>>. >> clerk: we motshe is joined vice president darryl honda, commissioner rick swig, and commissioner eduardo santacana. also present is deputy city attorney brad russey who will provide the board with any legal advice. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board.

the board meeting guidelines are as follows: the board requests that you turn all our cell phones or electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each and no rebuttal. time may be limited if the agenda is long or if there is a large number of speakers. for rehearing requests. the parties are given three minutes each with no rebutt al. four votes are required to grant an appeal, modify any determination or grant a rehearing request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing,

proceedings, or appeals, please contact the board. sfgov is broadcasting and streaming this item live, and we will have opportunity to offer public comment on every item on the agenda. it will be rebroadcast on fridays on channel 26. a link to the website is found on our website, sfgov.org/boa. you can join the zoom meeting by computer. please go to our website, sfgov.org/boa and click on the zoom link or you can call in 888-475-4499, and then enter the webinar i.d.:

817-8167-6946. if you want to block your number before you call, press star-67 before you dial in. if anybody needs disability or technical assistance, you can make a request to by e-mail at

boardofappeals@sfgov.org. i would like to announce that the board office has moved from 1550 mission street to 45 vanness, suite 1475. please note that our physical office is currently closed to the public. now we will swear in all those who intend to testify. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth? okay. commissioners, we do have two housekeeping items. item 4, t19-144 at 49 drum str we will not be hearing that item tonight. the second is item 8, 1174-1176 potrero avenue, the parties would like to continue the item to the call of the chair while they work on a solution, and we do need a vote to continue that item. >> does that require any public comment, julie?

>> clerk: yes, it does, so is there any public comment on continuing that item, please raise your hand. i see a few attendees raising your hand. miss down, are you here to speak about this item being continued? >> no, i'm going to speak about something different. >> clerk: okay. so we're going to hold off then. we'll get back to you. okay. i don't see any public comment on this item, so do i have a motion to continue it to the call of the chair. >> commissioner swig: so moved. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion to move from commissioner swig and second from commissioner santacana. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so the motion carries, and the item is moved to the call of the chair. we are moving to item number 1, which is general public

comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who'd like to speak on any matters in the board's jurisdiction but is not on the calendar. miss down, are you here for general public calendar or a specific item? >> general public comment. >> clerk: okay. would you like your video -- okay. we're going to move you to a panelist. miss down, are you ready? >> yep. >> clerk: please go ahead. >> okay. yeah, i just wanted to raise an issue and talk about something that happened in hayes valley. the three wells -- two of the tree wells that were dug up for replacement trees were concreted in by mistake by the contractor, and luckily, i spotted it in time, and i e-mails ana and madeleine, and she talked to them, and susan went to double-check that the

fix was happening, but i wanted to raise that as an issue because i think it would be worthwhile to make sure to put some extra processes in place to make sure it doesn't happen again? i feel like i have to check on the tree wells to make sure they're not getting concreted in. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much. okay. we will now hear from the caller whose number ends in 4906. please go ahead. >> this is kendra sharick. i'm one of the appellants on the 24 street case. i'd like to follow up on what was just presented about the cementing over of the wells in hayes valley. as somebody who has worked very closely with b.u.f. and with

the other appellants to try to create some trust and transparency and good faith, when we see these things happening with the pruning and the cementing over of the wells in hayes valley, i can say it's very alarming, and so i'm calling in just to put forth that these things are -- that we've been made aware of them, and that we find them extremely concerning, and that we'll be extra vigilant with the 24 street things, and i hope that all of us can be extra vigilant that this will not follow suit when it comes to the tree removal in our neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from miss siutot. >> okay. is it possible for me to share my screen?

>> clerk: yes. >> okay. i'm calling on hayes valley. i just want to share some photos. this is some of the pruning that was done. we were a little shocked. about 80 to 90% of the foliage was removed, and the arborist that was hired by the 24 street folks looked at this and i think made a phone call to carla about how inappropriate this pruning was. that's one photo. i have a couple more. this is one -- i'm sorry. you can see they basically just chopped off one half of the tree. i'm not sure what the goal was, but it's very unaesthetic. here's another one where they seemed to have chopped off half

the tree, and here's another one where they basically just chopped off half the tree. so i'm just very concerned about the type of pruning that's being done. it doesn't seem -- it doesn't seem right. i don't understand quite what the objectives are, and i'm hoping that they can come back and maybe fix it so that it doesn't look so awful. for the ones where they took off too much foliage, i don't think they can be repaired. but i just wanted to bring this to your attention because i don't think that the prunes is going very well. thank you. that's all. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. klipp. mr. klipp? >> yeah, i also heard about the hayes valley cementing, and it was really disheartening

because part of what we did in the 24 street matter, and we had this budget shortfall coming up, and we tried to find ways that we can work with the city. but i also do want to acknowledge that madeleine of the bureau of urban forestry was quick to respond to that, and i appreciate that. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other general public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see anyone else raising their hand. okay. i do see one person raising their hand. one moment. okay. mr. karnazes? >> hi. can you call hear me? >> clerk: yes, welcome. >> thank you. my name is zach karnazes, and i'm a disabled advocate, and i

want to thank everyone speaking up about another incident with d.p.w., about their misuse of public funds and violating public trust in their care of the urban forest and natural habitat. this happens frequently. they've been cutting down trees since their appeals process. their director, mohamed nuru, was arrested on charges of fraud, and study shows that this is the norm. i am not naive enough to believe that that department is worthy of that public trust right now, public trust they can continue to violate. i would like to see this board really recommend for appointing new members to the positions that are filled. you're not going to get rid of corruption if you have the same

people doing the same things. i'm talking about chris buck, and nancy sarai, and the other people in that department that continue to do cut downs and removals. i also want to speak to how hard it was to get access to a disability presentation. it's usually quite easy, but this particular one, being denied that accommodation was really concerning, and i'm glad that it's being granted now, but it's really important that disabled people have the same access to public meetings, and moving another item up on the agenda is a really basic, no-cost way to solve the item on the agenda. if there's another person struggling with health problems on the agenda, please, by all means, let them go first. but the only way for me to present an item or speak on an

item, is to move my item to first on the agenda. the only way that people with disabilities will have the same access that everyone is to have access granted. >> clerk: mr. karnazes, i did not know you would be presenting at tonight's meeting. that was why i answered it the way i did. okay. we'll move onto commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? i don't see any, so we'll move onto item number 3, adoption of

the minutes. >> commissioner swig: motion to approve. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment to commissioner swig's motion to approve the minutes? okay. i don't see any public comment, so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0, and the minutes are adopted. karnaz >> i was raising my hand to give a public comment. >> clerk: oh, i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i'm visually raising my hand. the minutes for -- it's july 29, 2020, is that correct? >> clerk: yes.

>> they are not available on the board of appeals website to the public right now, and i don't think they should be available to the public until we can make sure they're an accurate reflection of our statement. >> clerk: they are available with the public comments on our website. we put that with the hearing date after they're approved, but are you suggesting that the draft -- since this is -- for example, this is item number 3. if they are posted on our website, it's item number 3, but you're making the suggestion that we also post the draft possibly with the hearing date? because they haven't been adopted yet -- or they have now. >> well, just like on the board of appeal website, if you look at the tabs, it has the agenda, minutes, and supporting documents, and for this meeting that we're talking about, and july 15, and july 8, and june

27, and june 10, there's a category, but nothing there. >> clerk: right. once the minutes are adopted, we put them next to the hearing date. so this is part of the supporting documents. tomorrow, we'll post them. after they're adopted, we post them. >> okay. i appreciate your patience with me. i don't mean to derail the meeting. >> clerk: no problem. >> clerk: . >> am i incorrect in understanding that in the past, they've been posted -- >> clerk: we post them after we adopt the item number. >> okay. thank you for the clarification. >> clerk: okay. so we are moving on. we are going to move onto item number 5.

item number 5 is a rehearing request for appeal 19-099. subject part at 24 street between pat remember ootrero s mission street. zach karnazes is the appellant. this matter was decided on july 15, 2020. at that time, upon motion by commissioner tanner, the board voted 4-1, to grant the appeal and issue the order with the following four conditions: only 33 trees shall be removed on 24 street. these trees shall be replaced by 50 trees that are of gingko and red maple variety and shall

be in at least 24-inch boxes. further, they shall replaces within three months of removal. the removal and replacement is block by block and the trees and the stumps must be removed prior to moving onto the next block. an additional 95 trees shall be planted in the neighboring blocks as identifies in the mission verde plan that was presented at the hearing on july 15, 2020. the sees and species shall be determined -- size and species shall be determined by sfpb-buf in agreement with the community, and these trees shall be planted within six to 12 months of the hearing date. b.u.f. and the community shall review the sites together and ensure that the murals are protected. any wood from the trees that

are removed shall be made available to the community for art. the stakes that are used for the trees may be utilized by the community in collaboration with b.u.f., for the purpose of displaying and showcasing art. any damage trees shall be replaced within two months. b.u.f. and the community shall work together to develop a watering plan for these trees as submitted in the mission verde plan submitted on july 15, 2020. prior to the trees being removed, there must be an opportunity for a recognition ceremony that is safe and socially distanced in order to say good-bye to the trees. this ceremony shall be organized by mission verde and calle 24. mr. karnazes, you may present.

>> there was so many problems with this hearing. at one point, somebody was requesting that i share my screen because we couldn't access it. at one point, we had public comment from a mrs. boler -- i hope i'm saying it right -- saying, people who don't have access to a computer, especially now with public buildings closed, where they do use the computers. so we had a people with tech issues, and i don't think it's their fault. these meetings are confusing and hard to access, even though there's been some excellent efforts on the part of staff, but i do think there was a serious access barrier. i think these meetings can work well with five people, ten people from the public, but when you've got huge numbers of

people like we had on july 15, many of which had been to these meetings before, had no idea on what was going on or how to be included, i think this board was really looked for the input that they received. in addition, this board has not even considered or spoken at all about the disability violations, and the accessibility violations leading up to our first appeals hearing. chris buck said in his reply -- i think service chris buck, correct me if i am wrong, but there were public hearings on april 26. it wasn't until after i filed my appeal that the department of public works began to try to

be in compliance with the americans with disabilities act. the fact that the actual hearing for these trees was inaccessible to me as a person with disabilities. i didn't know about it. the notifications are only put on trees, so i think it would be good if the board could consider and talk about the disability violations here, but they haven't, so that's why i think there should be some consideration for a rehearing where those things with spoken about as well as those things seriously lacking on july 15. thank you for your time. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from carla short from the bureau of urban forestry. can we spotlight her, please? >> thank you. good evening, president lazarus, vice president, commissioners.

carla short, department of bureau of urban forestry. i would note that mr. karnazes said that there's no real-time sensitivity to that, and i would just disagree with that assessment, as we have, in the intervening months, since this process began, we have had to limit failures along 24 street. and so the department's perspective is there's no new information, and therefore, we would request that you deny the rehearing request. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. you called in, star-nine. if you're on zoom, raise your hand. okay. i don't see anybody raising their hand, so there's no public comment. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president lazarus: commissioners? >> commissioner swig: a motion to deny the appeal. i don't think there's any new

information. the standard is very high, and i didn't hear any information that was presented before. >> did yi did want to comment e requester. as an important and somebody on this board, i take very seriously the rights of public comment as well as those who are disabled to be accommodated. i don't think it's accurate to say that the members of this board have not considered the complaints that have been made with respect to public access and the access for the disabled. speaking only for myself now, i would say that we have made tremendous efforts in a very difficult situation to make it possible for the public to participate openly and freely, and i would like to thank our executive director for the efforts that she has made in

that regard, and so i would support denying this request. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny this request on the basis that there's no new evidence. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that request is denied. thank you. okay. so we are now going to move onto item number 7 thank you. i believe item number 6 went away. this is lance carnes, at 15 joy

street, appealing the issuance on june 16, 2020, to joy peak, l.l.c., of a public works order. the applicant agrees to retain the trees as long as possible to mitigate disruptions during construction. two, replacement with two 24-inch box coast live oak industry trees. tree protection measures shall be installed prior to the start of construction. this is order number 203269, and mr. carnes, we'll hear from you first. please spotlight him. mr. carnes, are you there? >> operator: trying to get the audio from him. >> clerk: okay. bear with us. we're having some technical issues.

>> operator: do you want me to give him a call? >> clerk: okay. president lazarus -- okay. do you want to give him a quick call? >> operator: yeah, i'll call him right now. >> clerk: we'll give him a few minutes, and, president lazarus, if approximate we can't get him, we'll go on and

get back to that. >> president lazarus: that's fine. . >> clerk: thank you for your patience, everyone.

>> operator: i just spoke with mr. carnes. he will be joining us shortly. thank you. >> president lazarus: okay. >> clerk: okay. mr. carnes? welcome. >> thank you. i looked at the agenda and figured i had time to get a drink of water. >> clerk: okay. we're ready for you. >> okay. >> clerk: you have seven minutes. >> okay. thank you. so alec has my slides going there. good evening, president lazarus, vice president, and commissioners. i'm lance carnes, and we're

going to show the joy street project. in december 2019, one tree only was posted for removal. march 2020, b.u.f. rights and order to remove four trees. public pointed out that only one tree was publicly noticed for removal. b.u.f. committed three major fouls. allowed trees to be removed without complete filings, total of three trees to be removed. altered their public record to accommodate the notification. first, we'll look at the subject property and then at 15 joy street. so if you move up to the first slide there, okay. so then stop here. application for tree removal, this is the required

application for all tree removal. if you notice, all the information in this application is completed. when you get to page 7, this is the tree -- back up, page 7. one -- back up. that's the tree protection site plan for trees that remain during construction. down to page 8, this is the paper notice attached to trees. it shows nine trees are going to be removed, and the listing on the d.p.w.s website, showing the number of trees and whatnot. now we'll look at the filings for 15 joy street. so scan down to page 10, ple e

please. so back up to page 10. so the basic request for removal was not filed for this project. now page 11, and you notice that -- you can just scan page by page. you'll notice none of the material is filled out on this required checklist. page 15. okay. the tree protection site plan was not -- that was not filed. it must be filed at the outset, not any time before construction as the order 203269 says. page 16 is the paper notice for trees. notice of number of trees is

blank. page 17 is the listing on the d.p.w.s website. so page 17 shows a comparison of these two projects. so market street, everything was completed. 15 joy street, no removal application, no site protection plan, and the required checklist had no information. supposed to have the number of trees removed, and the posting notice showed a blank number of trees. if you look at the bottom of this page, this is a listing from the database that shows how many trees are listed only at joy street, and there's only two trees there, a ficus tree

and a josse pruitt. so in march 2020, b.u.f. orders removal of nine trees. how can that be when there's only two trees. the public contacted b.u.f. several times about the discrepancy. on page 19, if you go down to the next page, ian keller from b.u.f., wrote me that all trees was properly noticed, and the number of trees was listed on the website. a quick look at the chart below shows that there's only one tree, 15 joy street, was ever listed on the d.p.w. website, not four, as in the march order. on page 21, and this one is rather disturbing. this is the -- if you remember what the posting order looks like, this is what -- you know,

the -- shows what the microsoft word keeps what happened to this document. remember, it says no number of trees, 15 joy street, and it was created on november 18, 2018. could i have the next page, please. you'll see a second document, which was the one that was included in mr. buck's respondent's brief, and here, it shows there are four trees at 15 joy street, and that document was modified on may 19, 2020. so it's not -- it's not an accurate document. the posting dated were 12-19 through 1-2020. okay. going on, where are we?

22? so on page 23, the number of trees on the removal order since march has been four. however, the original permit order was for one to three trees. >> clerk: 30 seconds removing. >> at the 11th hour, b.u.f. decided to pull the remaining number of trees back to three, even though mr. keller went through all the trouble of altering the public record. the next page, please. the board has requested to rescind d.p.w. permit 784908, starting the removal process again, with properly filings and public notices. >> clerk: that is time. thank you, mr. carnes. you'll have time in rebuttal. we will now hear from the determination holder.

i believe mr. jerry colanning is here to speak. mr. colanning, welcome. you have seven minutes. >> yes, hi. i'm actually steven ansonares, the architect. i don't know if jerry is here to speak more, but it seems like the majority of the item , the appellant is pointing out are items pertaining to the notice. all i need to say about the street itself is i don't know if the board knows this, but it's a completely atypical street. it is completely undeveloped, and no right-of-way, and there's an abundance of flora, fauna, and plantings on the undeveloped right-of-way. so there's one tree in particular that is very close

to the house under construction that will be extremely damaged in terms of it being pruned in order for the instruction to take place, and the street people determined that that was, in fact, something we could try to save, but it probably wouldn't be a viable tree in the end. again, i can't speak to all the detailed notice issues that were pointed out. i think somebody else will have to speak to that. i think i'm done talking. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i see that jerry colanning is here. somebody -- are you done with your time or mr. colanning, did you want to speak during your time? >> yeah, this is on behalf of

jerry. this is joel bryan. >> clerk: okay. joel bryan, okay. >> this is something directed at steven, so i think we should leave it back to steven keller. >> clerk: okay. do you have anything further? >> no. we planted four trees, but the ones that are there, they can't be left there because we're actually putting up development. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so are you done with your presentation? >> yes, thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so we have a question from vice president honda? >> vice president honda: yes. this is addressed to the permit holder? do you understand why we're

here tonight? it's regarding the permit for the process of the tree removal, and what i'd like to have addressed by you as a developer is who handled that permit because at this point, what the appellant is saying is that the permit is flawed, and at which point, you would have to start all over again on the tree removal process. so who is responsible for -- for -- for gathering that permit and requesting it? >> when i met steven keller at the project, and we went through everything, and he said, you know, the tree needs to go to do the project -- >> vice president honda: no, i understand that the tree needs to go, but who -- what is before us this evening is that the permit is flawed and it being issued. so if it's flawed, it has to start from zero again.

so i'm asking you, if you're the developer, who on your team is making sure applying and making sure everything was correct. >> so i'm the architect, and i'm responsible for the house -- the permits for the new houses. when it came time for the street encroachment permit, we have to actually build a set of stairs to the houses because, again, it's undeveloped right-of-way, and it's natural ground out there. the trees themselves came up later as what i understood was completely taken over or steven keller sort of managed it. i responded with what was requested, and i think in there, ivana construction maybe handled some of the permitting. so i don't know. i submitted some of the permits

after they were requested to be submitted. >> vice president honda: we'll just hear the case as it goes. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the department, miss carla short from b.u.f., you have seven minutes. >> thank you. i'm going to try to share my screen here. >> i have the document if you need it. >> okay. let's see. did that work? >> clerk: yes.

>> okay. thank you, commissioners. carla short, san francisco public works, department of urban forestry. so mr. carnes had three primary complaints, that the developer didn't follow our recommendations, that we treated them specially, and that we did he fended the incompletely removal and failed the public when we did not show all the tree removals on the public notification page. so i will just quickly try to address each of these points. the developer did ultimately submit all of the necessary paperwork. b.u.f. staff met the applicant on-site for a preapplication meeting, and therefore, he was aware of all of the relevant information before they submitted it. he did follow up with an e-mail, indicating the necessary documents, and they filed the tree planting and protection checklist as well as the site plan initially and then followed up with the removal paperwork, and all of the fees that were required were paid. to the assertion that we treated this developer favorably moving forward, mr. keller did meet with them at the outset to require which trees would require permits. as noticed, this is an undeveloped right-of-way, so where tree right side in the right-of-way and where they are

versus under our jurisdiction versus significantly where they are under the code, versus trees that are located within the property that's being developed is not easy to determine at that location. so he met with them and determined which trees would require permits. he noted that the bureau would not approve any of the native oaks for removal, and that they would require a tree protection plan, which he then followed up with an e-mail, and afterwards, pending all of the necessary application materials and process, mr. keller proactively put a hold on the release of their d.b.i. addendum. i wasn't going to show all of these details, but i'll just quickly scroll down to show that he sent this as a follow up, indicating what was going to be required after the site meeting, so this is -- i don't know if that's visible, but that's just an e-mail from our

inspector, mr. keller, with all of the requirements that was required. additionally, as noted, he contacted d.b.i. to notify them that he was placing a hold on the project for ten months prior to releasing the hold to ensure that all of the necessary paperwork was submitted. so i think that it's clear we weren't giving them favorable treatment, we were holding them to the necessary documents in order to issue the permit. and then lastly, mr. carnes indicates that we failed to notify the public when we did not show or announce on the trees on the removals notification page. so it's correct that we had an error initially on the tree removals notification page in december, which i will note was a brand-new notification process, which we implemented in order to make it easier for the general public to identify

if there were trees posted for removal. however four stems, what we then determined were three trees were physically posted on -- on december 18. we announced on the website on the 23rd that trees at this location were proposed for removal. it is true that only one tree was listed on that page at that time, but anyone who was concerned about a tree being removed could have contacted us for more information. the initial hearing was cancelled due -- initially due to the shelter in place. the first hearing was scheduled i believe for march. the may hearing, we chose to postpone when we were aware that there was a mistake on the website. so in an effort to try to avoid a technicality, we proactively

chose to postpone that item to the june hearing to ensure that all public notifications was properly received. so each time there was notice on our website about the hearing and about the trees proposed for removal, and each time, the trees themselves were physically posted with removal notices. i would submit that, clearly, the public notification process worked. the number of folks who rely on the website to determine if a tree's going to be removed did get notice that there were trees posted for removal at this location. clearly, some of neighbors who also participated in the hearing were aware that trees were proposed for removal because we had two additional people who participated in the public hearing. i would just say that, you know, we ultimately -- oh, to address the point about three

versus four trees, one of the hollywood junipers is clearly a stand-alone, which i'll show a oat photo of that. it's one stem, and it's standing by itself. however, trees 2 and 3, one of them is a multistemmed tree, so initially, it wasn't clear if it was two trees or one tree with two stems emanating low on the trunk. we notified the public of four trees, and all stems were posted. prior to the hearing, mr. buck went out to the site and concluded that one of these two in trees two and three was actually a single tree, not two trees.

so i would just like to state that i think the process worked. i don't see what we gain by starting over. clearly, there was public notification. we ultimately got all of the necessary paperwork. frankly, coming to the board of appeals is always a challenge, but in this case, i felt really comfortable defending the department because these trees were notified many times. in any case, they had six months of notification. >> clerk: that's your time. thank you. we have a question from commissioner honda. >> vice president honda: thank you, mr. sho you, miss short. we haven't seen you in quite a while. hearing the oral, that is a -- that's the reason why there was a modification in march regarding the tree count, was so that the department can get a -- present a more accurate number and then go forward for

notification, and then the process for the property time going through? is that -- is that what i'm understanding? >> yeah, i think so. let me just try to clarify. so again, initially, all the stems of the trees were posted, and there were four stems. one of the trees is a multistem tree with two stems that emanate from very low in the trunk, so it appears that they might be two trees planted very closely together. i did also just want to clarify, the initial notice was handwritten with a sharpie, so the word document that was shown by mr. carnes showed a blank there, but that's because the inspector wrote the number in because he wasn't sure exactly how many trees were out there. at that time, he concluded four based on the stems. and then only after -- prior to the final hearing at public works -- and again, this had been rescheduled several

times -- that it got switched to the three trees rather than four trees. >> vice president honda: okay. and then my final question. because the time was extended, it means the public had proper notification, and we're not talking with preferential treatment or anything, it just got extended so that the public got notification and was aware that the tree or trees were going to be removed. what you're saying is that there was a property notification and timing. could you give me a quick scenario of what the property time notification is and what the department did? >> sure. so the requirement by code is that we notify the public and interested parties for 30 days, and that initial notification took place in december, for beyond 30 days. those notices were properly

posted on the trees themselves, which has historically been our way of notifying the public. as i noted, the addition of placing notifications on the website is a relatively new practice that we are committed to and committed to getting right, but that has not been our historic practice for notifying the public of tree removals. so that initial notification took place in december for 30 days, and then the hearing wasn't -- due to the timing of the notice being placed in mid-december, it wasn't scheduled until the march tree hearing because it has to go through, you know -- if we have many cases like you, it might get pushed to the march hearing. prior to the march hearing, notices were also placed on the trees, so they were, again, public noticed, and then that hearing was cancelled due to shelter in place. we scheduled it for may, and

noticed were placed on the trees, and the other notices were still on the trees, so they had been up that entire time, and we also notified the public of our -- the upcoming hearing on the website. the may hearing, we discovered that there was an error in the website notification for the hearing itself, and out of an underance of caution, we chose to postpone to june just to make sure that there was no misunderstanding about when the hearing was happening and that these trees were proposed for removal. and so we actually had two people who showed up virtually to the may hearing who spoke about this case and then came again to the june hearing when it was finally heard. so for each of those cases, noticed were placed on -- notices were placed on the trees themselves, and notices were placed on our website.

>> vice president honda: so by my count, we're at triple notices. >> it's typically one month, and we're at six months from the original notice. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we're moving onto public comment. i believe miss natalie down, did you want to provide public comment? >> yes, please. >> clerk: please go ahead. you have three minutes. >> okay. i'm told that this private property owner and steven keller from the d.p.w. disregarded the process, the required process and is outright gaslighting the public about how many trees need to be removed and what process they actually followed. it doesn't matter how many other trees are on the street, we and the city have a responsibility to maintain and protect the health of every tree that we have. we can't just keep removing ecologically essential trees just because it's inconvenient in this time of a worsening climate crisis. i'm sure i don't have to remind the board that we have one of

the worst ever canopies in the united states of america, and yet this is the effort that goes into looking after what little we have? this effort in the urban canopy by the developer in this matter is a joke. we should absolutely uphold this appeal to the removal permit. >> clerk: thank you. do we have any other public speakers in. >> operator: joshua klipp would like to speak. >> clerk: okay. >> and i would like to share my screen, if that's okay. >> clerk: absolutely. you have three minutes. >> okay. can everyone see it? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. of all the complicates processes that developers face in san francisco, taking out a tree that's not one of them. there's an application and application fee, and buck either denied or grants the application, and then we go through this process.

but here, the application didn't specify the number of trees. there's no record of a decision issuing on the application. then, we've got this notice issue that doesn't specify the number of trees. the notice on-line doesn't match the number approved, and lance pointed out the number that was changed about a year after application. and then, we've got this notice of four changes that was changed to three trees. in may 2020, i made a public records request on this address for these records, and i did not receive anything regarding updated applications, i didn't receive e-mails, nothing about ten-month holds, and nothing regarding the physical notices that were provided in response to that document request. so i went out and took a look at it myself. this was last week. what's still up on the post, you can see there's nothing, just a blank space regarding the number of trees. and i understand that there were a number of postings up around there, but it's

basically fairly impossible to climb around the hillside and try to figure out which notice is accurate. and then here, we've got the screen grab of b.u.f.s on-line notice of removal, which is one site, and one tree, and i would respectfully submit if this was corrected, evidence of that could easily have been provided today. and then, we've got screen shots of notices of the approval hearings, where we've got one tree, and then three trees. i trees don't move, and the plants don't change, and we're trusting the arborists to clarify how many trees we're talking about. and then, we've got this invoice from november, and there's some apparently discussion on-site how many

trees are coming out. this was for 15 joy, and it was for one to three trees. [please stand by]

>> i still haven't heard anything about application for tree removal. anyone can file. you have to fill out an application for a tree removal permit. if a developer forget to fill out a checklist and which ones will be removed, which ones will be kept and indicate whether you need a tree protection site plan. third, this project did not provide tree protection site plan. the tree hearings, all three removal notices for the

march 23rd, may 11th and june 1 tree hearing indicated four trees. the final decision to move it down to three was a little suspicious. i suspect somebody remembered that the number of trees in the permit was only one to three. if have been four, we would have had no problem today. saying this decision was totally wrong. ms. short said that we were surprised how many trees were noted. i'm careful watcher of everything, i'm not popular with the staff there, there was no updates on the removal numbers. that's pretty much all i have to say. >> we have a question from vice

president honda. >> vice president honda: your main concern is that it went from four trees to three trees. are you visited the site and determinely how many trees are physically there? >> i have not. that's not my main concern. i'm sorry. i have not visited the site. josh went there. >> vice president honda: actuall y, can i ask a question? josh? >> he heard you. >> vice president honda: how many trees are there? >> i think that's a great question for the arborist. they are the ones certified to make that determination. i understand it can be a scientific definition. >> vice president honda: have you been to the site? is it three trees or four trees? >> there's a whole bunch of trees that connect a couple of streets. there's a whole slew of trees

there. >> vice president honda: the one in particular they said they weren't sure there was four trees or three years. are you aware of that? >> what i'm saying, vice president, there are no parcel markers. it's not like you can tell here's five, seven and 15. >> vice president honda: were those trees marked with tags for removal? >> i gave you a picture of what was posted there, which says 15 joy. >> vice president honda: thank you mr. klipp. >> we'll now move on to the determination holder. is i didn't get your last name clearly. stephen is your first name?

what is your last name? >> i think the points were recently made are the most engineer -- germane. this is a natural block in city of san francisco if it was stand alone, it would be something equivalent to a rain forest. we are taking out a number of trees and we're planting more. i'm concerned that there will be too many trees once they are planted. that's not my determination to make. we're planting more than required for the four houses. i know this just for one. it's extremely hard to determine what is a tree and what is a

shrub. there are references to tree/shrubs that are being saved and some tree/shrubs are being removed. overall, joy street is an exemplary of an urban forest. the appellant are applying the guidelines for concreted asphalted blocks that are typical. this is not that. this is a greenland. it's an exceptional site for the city. it's unusual. because it's so unusual. , why it was so hard, i understand now from the detailed description. to determine what was being removed and what was being saved. it was for me an architect to connect to the new proposed houses. and find a place within this dense underbrush to place a new

tree. i'm trying to put it in perspective. it's not a typical block. i think the owners done as well as as they could in response to the permitting. they have produced all the proper permit whether they were done before, after or during some period. i think this points it's the material. they have committed planting more trees than actually are required to replace those being removed. that's all i have to say. >> president lazarus: thank you. we'll hear from the department. ms. short, you have three minutes. >> thank you commissioners. carla short, i don't have too much to add. i would note that i think it's clear that there's a confusing site even the appellants and mrs

hard to identify exactly what's going on out there. i think it's for that reason that our inspector agreed to meet with the applicant and to try to determine which trees and shrubs would require permit and which ones would not. he was very thorough. he put a hold on the project to insist that we got the necessary documentations. determines whether a multistem tree is one or two trees is not always easy. i think the department err on the side of notifying people that four stems were coming down. we tried to make it clear these four stems will be removed. he saw, this is actually one tree with a union restric -- rit the base. maybe we should be stuck with four. maybe that would have reduced some of the confusion here. it was an effort to try to correct the record so to speak. lastly, i will just note that

one of the public commenters said that these three essential trees removed. these are three relatively small chinese hollywood jun juniper ss being removed. they will be replaced by california native trees to the san francisco area. if we do an analysis of those three junipers over their lifetime versus these oaks, the oaks provide for greater environmental benefits to the city, far better habitat and i think delaying this will delay starting to achieve those benefits by planting the oaks in lieu of these shrubs. we don't allow removal of trees because they are non-native. they are hollywood juniper and

relatively small. we'll end up with large native oak tree. the characterization were three ecologically essential trees is not accurate. >> commissioner swig: carly, you understand that i think i would admit to carrying some baggage in this meeting due to the performance that we've exhibited oaover the last several months. if you paid attention to our hearings they have been contentious especially with regard to behavior and attention to detail. mr. carnes presented the perfect example of what causes frustration at least on my part. he shows 1629 market, perfectly filled out application for tree

removal and then he showed the subject case which was not even close to being a comprehensive or adequately pulled out application. why should we not -- also i agree with you, the trees that are here are all trees are important. but there are more important trees than these trees. it's the point of the matter, i think that buff is there to protect the city and its citizens from making sure that the urban forest is maintained. you heard with all due respect to the developer. i probably would have answered the same way. hey, we got clear that tree because the house won't fit without it. that was testimony that i heard today from the developer. i'm sorry, i didn't see his name, i apologize for not catching it. the developer wants to build a tree. your department is there to make sure that the proper procedures

are followed. why should we not find for the appellant where it seem to be complete disregard to make sure that the developer was fodge the -- following the policies and procedures. the public as far as we know from the caretaker filling out the application, and the public -- isn't the public being abused by the lack of care to make sure the application is properly filled out? >> i think the description of the appellant and mr. klipp goes to show that this is not a typical site. where it's very clear which trees are proposed for removal and which are not. the architect made a good point. market street, that's pretty easy. i got four trees in front of my

building. i want to remove two of them to build my building. it's not complicated to figure out which trees to remove. i think in this case, i think we handled this very well. our inspector went out there, he said we will absolutely not allow the removal of these trees. you're going to have to work around them. those were the native oaks. you will be required to submit a tree protection plan and you will be required to protect those oaks. we err on the side saying four stems will be remove removed re. what did buff do? buff err saying more trees will be removed to ensure that the public got the full impact of what was being proposed. i think that this process worked the way it should work. we made a mistake on the website.

there's no question about that. that was a brand new notification page. our prior practice and our current practice post notices on the trees themselves. you can see from mr. klipp's photo the notice from december was still on one of those trees. clearly, the notification process, which is our responsibility to the public, that we take very seriously, worked. there were notice the placed. there were notices placed about the hearing three different times on the website. our job to protect urban forest. we granted the removal of three small shrubs and advocated for the planting of two large stature at maturity native oaks. that is our responsibility as stewards of the urban forest. we are to protect and enhance the urban forest. i think we met that obligation in this case. was it an ideal case from when the documentations were filled

out? no. the reality is it's confusing sometimes. if people say i don't know how to fill this out correctly, can you meet me and tell me which one of these qualify. we will do that. this is not the first time we've done it. >> president lazarus: commission ers, this matter submitted. >> commissioner swig, you seem to have some feelings about this? >> commissioner swig: i was shown an example of right and wrong by the appellant. i was not shown with all due respect to ms. short, why the

even the application wasn't filled out correctly. even in the record as it stands today, there's not a full and complete application. i would like to -- i don't know if i will get support for it, i'm not sure i like my own motion -- we have to hold buff accountable for making sure that all the procedures are followed. clearly for me the procedures were not followed or they were followed in a sloppy fashion regardless of the diligence of the conversation to make sure that there was a site meeting, etcetera as ms. short talked about. but the policies and procedures, the applications weren't filled out correctly. we were shown that, ms. short hasn't shown me that there's been an update or that the

procedures ultimately followed correctly. if they weren't, i got to support the appellant and support the appeal until this job can be filed in an appropriate fashion and goes through the proper procedures. that will be my motion to find >> vice president honda: normall y i love to step on the toes when procedure and protocol is not correct. in this case, there's several oath factors. one of the factors is that, this didn't happen in december and cutting trees down in january or march. notification, the permit was

applied for in december. came back in march and came back in may and came back in june and here we are in august. the online notification as the department indicated, was brand new. their notification process still to this day is notify and to tag the trees. you can see in the pictures that was presented this evening that those trees were tagged. at which point when -- even the members of the public who are very strong advocates, cannot point out if there are three or four trees there themselves. i don't see that there's a reason to have this go out again if it's been notified since december or at least since march that three different notifications have gone out.

>> president lazarus: i got a question for ms. short. it's about what commissioner swig raised, the application itself for the permit perhaps not having been complete. in my mind, that doesn't necessarily where we're at. do you have any when on that aspect? >> we did ultimately get the application itself completed. it did not come in a timely manner. it did ultimately get completed. >> president lazarus: it would need to be part of the record going forward? >> that's right. before we can issue the permit. >> when was that fully correct permit completed and is it online at this point?

>> our permit database is not yet online. the notification page is online but the permit database includes, in most cases, personally identifiable information. we're working with our i.t. department to figure out what of that information can be included online. it's not currently available ave online. they submitted it in july. i would have to -- i can try to pull up the database to get the exact date. >> vice president honda: that's fine. >> do we have a motion? commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: that's my motion i was about to pull. i don't think it's worth putting everybody through the aggravation of starting all over again. i wanted to make the point that

these -- my patience is a little thin with regard to the bumpy nature what we're experiencing and not holding people accountable to do their proper paperwork, etcetera. >> do you have an alternative motion? >> commissioner swig: somebody else can make the motion. >> clerk: another commissioner wishes to make the motion. >> i would move to deny the appeal based on the permit that not properly issued. >> we have motion from president lazarus. on that motion -- [roll call vote]

that motion carries 4-0. the appeal is denied. thank you. we are now moving ton to item number nine. this is appeal number 20-027, christie barrett west versus zoning administrator. [agenda item read] on july 1, 2020 upon motion by vice president honda, the board

voted 4-0 to continue this matter to august 12th on the condition zoning administrator will submit a brief by august 6th. that matter was not heard on july 1st. we will now proceed with the hearing. appellant, i believe mr. chong is the attorney for the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good afternoon president lazarus and members of the board of appeals. at the hearing today is christie west. before we get to the appeal i like to update the board and zoning department what the owners are doing on the property in our brief and our application for continuance of the hearing. we noted that 1215, 29th

avenue is the primary resident christie west over 70 years of age and suffer significant health condition which delayed the processing of the work necessary to get the permit on file. we have managed to get the inspection done. they are preparing plans we submitted to the building department. we hope to be able to get them on file next 30 days or so. regardless whether or not our appeal is sustained or denied. this has been an extremely expensive and burdensome process for the property owners and their finances are limited at this time. we're hoping board will reverse this decision and extend time

for compliance st that the penalties are eliminated. little bit of background, this information is large in our brief. i will not spend lot of time talking about it. christie west and her husband purchased the property in 1980s. the rooms on the ground floor were rented out at the time. at that time, they were aware that the units not permitted. mr. west did not understand that it was illegal. other than maintenance and repairs to those spaces, notice of substantial work has been performed on the down stair spaces. about eight years ago, christie deeded the title of the property to her son for estate planning purposes that she's been allowed to maintain control over the

property. sometime after they purchased the property -- christie did obtain permit required at that time but was informed in light of the need for affordable housing, the city and county. there was a moratorium on enforcement of the violation of the unit. that work was not completed. she was not aware of any change of the policy. she did not remove those spaces. what she continues to do is maintain our gnome a -- maintain her home in habitable manner, responded to the d.b.i. complaints. we raised a few grounds, they are due process issues. i will not belabor over it too

much. the primary issue that we're raising is the notices. the original notices and the violations were sent to incorrect addresses. it didn't get to christie west. there was no actual notice. there's some question about whether or not they were sent to the addresses that an official record. unfortunately, person to whom they were sent no longer at that address and forwarded to christie. the main thing about that, because the procedural defect, had two hvac. it creates the impression that christie was ignoring the notices because she haven't responded to the notes. the second issue, deprived her any time which to work with the planning department to resolve the violations without further proceeding with the penalties. second issue had to do with the nature of the violation os.

they also added some comments or allegations regarding units in the main house. last issue we raised had to do with the inclusion of citations from unrelated trial by former disgruntled upstairs tenant, there's no evidence we've been able to find in the department records supporting those statements. we did do a public information request for the records. i went through them and i did not see any citations on which those comments are based. finally, although, this not something within the board's purview on this appeal. our clients to be upset about the perceived enforcement zoning limitations. there's thousands of these units in the city she feels picked

upon, her house is subject to proceedings unlike the others. i understand there's the institutional issues related to that. there's no real means for the property to go through. i feel compel to raise that issue because it is of concern to our client. the last issuabilit issue i wang up is -- [indiscernible] time involved in the original decision was very short. this allowed the additional time for her to complete this process. we're in the process of doing so. hope to do it within the next 30 days to get it on file. currently the income from the

property is insufficient to handle all the burdens imposed on it and pay for the repairs and penalties. >> commissioneyou'll have to spg rebuttal. you'll have three minutes in rebuttal. we'll let you know. thank you. we'll now hear from the zoning administrator. welcome. >> good evening president lazarus and commissioners. i'm happying to here joining you all here. it's my first time for remote hearing board of appeals. i haven't before you some time. mr. sanchez has this week off. regarding this case before you

now, the property at 1215, 29th avenue is developed a single family home. it's quite long and dense and it only provide an overview and be available for any questions. the first enforcement action regarding units on this property was a d.b.i. complaint from the ground floor in 1999. that enforcement process moved slowly. there were other compliments filed over several years. the property owner filed a new building permit in 2014, nine years later to remove the unit. that permit was issued but never completed. there's no evidence or documentation that the two illegal units were actually

removed. planning department engagement began in 2018 when the complaint was filed. the department obtained documents from 2011 and 2014 that clearly described two illegal units out ground floor, which at that time that the property owner did not dispute they were working with d.b.i. to remove those illegal units. in 30-day notice for owner move-in in 2018, the landlord stated she was occupying in illegal unit in the garage since february 2018. the department requested to conduct a site visit at the subject property. but the property owner declined. the original notices were mailed but not received about the property owner because the tax assessor office listed the wrong address. that was because the deed listed an incorrect address for the property owner. the department relies on the tax assessor's information for all notices. once that issue was identified and corrected and updated notice

of violation was issued in in 2. the property owner requested zoning administrative hearing. the property owner denies the existence of the two illegal units and declined a site visit. after that hearing, i paused release of the final determination because the property owner and tenants were involved in litigation in california supreme court that may provide additional documentation to the enforcement case. the judgment supporting documents were released on february 4th of this year. the jury did find in favor of the tenants of damages $270,000. the case documents included testimony from the landlord confirming the property contained two illegal units.

given the abundance of documentation, the landlord's testimony under oath, the denial to allow a site visit and other documentation, it was issued on march 2nd of this year. just quickly, there was reference to the landlord and property owner being told that there was moratorium on the enforcement of illegal units. that was not anything that was communicated from the planning department. i'm not aware any moratorium of any department on the enforcement of the illegal units. we are complaint driven enforcement body. if there are illegal units or unauthorized units, we do move forward ton that enforcement action. it is maybe point out that, the requirement to legalize these units instead of automatically just remove them was adopted and took effect in 2016.

that is something that has changed and since 1999 when this enforcement issue began. again, i'm not aware of any official or unofficial moratorium on the enforcement of illegal dwelling units in the city. with that, i will conclude for now. again, i'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have. >> we have a question from president lazarus and vice president honda. >> president lazarus: i think that you mentioned there was a permit issued in 2005 that was not expired and nothing happened until 2014. would the department not be tracking that, therefore allowing that situation to stay as it was for nine years? am i missing something? >> i'm happy to respond. that time period from 1999 to

2018 all the enforcement process was through d.b.i. there was kind of contact between d.b.i., especially the housing inspection division and property owner. i can't provide all of the conversations and actions that were occurring between 2005 and 2014. there was additional action during a time that did eventually result in appropriate -- the property owner filing a permit. that permit was issued but never -- [indiscernible] >> president lazarus: thank you. >> vice president honda: i haven't seen you in a while zoning administrator. look like you lost some weight. that was my question.

[laughter] have a good one. good to see you. >> thank you. we will now move on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item. please raise your hand. i don't see -- we do have somebody. someone name mark. i will move into the panelist room. you will be seen on video. can you please spotlight mark? are you there? >> yes, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. please go ahead. >> my name is mark. i was the attorney in the lawsuit with mr. chong's office. i represented the tenant,

disgruntled tenant that ended upbore veiling. i'm here if anyone has any question about what the testimony was. ms. west filed a public declaration attesting that there were two illegal units there. i only say that because i read somewhere where she claimed those were day rooms that she just use on her own. there were tenants that actually testified at trial that had rented those spaces. i'm just available if there are any questions. >> thank you. i did want to check in, mr. duffy want to say anything about this matter? are you there?

>> yes, i'm here. >> welcome, i pole i apologize i missed you. >> i'm available for questions. there are some d.b.i. issues. if commissioners have any questions for me, i do have some d.b.i. records with the violation and some code enforcement action and i'm available if anyone want to ask any questions. >> thank you mr. duffy. we have a question from president lazarus. >> president lazarus: just to follow up on my question. was there series of actions or activities between 2005 and i guess 2014 and even subsequent to that? >> the case with 1999 d.b.i., there was a notice of violation. there was a case that went through code enforcement.

it was dealt by inspection service. we had action from the building inspection division and ultimately wind to code enforcement there was order of abatement on the property i'm looking at over the years. it was referred at one time to city attorney's office. doesn't look like they took it up. i concur with the voting permit. there's no inspection history. the permit got renewed in 2014 to take up that work again. no inspection history on that either. there are notes that the property owner did meet with our housing inspection regarding how to comply with the building violation. i did see notes from 2014. did give them advice on what

needs to happen. there are still active complaints from the d.b.i. and planning as well. >> president lazarus: thank you. >> thank you. we will now move on to rebuttal. mr. chong. i believe there was another person who will speak. you have three minutes. >> this is norman chong again. we're not disputing the history of the permit history because it's part of the history. it's what it is. we are contesting the characterization of christy west testimony. my understanding was that the unit was at that time not occupied by any tenant. the testimony at that time was reflected the use at that time. we're not denying in the past it

have been rented out. it has. the upstairs tenant, the lawsuit involving up stair tenants is currently on appeal. we dispute. that's another story. i don't want to waste time talking about the feedback on that trial. the bottom line is that we are attempting to comply now. there was a misunderstanding related to whether or not christie west, there was a requirement that she move the units for that time period between 2005 and 2019 when she got the notice from the planning department. the building department and housing division -- [indiscernible]. christie west still under the

impression that the moratorium still existed. what i'm saying, we're trying to comply now. wwe will try to get this application in. we're trying to comply regardless whether or not the appeal stays or the decision is sustained. we're pleading with the department or board of appeals on financial grounds. [indiscernible] she may not able to file the permit if she has to pay the fees first. the goal here to so get compliant. we're trying to do that. in order to do that we need some indulgence. if the decision reversed, it doesn't mean it can't be brought

again. we do intend to continue with the permit process. [audio breaking] [indiscernible] >> i'm working at the property. there has whole series of complaints on this property. this owner has taken care of. at this point, we're looking at huge penalties.

>> we'll hear from mr. teague. you have three minutes. >> i have a question. >> vice president honda: i have question for counsel. your cliented this in 19 -- purchased this in 1982. has been renting out illegally since '99. she's benefited from 16 to 17 years minimum of illegal rent. plus more than likely since her purchase in 1982, she was probably doing the same as well. >> that's not true. we have a question.

>> that's absolutely not true. >> excuse me, ms. west. you need to wait for vice president honda's question. >> vice president honda: you're asking for leniency, you have been illegally renting this unit for 21 years now and collecting rent. why should we indulge that? >> i'll start off. as far as the rental history for the property, that is the question that answered by christie. i don't have knowledge of that. basic reason is that, the money that have collected in the past gone to maintain the property. it's not gone to build new houses or anything else. the current status of the situation is that it would be

punitive in nature to -- >> vice president honda: okay, thank you. >> mr. teague. you have three minutes in rebuttal. >> thank you. just provide little bit of information. whenever there's an enforcement issue relative to unauthorized dwelling unit, there's a requirement that space and that unit has been used in the past as a separate and independent living area. if it's not currently being used that way, that's not relevant to the determination of whether or not it is an unauthorized unit. it needs to be either legalized or removed conditional use authorization. regarding fees and i want to clarify, the only amount of fees that are due to the planning department from the property owner for the fees for time and

material, cover the cost of the enforcement cosenforcement proc. that's $5000. the penaltyings up to $250 a day. there's a lot of due process in our enforcement procedures. as was mentioned, specifically states, that the enforcement program is meant to bring about abatement and not punitive. we have not assessed any penalties on this violation. moving forward, if the violation is upheld and the property owner does not take the appropriate actions and continue with good faith action to abate the violation, then, of course, penalties could accrue. to that point, i would like to clarify that this was issued prior to the shelter-in-place order in the city.

we've always been very open working with property owner on abatement. we're working with property owners now under the current situation with the pandemic and the continued shelter-in-place. it is a balance obviously this is an issue that's been going on for some time. we do to make sure there's good faith effort. we are working everyday, enforcement programs, to acknowledge and work with people on enforcement issues and the real constraints they maybe facing now due to the pandemic. >> my house was inspected by the city. >> please, there's no speaking at this time. are you finished mr. teague? >> yes, thank you. >> mr. duffy, did you want to

add anything? >> no, i'm fine. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted and as a reminder, the standard of review is used for discretion. >> that was my next question. commissioners? >> i'm not persuaded to that level. >> i will concur with that. >> commissioner swig: i would concur. the concern there's been multiple violations that have gone unabated for many years at this point. i don't think there was an error in abuse on the part of the department. >> anybody care to make a motion. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i would

agree. >> vice president, you want to make the motion? >> vice president honda: i'll make that motion to the deny the appeal on the basis that there was no error abuse. sorry, there's no questions at this time counselor. >> okay. we have a motion from vice president honda to deny the appeal and uphold the n.o.v. that the zoning administrator did not error, abuse or discussion and it was issued. [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-0. the appeal is denied. that concludes -- actually, we do have item number 4, the requester contacted us and is having internet problems. he requested that we continue

that item number 4 to next week. i want to confirm if that would be okay with the zoning administrator as well. >> i don't have any problems. >> we do need a motion and a vote to move that item? >> what's our schedule look like next week? >> we have some cases. >> i'll make that motion. >> should be fine. >> okay. we have a motion from vice president honda to move this item. item number 4, rehearing request. to move it to august 19th on that motion. [roll call vote]

>> any public comment on this item? >> thank you. my apologies. >> any public comment on this item. please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. we commissioner santacana saying yes, president lazarus. commissioner swig? >> yeah. >> in motion carries 4-0. this item is moved to august 19th. that concludes the hearing. >> thank you.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess

the value to new market value. compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your

existing home. this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million. if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to

participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website,

>> this is the meeting of the small business commission, august 10, 2020. the meeting is called to order is 5:32 p.m. we tk