't really change the watering, but the additional staking or restaking would be reasonable. it would just be saying look, we want a five-year establishment period that eliminates any gray area, so i would offer that up to the commissioners, that a five-year maintenance -- we call it establishment -- until establishment would eliminate any gray area. >> commissioner swig: yeah. i would feel partial to your

suggestion because this is a far more critical situation than bryant street. bryant street was five trees, and this is dozens, so it might require extra care for the term that you're suggesting. >> thank you. >> commissioner swig: right? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so this matter's submitted. >> president lazarus: commissioners, somebody wish to start the discussion? commissioner honda, you have your hand up? >> vice president honda: yes. i would grant the appeal and condition the permit as the permit recommended, for a five-year establishment period to be -- and that to be the responsibility of the developer. and, you know, we definitely

hear the public. we love trees. we -- look at tonight's hearing, how much of our hearing has been spent and how long this hearing that's been in regards to trees. i was not aware, as madam president said, 48 and 60-inch box, those require a crane to install. so hoping that's a big bone towards establishment in the size of the tree, so that would be my motion if accepted. >> president lazarus: commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yes. you want any further recognition or recommendation in the replanting of healthy trees? >> vice president honda: yes. the representative mentioned

they had looked into it. i don't mind if they look into it again, but we had a pretty lengthy discussion in regards to bryant street. yes, it's hard to turn a big tree into saw dust, but the amount of money and resources that's required, i just don't think it's going to be feasible, to be honest, so i don't mind if we look at it, and we condition the department to take a look at it, but i don't know if that dog is going to have any teeth, to be honest. >> clerk: i just wanted to add, too, commissioners, that the order itself does not specify the box sizes for the trees, so if that's something you want to consider, that would have to be a condition on the order. >> vice president honda: yes. can i ask a question of council for the project sponsor? >> yes. >> vice president honda: so mr.

kevlin, what would your suggestion be? i imagine they're not all going to be 60-inch box, so do you have an idea of what you're going to put? i know that your hesitant to say that you're required to put 60. you have 95 on the slate. are you -- i mean, are you -- do you have some kind of idea? >> clerk: well, just for clarity, vice president honda, the order just deals with the trees that have to be replaced one-to-one. that's what we would be putting at part of the motion. we can't condition trees that you don't have jurisdiction over. >> vice president honda: yeah. so mr. kevlin, what would your recommendation be, because we're going to put some type of condition on here? >> well, commissioners, as much as i would like to be able to guarantee certain tree box sizes -- and by the way, the materials that we have before you on file show what you're

going to be looking at. >> vice president honda: we're looking at 33 as the replacement, so, i mean, can we say minimum 48 on those 33, if you're counting 95? >> the only reason that i'm hesitant is because we aren't in control of that approval process, and if this street approval process goes to one of the agencies, and if one of them or any of them have to be adjusted, then we're stuck between two conditions. we've got what you're looking at in front of you today. that's what we are pursuing, and it would only change if one of the other departments say it needs to change. so it's a little dangerous -- >> vice president honda: i mean, i'm not trying to put you in it a bind, but, you know, why don't we say a minimum 36-inch box minimum until it conflicts -- unless it conflicts with city department

or installation? >> yeah, unless otherwise modified in size pursuant to the street improvement permit process? >> vice president honda: okay. >> clerk: otherwise required to be modified in size due to the street improvement process? >> vice president honda: director, you're so good at making my motions. >> clerk: and what is the name of that improvement process? >> it's the street improvement process. and i might be a little bit off, but that's how i'm referring to it. >> correct. chris buck, department of urban forestry. you know, referring to the plan, the plans that are the subject of the hearing and are in the brief by the applicant,

we can, for sure, really work to be advocates that those box sizes are adhered to, and if there's another city agency offering conflicting recommendations, that we are in sort of that hit protecting the box sizes unless there's something that we, after due diligence, don't believe we can overcome, then on a case-by-case basis, we would have to concede a smaller box size. but i think as we're committed to, we can really make sure that street improvement process goes through. here and there might be a couple of surprises, but not many. i think that it's a reasonable goal, and we can serve as the advocates to ensure that we have a board of appeals decision that we can wave and stomp our feet and say you're not deleting that tree because it does meet our guidelines. so we're -- the level of review

that we've done as part of the street improvement permit is very detailed, so i feel very strongly that these are reasonable commitments that can be lived up to. >> clerk: okay. vice president honda, are you okay with that change? as shown on the plans provided by the project sponsor. is there a date on those plans? can we specify where they are, the exhibit? >> commissioner tanner: while he's doing that, commissioner honda, did you want to include anything about irrigation or did we decide the establishment period alone establishes the conditions necessary to

survive? [inaudible] >> commissioner tanner: noted and agreed. >> miss rosenberg, there's been a couple of drafts, and i would just refer to the street improvement permit plan on file with d.p.w. as of the date of this hearing. >> clerk: okay. and then -- thank you. so mr. buck, we need to flush out how we defined an establishment, the responsibilities under a five-year establishment period. i know commissioner tanner just raised establishment. what else needs to happen in that? there's watering, right? >> we don't need to necessarily spell it out. it's in our code. the applicant's required to establish trees. a couple of weeks ago, we added some language just to give it

teeth or spell it out, but i think if we add the condition of a five-year establishment period. >> clerk: okay. and then after the five years, that would end. >> correct, and then public works would assume responsibility for future maintenance. >> clerk: okay. and just for clarity, vice president honda, if you're making this motion, you said you did not want to include a condition requiring exploring the feasibility of replanting or not? you went back and forth. >> vice president honda: yeah, we can include that, as well. >> clerk: okay. so i'm just going to -- okay. is there anybody else? >> i'm sorry. commissioners? >> clerk: yes. will you allow a question by mr. kevlin?

>> vice president honda: yes. >> the timing of the street tree improvement permit is essential for keeping this project on track. assuming this moves forward, we are on schedule to remove them in august, so with respect to the condition about the taking a second look at the feasibility of transplanting these trees, could we add further clarification that this needs to take place between now and the end of july? >> vice president honda: sure. before i agree to that, is that feasible, mr. buck? >> chris buck, department of urban forestry. so one important point to clarify is for the possibility of transplanting, which again, i'm not optimistic about, but it can be absolutely second looked at it, would require the applicant to essentially

transplant them to dig them up. >> vice president honda: i'm going to revise my motion to scratch that out. we've been -- we have vetted this out several times, and it's unfortunately not feasible to transplant the trees. >> commissioner swig: i would agree with that. >> vice president honda: given the stature of the trees, there's no way that that's feasible. >> president lazarus: i would agree, as well. >> clerk: okay. and vice president honda, what basis are you making this motion? >> vice president honda: that the neighborhood -- i lost everyone here for a second. hello? >> clerk: we hear you. >> commissioner swig: we're just letting you hang yourself. >> vice president honda: yeah, thank you. anyone have a suggestion? >> clerk: on the basis that this provides assurances the replacement trees will thrive? >> vice president honda: yes,

there you go. thank you, director. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president honda to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition that it be revised to require that the project sponsor be responsible for a five-year establishment period for the replacement trees, and further, that the replacement trees will be in box sizes shown in the plans on file with the department of public works and street improvement as of the date of the hearing, and they shall adhere to those sizes unless otherwise required to be modified by the street improvement permit on the basis that this will ensure that the -- this provides assurances that the replacement trees will thrive. okay. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 5-0, and -- >> president lazarus: we are going to take a 15-minute break. i appreciate everybody's patience, so we will reconvene at just about . >> clerk: -- joshua klipp and christopher seguine versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry, appealing

the issuance on march 16, 2020, to ucsf, of a public works order, approval of the removal of seven street trees and two significant trees on the vermont street frontage without replacement. thee trees are not replaceable due to the construction by ucsf of a new research and academic building and access driveways, however, in-lieu fees shall be paid, approval of removal and replacement of two significant trees along 23 street frontage. and i believe, mr. klipp, you had a representative speaking for you tonight, kathrin romero. >> yes. thank you. >> san francisco department of public works erred in their decision to approve the removal

of 11 trees near potrero avenue for the following reason: first, the applicant misled the public and submitted inconsistent documentation to the planning department and department of public works. second, the applicant did not adequately balance the public health inequities arising from the project and lastly, the bureau of urban forestry violated their own laws in order to expedite the tree removal process for this applicant. to my first point, the applicant either misled the public or acted incompetently when they submitted their 2020 application that did not reflect the information in their 2016 e.i.r. and planning document. clarity and consistency are essential to effective city planning in order to provide the public and the city with a comprehensive understanding of

proposed projects and their environmental impact. this includes submitting an e.i.r. and receiving public comment. however, here, between the time of submitting their 2016 e.i.r. and planning documents and filing for their 2020 removal application increased on this site. the 2016 e.i.r. stated that only 28 trees would be removed. the 2017 site plan indicated that 37 trees would be removed, 31 of which would not require a department application, and the existing grove on vermont street would not be overlapped by any of the proposed building's blueprints. however in 2020, the applicants removal application asked to remove nine trees on vermont street and 22 on 23 street.

we presume and rely on a capable, comprehensive, and transparent development process. we assume that developers can understand the complexities of their own projects. the project that is proposed here is not a simple project. it is very complex. something that's complex, we assume, the developer would know how many trees would be affected from the beginning. this applicant is very experienced and capability of producing those numbers. an e.i.r. should be complete, site plan should be consistent, removal should be foreseeable, and the board should be informed. if the board upholds this development, expect other developers to say one thing:

say one thing to get through the gate but then change their mind when it comes closer to construction. the applicant's inconsistencies indicate that they either intentionally misled the public or they are incompetent in the scope of their understanding of this project. either way, the public did not have a comprehensive understanding of this project and its environmental impact, which brings me to my second point. we are not protesting the construction of this building. rather, we are simply highlighting the applicant's inability to adequately balance the public health inequities that will arise from this project. if construction is going to continue, the applicant should be required to do it in a way that they promised the city and this community that it would be done. this isn't about put be up a building, it's about preserving public health. trees are absolutely invaluable. they clean our air, improve our mental health, and benefit our

overall physical wellness. not to mention that this is an entire grove that this applicant is talking about, not just one or two trees. the san francisco environment cannot afford to lose these resources right now. not only is san francisco's green space absolutely dwindling, but these trees are located right next to a hospital. the mental health impact and benefits from these green spaces are absolutely innumerable. additionally, we can't ignore the fact that these trees and this process is happening during a global pandemic. covid-19 has exacerbated the importance of respiratory health. this grove right here is located right next to a freeway, and it acts as a natural filter for air particulates and pollution coming off the freeway. the applicant mentioned that the existing grove would not

overlap with the building's blueprint. there's nothing against this project, but the developer's project stated that the grove and the project could coexist. they should thus be required to carry out their promise and approved project. the bureau of urban forestry violated their own laws in order to expedite the removal process for this applicant. my brief already points out various times in which the procedure was irregular or flawed, however, if this boa board's going to look at anything tonight, we implore you to look at the january 28, 2020 e-mail from buck to the applicants themselves. in this e-mail, buck stated that it would need to give the two trees on 23 street that had previously been denied a separate mandatory notice period and a separate hearing from those on the previously approved vermont street.

however, that never happened. rather, buck decided to retrofit these notice dates, and the hearing took place in february. citizens rely on a department and agency to follow the law, but how can we trust that the city will do this and enforce the law when they can't even apply -- >> 30 seconds. >> here, buck violated their own laws and demonstrated favoritism which best deprived residents of their notice period. trees are valuable and they deserve the little protection that they have. it is this board's responsibility to uphold and enforce those laws. we respectfully request this board to reverse this decision and remand the document for further review. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the second appellant, mr. seguine. also, miss romero, if you could stop sharing your screen, thank

you. >> yes, i need to share mine, please. >> clerk: okay. >> are you seeing the slides now? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. before i begin, i'd like to request this appeal be rescheduled. this project is currently under investigation by several city, state, and federal agencies that would provide valuable information to the board, so before i begin, i'd like to make that request. >> clerk: president lazarus, did you want to address this request? >> president lazarus: i don't consider it very timely, but i'm open to a quick discussion by the commission members. >> clerk: and i think we should note for the record that a previous request was already made by mr. seguine to reschedule this, and that request was denied by president lazarus, so it sounds like he's

bringing up a -- some new reasons. >> president lazarus: i'm not at all certain how those are jermai germane to the permit question, and my inclination would be to deny the request unless there are commission members who feel differently. >> clerk: commissioner swig has raised his hand? >> commissioner swig: i would like to revisit this during the final commissioner period, so after we hear everything, and then, let's raise the question again for further discussion, okay? >> clerk: i'm sorry, i didn't understand you, commissioner swig. could you repeat yourself, please? >> commissioner swig: yes. i would like to have the question posed not right now but during commissioner discussion at the end of this hearing where it may be more pertinent and there may be more value and support or denial of this. >> president lazarus: i think that's a different question

than what's being asked. >> commissioner swig: no. should we consider it right now? the answer is no, but i might consider it at the end of the hearing, becoming a little bit more familiar with the case. >> president lazarus: so we have an option to continue an item, as we all know. >> commissioner swig: yes, sure. >> president lazarus: so i'm going to request that we continue with the hearing. >> so my request is denied? >> president lazarus: yes. >> okay. moving on then -- >> clerk: so you have seven minutes. >> i'm forced to read this disclaimer. my statements today are those of a private citizen of san francisco and do not represent those of any agency of the united states federal government. thank you. sorry about that. on with the show. zuckerberg hospital. they are not good neighbors. vermont street is a public

street, but they treat it as their private dump. red bins contain biohazard waste, material that causes pandemics to spread. here, they're often left unlocked and unsupervised. this is the lot that adjoins potrero hill park. this mural was painted for free on their property. all they had to do was agree to maintain it. they do not. it's peeling lead paint into a public park. the point is they do whatever they think they can get away with. ucsf, not good neighbors. almost 9,000 animals slaughtered in the past year alone thanks to $500 million in

funding. ucsf loves rabbits. i know this because i see their rotting corpses on vermont street. throwing out an animal like it's a disposable glove is not humane. in the past, general hospital welcomed the benefits of nature with vast gardens on the campus. now, we have a small section at vermont and 23. this is the part that they're asking to remove. tall trees, grass, surrounding a sculpture that is in the city's art collection. nature is scarce in the city, and this is an okay place to walk your dog or have a lunch break. ucsf wants to destroy it. this tree was removed in violation of this hearing

order. ucsf states it was removed in october by the gardener. look at the march 1 time stamp. look at the fresh saw dust on the ground. look at the tree in the background. it has mr. buck's tree removal notice shrink wrapped to its trunk. migratory bird season begins february 15. you cannot just cut down trees that may have birds nesting in them. they broke the law, and they're trying to lie to cover it up. ucsf states in their brief this parcel is not an urban bird refuge zone. just check the san francisco planning website which clearly shows it is. here is the complete scope of the project. they propose to remove all highlighted trees, 39 trees. maybe it's 42 now. i'm not entirely sure, but it's

a small forest. notice the sidewalks in these photos. it is a public sidewalk. it does not allow public access to the hospital. it loops around 23, these sk l sculptures, and exits on vermont. all of these trees are within 10 feet of this public right-of-way, indicated in green. a permit, they have not applied for. now even if you don't care about the neighborhood, trees help everyone by slowing climate change, taking carbon out of the air and storing it in the trunks and roots. when you cut them down, all that carbon is released. the amount of good trees do, the amount of carbon they store, is based on their size and age. they want to cut down these 39 large healthy trees, right?

55 feet tall, 22 inches in diameter. using the same types of trees mr. buck normally uses, that would require planting 208 new trees just to break even. replacing large, older trees with smaller, young trees requires many more trees for the same benefits. now i've told you why you should deny this permit. this is why you must deny this permit. this is the lease agreement between san francisco and ucsf, otherwise known as the ldda. the plan submitted for this lease approval show the trees remaining, no existing grove. this is the environmental impact report filed in 2016. the plan submitted, existing grove. this is the 2019 addendum to the environmental impact

report. the plan submitted also showing existing grove remaining. in fact, all community outreach shows these trees would not be affected by construction. the only document, the only plans that show these trees being removed, the actual tree removal permit request. now, it's the purpose of e.i.r.s to allow community feedback. we were denied that community feedback as the e.i.r. did not show the true intentions of this project. when you submit one set of plans for lease approval and then another set of plans for a permit approval, that is illegal. so tonight, you have two options. one, deny the tree removal permit. building construction can continue as specified in the

e.i.r. existing trees must remain and must be protected during construction. option two, continue the hearing, and the project must file a new e.i.r. or an addendum to the e.i.r. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from ucsf. i believe that mr. jeffrey nelson is representing them to start. >> we're going to let amy alden kick it off. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, thank you. >> thank you very much, president lazarus and members. i'm happy to give a brief overview of this project and how important the project is to improving public health. for the last 150 years, ucsf has been a partner with the

city at zuckerberg general. csfg is a level one trauma center, and we provide the highest level of surgical care for every injury. we have to participate in research, and that's what ucsf does on campus at csfg right now. we research infectious diseases like hiv and aids. we also research traumatic brain injury, stroke, and others. but the buildings that ucsf does its research in are seismically unsafe and improvements are unfeasible. we have designed a beautiful modern building that fits with

the historic scheme of the campus. the building will have approximately 700 researchers and educators. to date, the project has received all of the required city approvals, including the board of supervisors, historic preservation commission, the arts commission. we've also worked extensively with the city's department of public health to ensure that we're doing this right. we've done extensive outreach to neighborhoods and to community groups, including discussion of our tree removal plan, and this project has been approved by the u.c. board of regents. we're really proud of this new building and the services that we'll provide to our residents and csfg. we ask that you uphold our existing permits, and i will hand this over to jeffrey nelson, director of project management for the bolt company, which is our general

contractor for this project, to delve into the details of this permit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hey, everybody. my name is jeffrey nelson. i'm the director of project development for the bolt company. we're the general contractor. we're working for ucsf and frankly for the city here, and you might know bolt because we were the company that built the new sutter hospital at the st. luke's campus and off of vanness and geary, as well. i'm actually a former member of the city family, and i take the public process incredibly seriously. spent hundreds of nights at the planning commission and board of supervisors over exactly this issue. it's frustrating when you have so much spaghetti thrown at the wall. any project that has gone through the process, in this case, 2016 and prior, has got a lot of stars. the project that you evaluate in e.i.r. is pretty damn close

to what you think you'll build, and general conformity with. i want to show you a couple of buildings around the site because i don't want to take a lot of time. this is actually a tree removal permit, and i will -- let me just share my screen here. all right. are you able to see this? so the -- the issue before you is essentially the removal of seven trees along vermont street along the right-hand side of the screen. what is existing on the site right now is essentially a massive as quality parking lot. if i were to -- asphalt parking

lot. the project actually as designed actually results in a net reduction in permeable surfaces on the site, and it also results in the reduction of trees on the vermont street side. the reason for that reduction is actually that the footprint has in fact gotten smaller. this footprint has actually been moved away from the neighbors on the 23 -- 23rd street side in order to basically avoid a subterranean 12 kilowait electrical vault that is regulated by the state agency that regulates hospitals, called oshpod. when we started literally getting into design, and yes, there was analysis of a project for years, but when you actually do design is when you

actually get direct feedback from these agencies. we were told that we had to step off of that existing vault underground. that caused the footprint to move away from 23 and the building to get a little longer, but it actually created an area for a whole second row of trees. so the plan as proposed basically has significantly more green space on the 23 street side of the project. and again, that's the kind of -- not to cover the whole world here, but the issue here is the removal of seven trees on the vermont street side. because this lane behind the building is used for actual emergency care department and pick up and drop off, those cannot occur here. you see a very wide curb cut on vermont. and similarly, the base of the building and the foundation come so close that those trees are not viable, and i think you'll hear urban forester

chris buck support that position. so i just wanted to say there were a number of things that were said -- i can't even -- that we're causing pandemics, that there's lead paint, that there's rotting rabbit corpses in the dumpster. i didn't see proof of any of that. and these various things that mr. seguine has now launched into every agency known to man, we'll just see how this plays out. if you want to get a sense of what mr. seguine is getting at, go to the last page of his appeal where he just basically says if you give me my wish list, i won't file appeals on every project you are going to hold around the city. that's basically the appeal. i would like not option one or option two, but option three, which is granting tdenying the

this project. we have a team of people here ready to answer your questions, and i thank you and give back the rest of my time. >> clerk: okay. thank you. before we proceed, i believe commissioner santacana would like to recuse himself. commissioner santacana? >> commissioner santacana: yeah, and i apologize for not doing this earlier, but i cannot participate in this hearing, and i'm aware of another conflict, so i cannot participate in this hearing. >> clerk: can you state the conflict for the record, please? i believe that's the requirement? >> commissioner santacana: oh, sure. the conflict is my wife

receives income from ucsf, and therefore, a party provides income to my household. >> clerk: okay. so i think you're appropriately recusing yourself, and i guess this just raises a question -- i'm sorry for this break in this hearing, but we have one more item, item number 9, after these two appeals, and commissioner swig is recusing himself for that, so we would only have two commissioners. also, it's getting late, so we might want to consider moving the last appeal to next week and putting it at the beginning of the calendar. i'm sorry. it's just a suggestion. president lazarus? >> president lazarus: i think that that might be the feasible option, but i'd like to have the other -- >> clerk: we can address that after. i'm just -- >> president lazarus: and that -- >> clerk: okay, thank you. so commissioner santacana, thank you, and we'll resume after you leave the hearing. >> commissioner santacana: okay. so i need to leave the meeting here. >> clerk: yes, and so we presume you will not be back

for the last item. >> commissioner santacana: oh, if you guys decide to move on, i'll be here. >> clerk: okay. i'll text you. okay. thank you. okay. i apologize for that interruption. we do have a couple questions. i don't know what raised their hand first -- who raised their hand first, but i believe i see commissioner swig did. >> commissioner swig: in the e.i.r., when the e.i.r. was commissioned and the plan was completed, were the trees part of the plan or no? >> commissioner, this is -- this is jeffrey nelson. in the e.i.r. that was analyzed back in 2016 -- certified back in 2016, there were -- the trees were shown along the vermont street side of the project. >> commissioner swig: all right. is that not a material -- that seems to me that it is a material impact. is that not a material impact where a significant legacy

fauna or flora is removed from the environment? would that not have a significant impact and completely make the e.i.r. kind of faulty at this point -- unless you want to keep the trees? >> no. no, in fact, we had this analyzed by ucsfs legal counsel. there were a number of trees that were reviewed, and they were found not to be significant, in addition to a handful of more trees. [inaudible] >> clerk: excuse me. we can't interrupt at this point, mr. seguine, so i just muted everyone. i'm going to unmute mr. nelson. okay. >> commissioner swig: and me. >> clerk: of course. >> commissioner swig: i'll let you go on that, but i'd like mr. buck to address that from

the point of view of the city, when a significant grove of trees is added to a project after an e.i.r. has been completed, does that not materially impact and deny the credibility of the e.i.r.? would you please answer that, mr. buck, when it's your turn? thanks. i'm done. >> there's a question for mr. honda. >> vice president honda: yep, yep, so similar. more the permit hold holder, a understanding that this is a difficult process to navigate here in san francisco. but as you mentioned, you guys have done this many times. so at the beginning of your project, how many trees were to be removed, and -- just to be clear, and how coming to us after how many trees are to be

removed? >> i'm going to ask sarah pentiss, who's our superintendent -- and just so you understand the crhronology here, the construction company was brought on board about the middle of last year, so the project was analyzed by the city and ucsf for a number of years before they were brought on board. sarah, are you listening -- >> vice president honda: i don't mean to interrupt you. i understand. by being on this board for eight years, we've had large construction companies -- very large construction companies, say no problem, we're going to have all these trees, and then, they come up to us right before they get ready to build and say, i'm sorry, this requires a vault, this requires pg&e, and we can't keep the trees. so how many trees did you start with, and how many trees do you have now? >> sorry. i'm going to ask sarah to step

in here. >> this was -- hello? can you all hear me? >> vice president honda: yes. >> this was stated in the e.i.r. to be 25 trees. since then, we expect it to be 32 trees we will be removing for the project. >> vice president honda: and incrementally, it's just these eight -- well, between, 25 and 32 is only seven, so from your original e.i.r.,on?

>> my name is angela donahue, senior project manager with ucsf. i spoke with sarah when mr. seguine first contacted the project team on or about april 6, and i investigated -- i was kind of shocked why there would be a tree that was removed when i know that our project teams would not have been approved to be on the site. so i have a relationship with the gardener, ann wood, and she did say that on several

different e-mails she kind of had to recorrect herself, her memory, and that on -- i believe it was june, there had been a large tree limb that had fallen. and in october -- and it was october 20, i believe, and it was not within the ten-foot right-of-way. she said that was on their property, and she was able to get someone to come out immediately on october 26 to remove that tree because they were very worried for the safety of public that aare undh those trees. and that had been communicated to mr. seguine on april 7, 2020. thank you very much. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> vice president honda: thank you very much. that was it. >> commissioner tanner has a

question. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: yes, thank you, alex. so my question is if you can go into some more of the community outreach that was done. you know, i think while i certainly understand the difference between e.i.r.s and kind of going through with other projects and the reason why the building had to shift, it could strike some as a little bit of a bait and switch: oh, we're going to only take out 25 trees, and now, it's 32. what organization methods have you been using to get the word out about this, and what's been the response from some of these organizations? >> so let me jump right in here, we've been in front of potrero boosters, neighborhood groups, and community meetings held at the hospital. i know that a number of us have

been in these hearings. >> i'll just say that jeff is correct. we've been to all of those organizations, and i want to particularly emphasize at every porter, we do a meeting with all of the neighbors that live around csfg, and this item is a standing item on the agenda, and we have senior ucsf leadership there, as well as bolt going through and talking about the latest updates on the project, so i think we -- >> we can see that these comments that are brought by the appellant are reflective of the scientific community and frustration about the recent number or i don't know how you would kind of relate the reaction from the community about the loss of trees -- the additional trees? >> no. honestly, and having been at the meetings, i do not recall negative reaction from the

community about our plans for the trees. angela donahue, i know you were on, as well. do you want to speak to the meetings and the presentation about the tree removal? >> yes, i can do that. again, angela donahue, ucsf. so at those meetings starting on about march, and we responded to the appeal with exhibits from those meetings. but renderings showed the building and loading and unloading section on vermont street without the trees. it did show the areas that were able to be planted north of the building and south of the building. and the general consensus from the community was more -- more concerned with the impact of actual construction and where the trucks were going to be entering in and out. they were honestly very

delighted with the detail and rigor with which the designers were working on the aesthetics of the building as well as developing the green space. so i think those neighbors felt very good that they were listened to. >> commissioner tanner: okay. great. thank you. that's all my questions. >> operator: julie, are you there? >> commissioner tanner: julie, we can't hear you. in the absence of julie's voice, i believe -- is it the department now? >> clerk: it's the department now. can you hear me? >> commissioner tanner: now we can. >> clerk: now you can?

>> commissioner tanner: yes. >> clerk: okay. we're moving onto the department of urban forestry. chris buck? >> chris buck of department of public works bureau of urban forestry, urban forester. i'm going to share my screen, commissioners. >> clerk: i hear some chatter in the background. can you turn your t.v. down or you should be on mute, i'm not sure. >> okay. great. thank you, commissioners. so we've been involved with the project since mid-november when we first met with ucsf and the department of public health. i do have some information that will hopefully provide some context. so while preparing for this hearing, one thing is that the bureau of urban forestry staff determined an error in jurisdiction, and that public works does not have jurisdiction over significant trees unless those trees are either on private property or on property under the jurisdiction of public works,

i.e., owned by public works. the subject property at 1001 potrero avenue is owned by another city agency, department of public health, which is not considered private property, and it's not owned by public works. so the upshot is san francisco's urban ordinance describes trees as either on the jurisdiction of public works, meaning owned by public works, or on private property. so i apologize for the confusion, but what that means is that four significant trees are no longer considered significant and not in our jurisdiction. the seven street trees along the vermont street section of the property remove under this appeal and under the permitting jurisdiction of public works. in their brief, both appellants klipp and seguine state that the applicant, ucsf, mistreated the trees. one tree was removed by hospital grounds maintenance

staff, and though the tree was on the subject property, the tree was beyond 10 feet from the public right-of-way and not under the jurisdiction of public works, even when public works was assuming jurisdiction where it had none. so the image shown by the appellant that has our wrapping on it was formally considered significant. the tree that i confirmed with ann woods, who i've worked with for years at s.f. general, she confirmed that the tree location, circled in the background, was an immediate public safety concern, and they removed that tree. we did provide that information to the appellant right away back in april. as you can see, there's no site -- other site disturbance, so clearly, the removal has been confirmed to have been performed by on-site staff unrelated to any of the appeal or subject removals. here's a photo of the subject

trees. three of the seven trees are called red iron bark uk leucals trees. the bark looks like they've survived a forest fire. that's just a characteristic of the tree. they're spread throughout the right-of-way, what would become the sidewalk area on vermont adjacent to the property. two of the other seven trees are ash trees, seen here. the ash tree on the right is smaller, has poor structure. the ash tree on the left is actually a pretty good tree. i don't have a lot of negative things to say about that. and then trees six and seven are seen just barely above the height of the green fencing on the far left. these are the seven subject trees. so we approve the removal of the seven subject trees along the vermont frontage because

there would be no way to construct the building without damaging too many of the root blocks. although the trees are large and mature, they are not good candidates to retain as part of the project in the public right-of-way, and again, i've just reviewed the three, two, and two, for a total of seven street trees. regarding the public works notification, our urban forestry inspector, marcus dotson, posted the public street trees in the right-of-way for the 30-day notification period from january 1 to february 9, which is 30 or 31 days, depending on how you want to count that. the two trees on the frontage no locker nger in our jurisdic

do not receive notices until they're scheduled for the hearing. as such, they were posted for the hearing on february 14. our bureau has reviewed all four frontages of the property in great detail, identified all street tree planting sites. our next step is to work with the applicant to have the potential planting sites marked to determine the presence of any underground utilities. however, these planting sites meet all other guidelines established in the director's order which regulates the planting of street trees in the right-of-ways. these are locations where street trees can be planted once we rule out any below ground conflicts. so on the basis that proper notification was adhered to by city staff both in the posting of the city staff and then protested by the public, and then the timely and legal manner in which the notices were posted at least seven days

prior to the hearing, the department asks the commission uphold the decision to remove the seven trees, permit 784999 with a modification to acknowledge that four trees formerly identified as significant are no longer under our jurisdiction and no longer the subject of this permit. that concludes the presentation, but to reiterate, public works confirmed that the one tree removed was removed by department of public health staff out of necessity, not under our jurisdiction, and it's unrelated to development of the site. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig, and then vice president honda. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yeah, okay. i'm here.

the later it gets, the slower i get. mr. buck, the question i asked before. these trees -- the removal of these trees were not part of the plan prior to completion of the development -- the development and the completion of the e.i.r. doesn't the removal of seven mature established important trees undermine the entire credibility of the e.i.r. or a significant amount of credibility with regard to an e.i.r. that took those trees under consideration as part of its opinion? >> thank you, commissioner swig. chris buck, public works, bureau of urban forestry. so, you know, public works became aware of the project, specifically the tree removal portion of this, in november of 2019, and public works is not -- is not directly involved with jurisdiction over e.i.r.,

and so i'd -- unfortunately, i wish i could yield that stick, but i would be kind of speaking beyond my own jurisdiction. i hear what you're saying. i will say that just generally speaking, there hasn't been a lot of public comment regarding this case, and i know there's near here nor there to the two appellants. to them, these two mean the word, but i'm not here to speak to the e.i.r. i don't know if scott sanchez is still with us, but i think it would almost be something for planning to speak to. >> commissioner swig: yeah. i'd like to find out who can address the -- i don't want the answer coming from the appellant, and i don't want the answer coming from the project sponsor. obviously, there will be

inherent bias. i think i would like to know who in the city -- we create e.i.r.s for a purpose. they are created by an agency responsible for the jurisdiction on that land for a purpose. this e.i.r. was developed and i'm sure done perfectly, but then, the rules changed. the plans changed, and a number of trees with significant environmental impact were removed. so whato's going to give me an answer? what state agency, anyone, what agency is going to give me an answer, is the removal of a significant grove of trees which is mature and cannot be replaced -- can be replaced in number but not replaced in environmental impact. what does that do to the

environmental impact report that was created when these -- the demolition of these trees were not included in the plan. >> commissioner swig, may i jump in for a moment? >> commissioner swig: yeah. >> i think you might want to ask our deputy city attorney a bit about that because if this is a challenge to the e.i.r., then that is not properly before this body. so i think with your permission i'd like to ask deputy city attorney russey if he'd potentially comment on that? >> sure. good evening, commissioners. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> so commissioner lazarus is correct, that ceqa issues are not typically something that the board of appeals considers. my understanding based on from

what the parties submitted was that the environmental impact report for this project with regard to the trees says that the project sponsors will follow the requirements of the public works code, including planting the appropriate replacement trees. that was the analysis in terms of what was part of the environmental impact part of this project. i'm not a ceqa expert. i don't know that i can tell you whether the change would have impacted the environmental impact report under ceqa, but it sounds to me as though ucsf is complying with the part of that document that was submitted. >> commissioner swig: thank you very much. one final question, and then, i'll shut up. mr. buck, how young replacement trees need to be planted to replace the benefit to the

environment that the seven mature trees offer in their current condition? >> thank you, commissioner. chris buck, department of public works, bureau of urban forestry. i don't know the direct answer to that question. >> commissioner swig: i wouldn't expect it. >> yeah. our code doesn't, you know, address that, and that's something that we're looking at in terms of can we beef up our code to talk about replacement canopy and not just one-for-one replacement? what i think we all acknowledge readily and regularly is that mature trees provide great benefit and you benefit that young trees take a

while to provide. but it's a valid point that comes up a lot at our hearing. >> commissioner swig: yeah. i only ask questions because mr. russi gave me my leave. what is the proper tree number as dictated by d.p.w. regulation? and certainly, seven little trees do not replace seven mature trees in my view. what about in your view. >> no. chris buck, department of public works bureau of urban forestry. our code says when someone replaces a street tree, they need to replace the tree or pay an in lieu fees. so in our view, plabting a

replacemer -- planting a replacement tree, paying in-lieu fees, and planting trees elsewhere will fulfill that regulation. >> commissioner swig: thank you. i'll stand down. >> vice president honda: okay. am i up? >> clerk: yes. >> vice president honda: my question is, mr. buck, eucalyptus, you said there was one healthy and vigorous ash still on the property. can you give me an idea what it would cost to relocate that? >> chris buck with public works. the -- hard to say. it could be $10,000, somewhere in that range. >> vice president honda: and would the b.u.f. have a spot to use that particular tree?

>> we have some open space areas. we would have to go through our public rights of way, like, a median or parcels owned by public works. one other idea is it is a public right-of-way, so i do like the idea of that being relocated within the public right-of-way. we'd have to -- i haven't considered that for a tree that size ever. >> vice president honda: okay. i'm just trying to think out loud -- we're evidently not going to make everyone happy, and this is a very large project, and, you know, i am kind of in line with what you say you're going to do you should do, and understanding that this is a very large project, and there is change, and things happen, i'm also, you know, as with the last project with the trees, things happen. but, again, this is a large enough project where they can -- they can foot a $10,000

bill, and, you know, normally, you know, you're a tree hugger. you would tell us if the tree is good or tree is bad, and when you skip that tree over, that means that's a really good tree. that's what that's telling me, so, you know, we're looking at about $10,000. is that basically what we're talking about? >> that's -- chris buck with public works. the max would be 20,000. 10,000 seems like a reasonable estimate, and i did want to point out that there was one tree that -- you know, it's worth a conversation. we have a number of properties that we would look at to figure

out where that tree could be placed, so i think it's a reasonable discussion point. >> vice president honda: okay. so thank you very much. thank you -- and just to commissioner swig, deputy d.a. says if there's a specific question, he'd be willing to come back on-line. >> clerk: thank you. coming back -- we're moving onto public comment. is there any public comment on these items? if you called in, please press star-nine, which shows me that you want to speak. star-nine, and if you're watching at home -- okay. i see a few hands. mr. klipp, since you're an appellant, you can't speak during public comment. let me check. we have a caller whose phone number ends in -8570.

>> yeah. hello? can i speak in public comment? >> clerk: we're not showing any problem with the sound. it's unmuted. is there any other public comment? i can try to call that number. let me just try to do that quickly. okay. can you just press star-six? we're showing that you are unmuted. it's casey asbury.

>> operator: yeah, you're on the line. you can speak in public comment if you like. >> clerk: miss asbury. >> good evening. this is casey asbury with the demonstration gardens, and i can appreciate the enthusiasm of the development team for their new building. it's -- it takes a lot of enthusiasm to build a new building, and i can appreciate their self-assessment that these impacts are going to be negligible. i also understand that an e.i.r. is largely based on community impact and the assessment of those. and if the community process is flawed or not robust, meaning, for example, it's -- the hospital has a wider community than the immediate neighbors

surrounding it, so i think that we maybe need to hit the pause button on this. on the merits of the documentation, this should either be denied or continued pending full review of the discrepancy in the documentation that miss romero cites in her brief and argument. in the plan, drawing designs, and permit, the project seems poorly represented by its documentation. we seem to have some scope discrepancies here and this is not what i'm used to seeing from ucsf. the concerned public cannot precisely tell how many trees might be removed under this permit. they couldn't all along, and i want to just give my personal

experience as a patient in the hospital on multiple times, those trees helped me heal, and i know i'm not alone. the wider community of patients at the hospital has benefited, and they have not been able to communicate on this. >> time. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay. we're going to try to go to the next speaker. i believe it's miss boller. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, i can. please go ahead. you have two minutes. >> i simply want to repeat that i protest the having remote hearings because they're not accessible to the general public, and the general public should be able to attend and hear the hearing.

in my own case up until recently, up until today, the key board on my computer wouldn't work. i couldn't get any e-mails. i thought the hearing was going to be on june 1. earlier, i thought that had been the decision. that's just one small example, and the more general example is that a large percentage, a considerable percentage of people don't have access to the internet. some of them do get it normally, from senior centers or the public library, but now, they don't have that, so that

makes it so the same reason this is being held as a remote hearing is the same reason people cannot access it, and i formally and strongly am registering my objection to holding these hearings because they deny the rights of the public. >> clerk: thank you, miss boller. is there any other public comment? going to give it a moment, look down. if you're a caller, and you want to provide public comment, press star-nine. okay. i'm not seeing anybody else, so we will move onto rebuttal. we'll hear from miss romero first. miss romero, you have three minutes. >> hello. first, i'd like to point out that it's easy for this board to zoom in based on the applicant's argument and zoom

in and say yeah, this is only seven trees, yeah, there is only 11 trees, two trees, etc., but you have to grasp the bigger picture of this project. we're not trying to argue that this building should not be built, but we want to implore this board to hold the applicant accountable for their promised project. i'd also like to point out a few things briefly. first, the arborist's report, he want f in exhibit f in my brief, i believe on page 10, first, it explains that only three trees on vermont street are in poor condition, while the rest of them are in good condition. perfect condition even. additionally, i'd like to point out that the applicant's, for lack of a better word, mass on the number of trees to be removed, i'm not contesting.

it i'd like the board to look at the 2016 plan where it specifically pointed to 26 industri trees to be removed, and now, it's 32 trees. i don't understand how it could get to that number. additionally, the removal previously stated, that the existing grove would remain, although we do not have as answer as to when an e.i.r. must be resubmitted, i believe that this would be a material impact on the project, and the public has a right to be informed. fourthly, the extensive community outreach that the applicant it discussed does not necessarily equivocate to transparent documentation. it doesn't mean if the community says oh, hey, it's okay to remove these trees. we're fine with it, that does not mean that the applicant has done its job.

it is the responsibility of this commission to uphold the law of the city, and they shou -- why not tell the public? an applicant will say anything to get these trees removed today, but they should have explained it from the beginning. they still have not answered why they did not state that before the e.i.r. lastly, standard developers in the future will be affected by this decision. other developers will be inclined to act similarly, and it will encourage other departments, such as b.u.f., to not apply the laws to themselves. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from mr. seguine. you have three minutes. we don't hear you.

okay. mr. seguine, i believe you need to unmute yourself. >> okay? >> clerk: okay. we can hear you now. >> so this is not their property. this is city property, and they are leasing it. the lease agreement is based on the environmental impact report. it's as simple as that. it would be like leasing an apartment with one car garage and just taking the second just because it's vacant. you can't do that, sorry. this project is a priority project, as you can see, from the mayor, so mr. buck is under a lot of pressure to just side

with the applicant. regarding that tree that was removed, here is the response from marcus, the other person at b.u.f., who came and saw that was removed, as you can see. on march 5, this was when he replied. he says, this tree does have significant tree status, so i don't know why mr. buck is going back on his word there. to answer, just to follow up on their quarterly meetings at the hospital, yes, they attended quarterly meetings, but every presentation showed the trees remaining. that's why there was no public comment against it. you can view all their presentations on the ucsf portal. they showed the documents i

presented this evening. and back on the tree that's removed, we cannot rely on b.u.f. as you've heard from this board of supervisors inquiry, the board does not monitor illegally removed trees or adequately enforce tree penalties. this project has no definite plan, no definite landscape plan. they say in their brief that they're working with urban forestry. this is a large, $200 million project. why is there no concrete landscaping plan? why is there no solar roof? green roof? they're not making up for it. here is my neighborhood. this is a slide mr. buck prepared for a previous hearing. back then, in 2016, 29 trees

were removed, zero were planted. this is my neighborhood. since then, all of those tree basins are still empty. none of them have been planted, meanwhile, an equal amount of trees has been removed. >> clerk: thank you, mr. seguine. okay. we are now moving onto ucsf. you have six minutes in rebuttal. >> i'll just make a couple of points, and then, i'll give it back to amy if she has anything else to add. i would say beyond the seven trees in question, and we haven't even talked about the replanting plan, but this plan also does include 16 trees along the 23 street side there were also not in the e.i.r., so like i said, projects get analyzed in the e.i.r., and they are in general conforming to those e.i.r.s, so set backs are in different places, in this case, 26 trees are removed

from the south face of the building, and six trees are removed from the east face of the building. as chris said, we're working on 32 additional sites at various points around the block. we're actually looking at opportunity sites the entire way around the block to find some number of those 39 that we can actually plant trees on that, adding on where buildings allow, and i would just leave it at that, and i would just ask amy if you have anything additional to add. >> yeah, jeff, i think that's complete. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: so to the project sponsor, either one of you can answer. so what is being said based on your testimony is that you had a building already designed, and that building included in

its scope the retention of seven trees. then, you got a curve thrown at you by the agency organization that you alluded to, i believe, mr. nelson. you don't want to mess with them, or if you've messed with them, they're problematic. so basically, what i'm hearing, you had to go back to the e.i.r. that was done -- the community outreach is done. i know about e.i.r.s. i sat for seven years on the redevelopment agency. you want to talk about e.i.r.s, i've read them, and the key part about e.i.r.s, and i'm sorry, commissioner lazarus, for bringing this e.i.r. up, but this is the core of community comment. and if the e.i.r. is flawed because the building under discussion tonight is not the building that was discussed in the e.i.r., then, this project

and its building is flawed. i love s.f. general. i have a family member that was saved in december. if anyone wants to go forward with this organization, it would be me. but i'm also for personal process and community awareness, and what was approved and what was vetted and what was discussed was a building that is not this building, and it was not this building, and it included seven tree do trees, and now, it's a new building, and because another organization is giving you 55th, and you're not able or willing to go against that organization, the trees die. that's what it kind of seems like to me. is that not so? >> respectfully, no. >> commissioner swig: why not? >> it's basically the state

agency that regulates -- [inaudible] >> and we are getting closer -- [inaudible] >> commissioner swig: so you're missing the point. the building configuration, the building's design, the building's coverage of the land was changed as a result of the agency that you've just talked about. that building which was previously designed was vetted for public comment, was included in an e.i.r. consideration and subject to e.i.r. feedback and consideration. i know what we're talking about is trees, but we're really talking about the building. without the trees going away, the building doesn't get done. i think -- i'm very

uncomfortable that because of state agency giving you this -- and i'll review that -- i'll continue with that line, and you couldn't get around it as the developer and the designer, the trees are the oh, we'll get rid of them because they can't talk back, and it was no community input on the e.i.r. what am i missing here? did that not happen? >> it's actually not. >> commissioner swig: how did the community give you feedback on the trees? how did the community give you feedback on the -- in the current configuration on the study of the environment? how were they able to do that? >> so i would point to the arts commission, right? this project had a requirement that we were working in real-time to bring it in front of city commissions and community beings. from the perspective from the neighbors on the 23 street

side, this building got vastly improved. it got moved back from the street. a whole row of trees appeared from the building and the neighbors. the tradeoff was the whole building got longer, and seven trees had to be removed, but this building was vastly removed than from the e.i.r., which was a stouter, squarer building. i'm not apologizing for it, it's an improved design. >> commissioner swig: except that seven trees will -- with impact on the environment will be destroyed. that's oh, well. >> and 16 will appear as well as 39 around the rest of the block. >> commissioner swig: i'll stand down. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda? >> vice president honda: just to follow up on the question

from commissioner swig, it's not that it's a vastly improved or better building, it's the process and that the public was not a part of that process. what the public was a part of was a different building in a different location. but my question really is one for you as the builder. are you willing to move the large ash to an appropriate location that the city -- that the department of urban forestry decides to? >> i'll give that to angela. >> hi, commissioner. angela donahue with ucsf. we at ucsf want to work with the bureau of urban forestry -- >> vice president honda: sorry to interrupt. it's a pretty simple question. that would be a yes or a no.

>> it's a yes, if we can determine that it can survive. i've been a part of huge tree transplants that we have put huge vats or urns of water next to for two years, and they've died. i'm concerned that we will not have any vegetation. what i would offer is we're currently working with b.u.f., looking at replanting the vegetation that would be removed, and we would like to ensure that the vegetation we plan would really survive and add green space to the community. if the commission determines it's the replanting of this large tree, so be it. i'm just offering, i want -- i want vegetation to win. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. and a question for chris buck. the appellant brought up

several times -- well, it was brought up that it's not in the public right-of-way, that it's public land. he's brought up, who owns this property, mr. buck? does the city own this property? >> chris buck with department of public works bureau of urban forestry. this parcel of property is a large parse of owned by the department of public health. so city agency owns it, and they -- my layperson's understanding is that ucsf state agency would be leasing and constructing the building. >> vice president honda: but then, if you were a tenant, all improvements would defer to ownership, correct? if i rent at least an apartment from you, i couldn't put a kitchen in without your approval. >> vice president hond >> you know, commissioner, that's not my -- you're asking

me to write with my left hand. >> vice president honda: i'm just bringing it in context of the trees that were removed. i mean -- the tree that was removed. the city removed it. >> well, it was ultimately an application from the state to remove the trees to construct, so, you know, it's state, quasi-state agency that's ultimately the proctor. >> vice president honda: and is scott sanchez still there on the line? >> yes. scott sanchez, planning department. >> clerk: are you in your jammies, scott? >> vice president honda: those are cute jammies there. there's been a lot of questions about the e.i.r. and how the building, you know, changed whether for the good or for the

bad. can you add a little light to some of the questions that commissioner swig had asked for posed? >> yes, commissioner honda. scott sanchez, planning department. i don't think i'm up to date on all the details on the appeal that's before you, but the planning department is receive a complaint regarding the subject property, 1 001 potrer. we've been in communication with miss donahue and mr. nelson at ucsf about the issues raised. none of the issues appeared to be violations of the planning code, and we're continuing to work with ucsf to make sure that all requirements with complied with. my understanding was in addition to the e.i.r., an addendum to the e.i.r. which dealt with some changes, and that was completed in november of 2019.

not aware of any issues or concerns on the part of our department with regard to the environmental review. it's my understanding that, you know, we believe that the environmental review was properly done for the proposal and all reviews have been done properly. the compliance is relatively new, we're looking at it on the face and haven't seen any apparent violations. i think one of the issues that was raised is a survey that has to be done before trees are removed. it's my understanding that the trees have yet to be removed, and the survey outlined will be done prior to tree removal. if they went ahead with the work without doing the

appropriate renewals, then we would have an issue, but i'm sure they'll comply with all the requirements. >> vice president honda: just explain to me -- this is the question that both me and commissioner swig have. if the e.i.r. indicated one thing, and there's a change, the building changed in size, and the trees indicated to stay were on the e.i.r., but now, they're not on the e.i.r., they've changed, how does that affect the project? >> well, it's a question of general conformity with the e.i.r. the e.i.r. is generally the first document that's generally adopted as part of the an approval. sometimes, an e.i.r. can be weeked or months before final -- weeks or months before the final approval. e.i.r. kind of sets forth the

boundaries generally of a project approval. if you had something that was, you know, vastly different from what was in the e.i.r. and whether it wasn't adequately studied in the e.i.r., that would be an issue. but we don't believe that to be the case here. it's our opinion that any changes were documented in the addendum, which is the appropriate process. so i think, yeah, the e.i.r. does not kind of cast in stone what is approved by the project. that's kind of setting forth, that's the general analysis that's done at the beginning of the project. you know, there can be changed up to the planning commission hearing, making changes to the building massing. there can be changes even at the board of appeals where you're generally finding something consistent with the underlying environmental review, but changes can be made up till the permits are issued. >> vice president honda: thank you very much for chiming back in and explaining that. i appreciate that. >> no problem. >> clerk: thank you. we're still on rebuttal, and we'll hear from the department

of urban forestry. i'm not seeing any questions at this point. thank you. mr. buck, you have six minutes. >> thank you. chris buck with public works bureau of urban forestry. i will try to use just half that time. just a couple of key things because i do want to respect those appellants and the time they have taken to put into this appeal. one of the questions, again, along 23 street where we learned we don't have jurisdiction over two street trees -- sorry, two significant -- formerly significant trees, there was a discussion and e-mails that were produced per the records request for appellant klipp that showed you the discussion that we're having with my inspector and myself about whether we should approve the trees for removal along 23 related to an entrance and exit

path for the construction site. and our inspector was explaining to the applicant that ironically when we approve a tree for removal, we need to post trees for 30 days. when we deny a tree, it gets scheduled for a hearing. now i also reviewed this with my superintendent because i was on the fence, do we review these two trees, do we deny them? ultimately, we chose to deny those two trees, and so it didn't require a 30-day posting, it required to be considers as part of the general hearing -- considered as part of the general hearing when we provide the 30-day notice, so just to cross my t's on that one. and regarding appellant christopher seguine, he's right in that we don't have funding for planting new sites. we -- prop e back in 20 -- the

terrible night trump was elected, we have maintenance funding for maintenance of existing street trees. we don't have funding for new trees, and so one idea i had would be to perhaps have the applicant get a cost estimate for what it would cost to move the one large ash tree, and instead of moving that, use those funds towards funding our bureau to plant empty basins that are in that immediate area within the maps that exist. that would be my one tweak. and then lastly -- i think that was mostly it. i will say the survey has come up quite a bit, and there's a day -- you're not supposed to do the bird study until you get within a certain amount of days of when you would anticipate to remove the trees to do the nesting study. so not having done the nesting

study is not a violation. it's not required to do it until they get closer to removal, so those are some of the points i just wanted to address as part of our r rebuttal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. let's -- we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: quick question, chris. so say we don't plant the trees and we estimate the trees at 10,000 to 20,000, so let's say $15,000. how many trees could you plant in the neighborhood or $15,000? >> chris buck, department of public works -- >> vice president honda: sorry, and how long would that take? >> so turnaround time, we could plant them within three to six months. we generally have an established in-lieu fee.

it's $2,122 per tree. that's the cost for us to purchase, plant, and water by hand once a week for three years one street tree. so we assess that cost for a three-year establishment to be $2,122. so doing the math, obviously, i think more importantly, we would need a quote for moving a tree. but in any way, planting young trees right from the nursery is a safer bet, and i'd rather see the -- many trees planted, you know, ten to 20 trees planted nearby. >> vice president honda: but at $2,200 -- sorry to interrupt you, but if we divide it into 15, we're only looking at seven days. i agree that transplanting is

quite dangerous, and that's like having a quadruple bypass at 90 years old. >> well, and the cost of that -- it could easily be closer to $30,000 to $40,000. they'd need a crane and a pretty large truck. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. question to the project sponsor. would you be willing to plant 15 trees in the neighborhood in some of the empty basin, 15. >> yeah. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. commissioners? >> vice president honda: okay. i guess i'll start. i would -- the project sponsor, since we cannot force them to do it, has volunteered to add

15 trees in some surrounding basins that b.u.f. would help navigate with, so i would grant the appeal and -- oh, can we condition it? >> clerk: we can't really require them to plant more than a one-to-one replacement. >> vice president honda: yeah. so basically, we're going to trust them, but b.u.f. will handle the details, chris? >> yeah, we would do that. we would make sure that they -- public works would condition, you know, no job card signoff at completion of project until those 15 trees have been planted prior to job card's out. >> vice president honda: okay. i would deny the appeal in that the permit was properly issued. >> clerk: okay. we have commissioner swig to

weigh-in? >> commissioner swig: i don't know. i'll probably support you, but i just have to make the statement, when we get into these areas where the rules have changed, where the design has changed after the process allegedly has been almost fully vetted, then we are asking for trouble because somebody, some developer, some person is going to come back six months from now, a year from now, maybe two weeks from now, and say, well, i got to tear down these trees. i know my -- we were approved on something completely different, but this -- things have changed, and i couldn't get around this, and this is the way it is. so when we do this -- and again, i think i'll probably support you, darryl, because i don't see -- i don't see a valid -- a legal point against this, but boy, you know, we just -- we're setting ourselves

up for a potential exception, exception, exception, exception. >> vice president honda: look, rick, we're de novo, and the next case can be completely different, you know? >> commissioner swig: it's a great point. like i said, i'm going to probably support you because i don't have any basis for denying you, and i like to follow the law, but this is what bugs me the most. >> vice president honda: i know. >> commissioner swig: the rules change more past the public comments, past the e.i.r. areas, and now, this is what we've got to do. sorry, folks. it doesn't make me happy. >> vice president honda: me, neither, but we're trying to get it done. >> clerk: so is that your motion? is there any further comment? >> commissioner tanner: my only comment is i'll support the motion. while i think it can be really frustrating for members of the

public, it does sound like there was excessive outreach, ongoing outreach, and an e.i.r. addendum that was filed. not having read the e.i.r. because that's not before us, it does seem like it's in general conformity. some of it has changed, but it's not changed in scope. it has created more open space, so the building has been altered in terms of its location on the property but not changed overall. i really appreciate the appellants for bringing up this issue and also for the appellant agreeing to plant more trees when it's not required. >> president lazarus: i would add a little exposure is a dangerous thing, and i've had a little experience with oshpod,

and it's not a fun thing. so are we ready to -- >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president honda to deny the appeals and uphold the order on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0, and the appeals are denied. so we are now moving onto item number 9. >> president lazarus: but i think we should have some discussion as to whether we're prepared to move forward with the item. >> commissioner swig: i'm -- i'm recused. >> vice president honda: stop talking. bye-bye. have a nice night. >> president lazarus: i want to address the question to commissioners honda and tanner. i will simply say that i'm at about the end of my rope, and

i'm not sure i could do justice to this last item. >> vice president honda: we voted as a board to seriously talk about anything past 10:00, and it is now 11:00, so i'm with you, madam president, whatever direction you want to go. >> president lazarus: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i agree. i don't think it would serve them right, depending on where we want to go. >> president lazarus: so julie, we can move it to next week's agenda. >> clerk: well, i think you'd have to make a motion, and we would have to have public comment on that motion. so did you want to give the parties an opportunity to respond to this? >> president lazarus: sure. they can have a minute each. >> clerk: okay. so it looks like we're -- the kmil commissioners are proposing to continue this item. maybe commissioner swig should just recuse himself at this

point since he doesn't need to be a part of this. >> president lazarus: yeah, i think he should. >> commissioner swig: i need to do it formally. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner swig: i need to recuse myself from this item because i have properties within 500 feet of a subject issue. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> vice president honda: good night, commissioner. >> commissioner swig: good night. thank you. >> clerk: so parties, given this late hour, the commissioners are going to vote on whether to continue this item to next week, june 3. we would put this item at the very beginning, and we're very sorry, and we apologize, but we wanted to let you have an opportunity to address the board. president lazarus, how much time do you want to give each party? >> president lazarus: one minute. >> clerk: okay. mr. klipp, can you please come forward. do you have anything to say regarding the proposed continuance? >> it's unfortunate, but i

think it's understandable. >> clerk: okay. thank you. and then, do we have a representative from mr. trent teager -- okay. we're admitting him into the meeting right now. mr. teager, the commissioners are proposing to move this item to next week, and we'll move it to the beginning. would you like to provide one minute of testimony in response to this? >> hi. can you guys hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> i'm trent steiger. i'm the project manager for the second street projects. yeah, it's 11:00. i saw in the notes that you don't push the agenda items past 10:00, so no problem. >> clerk: okay. we're sorry about that. >> vice president honda: thank you for understanding. >> clerk: and then, i have to ask, is there any public comment on this item? if there is, please raise your hand. i'm not seeing anyone's hands

raised. okay. so commissioners, do we have a vote? >> president lazarus: do we have a motion? >> clerk: yeah, we need a motion first. >> president lazarus: okay. i'll move that we defer item number 9, appeal 20-028 to the agenda for next wednesday, june 3, and it'll be the first item to be heard. >> clerk: okay. on the basis that it's late? >> president lazarus: on the basis that it's well past 10:00 when we have a policy of not considering anything past then. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. the motion carries, and i'm so sorry that everyone had to wait this late, and appreciate your patience. >> vice president honda: thank you very much. good night, everyone. >> president lazarus: we are adjourned. good night, all. >> clerk: have a good evening. thank you.

>> announcer: you're watching "coping with covid-19." >> hi, i'm chris manus and a you are watching "coping with covid-19." today joining us is susan girardeau of the california pacific medical center. and mow to cope with emotional stress of a major daf. she's here today to talk to us about how to help young children cope with this ongoing pandemic. dr. girardeau, welcome to the show. >> thank you very much. >> let's start by talking about some of the issues that 5 to

11-year-olds might be facing. what are some difficultties they might be experiencing during this pandemic? >> the biggest difficulties that all children experience is fear and anxiety and it's displayed in a variety of different ways. the kids have a fear of a family member getting sick or themselves getting sick. they have a fear of separation. obviously with our quarantine, all of us at home, children still have a fear of separation in own home, which means from room to room, that they cannot be home alone without a parent. it is very difficult and even at night to sleep in their own bed can be a problem and an issue that is under the

umbrella of anxiety. the other parts that play into it is the anxiety of when will this end? as we know currently, we don't know and that is the most difficult. and all kids, their peers, are an important part of their development. so it is often asking when can i go to school? at this point, they are very tired of online school. when can i take my friends and when can i see extended family? >> right. what kind of indicators are there that a young child is struggling right now? >> particularly behaviors that are really across the age spectrum of 5 to adolescence is sleep disturbances and increase in nightmares and in the

younger kids, night terrors. woe see across the age speck trup, fear of the dark. the other behaviors that we are seeing is the regression in their normal developmenttal tasks. for the younger child and as i referenced sleeping in their own room. other types of behaviors that parents or caregivers might see are meltdowns over relatively minor issues. often we're seeing a decrease attention and focus, especially with online school. we're also seeing headaches, stomach aches that we typically see when there is stress and trauma. >> i see. let's say we've realize add child is having difficulties. are there specific ways we can talk to them to get them to open up, perhaps phrases or

ways to ask questions that will encourage them to share their concerns? >> there are a number of ways. number one, the biggest thing that parents can do is to really listen to their child. often times we're rushed. we are working parents, plus as well as now teachers online as well as playmates. so, to pause and really listen to what their fears are. as parents, we often don't get down to a younger child's physical level, look at them and listen to them and talk to them directly. i often use the technique of nailing a feeling and kids often times -- they're not going to, especially in times of stress, come up with this feeling that they can name.

so, i recommend to parents always of naming three feelings. happy, sad and mad. and you've been through those three. not frustration. but just nailing it to those three. another technique that i highly recommend is to use the third person. in a way such as i have heard other kids say that they're scared and they don't know why they're scared. do you think that happens with you sometimes? this is a way that kids feel much safer in talking about their feelings because they don't feel like they're on the spot, but other kids are feeling that same way. >> i understand. do you think that there is secondary concerns for kids as concerns are gradually lifted? i know one small child frightened to go outside right now. >> yes. and we're seeing that already

right now. because with -- as one -- as restrictions are lifted and we're able to go outside, you know, people are wearing masks and that can be very frightening. even if halloween. many kids won't wear a mask. children under 2 do not wear masks. under 7, they don't have to. but over the age of 7, it is highly recommended by the c.d.c. that kids wear masks. that is going to be difficult. so, what i've recommended is for kids to make their own masks. they can make their own designs on the paper surgical masks. and so it is there. they can't put [inaudible] on it, whatever makes it feel a lot safer for them. other things that i have heard are kids are afraid to go outside. i heard this from a number of

families because they haven't really been able to do so so they're afraid they will get sick. i recommend that families start very small steps and the first step is take a ride in the car. that is the first way to go outside, windows down. and if you have a sunroof, open the sunroof and unbuckle the seat belts or car seat and be able to stand up and that is a small step to feel like the outside might be safe. so, it has to be in small steps for the fear it is going to be exacerbated. >> absolutely. so, could you tell me a little bit about your book, disaster shock? >> yes, "disaster shock" has been originally written for the 1989 earthquake in san francisco. this has been a number of

disasters since then and families in 1989 gave us the feedback that it was extremely helpful because there was really no literature available on how to help children and families that haven't talked to them. unfortunately our natural disasters increased with tornadoes and the last wildfires affecting northern california. it has been updated again for the pandemic. >> right. and finally, what would you say to parents about how to talk to their kids in general? could you suggest some good ways to re-assure them? >> a few ways that i have been suggesting is, number one, you have to be honest. about what you know. and be able to explain in developmentally appropriate terms what is happening. and that we are all learning.

we don't know. there are many things we don't know. but that parents need re-assure the kids that they are safe, that the family will be together. but they need to be able to get the kids a little leeway, so to speak. and i'm not saying not disciplined, but what your discipline techniques may have been before may need to lighten up a little bit because these are very unusual circumstances for adults, but as well as for kids. but i always suggest and recommend that parents be honest with the kids because that is the trust that children have in their parents. parents must be really aware their kids will hear, they will read their body language and understand the anxiety we all feel, but the parents need to be honest that they -- the kids

will be safe. >> i understand. well, thanks for coming on the show, dr. girardeau. i appreciate the time you've given us today. thanks again. >> you're welcome. >> and that is it for this episode. we'll be back with more pandemic-related information shortly. thank for watching.

>> ok. welcome to san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, may 28, 2020. as i've done so in the past before we begin, i would like to enterm the following into the record. on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. therefore, due to the health emergency, the commission chamber and city hall is closed. furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued orders suspending laws applicable to boards and commissions making it possible to hold hearings remotely. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely througth