>> good evening. welcome to the board of appeals for september 2, 2020. i'm julie rosenburg, the board's executive director. we'll be joined from the city department presenting for the board this evening, scott sanchez, deputy zoning administrator with the planning department, joseph duffy, acting chief building inspector with building inspection, carla short, superintendent with san francisco public works and chris boch, with the bureau of urban forestry. the board requests you turn off or silence all phones so they will not disturb the proceedings. the appellants and permit holders are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal and people affiliated must include seven or

three-minute period. members not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. time may be limited to two minutes. if you have questions about a rehearing email boardofappea bof appeals. to enable public participation, sf gov is streaming live and we will receive it live. to watch it on tv, go to cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on

fridays at 4:00. a link to the livestream is found on the website so public comment can be provided in two ways. you can join the zoom meeting by computer at sfgov.org is click on the zoom link or by telephone. call (888)475-4499. that's a toll free number and enter the webinar i.d. 81767603727. sggovttv is streaming across the bottom of the stream.

if any need the disability accommodation or technical assistance been make a request in the chat function to the board's legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals.

>> do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give women be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. if you're a participant and not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute and we will move on to item number one, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. any member of the public who would like to speak general public comment? please raise your hand. i do see someone raising their hand. joshua quipp would like to speak and let me move you to a panelist and go ahead, mr. clip. >> speaker: i can do audio. good evening.

so at the august 19th, 2020 board of appeal's hearing bee, i stated that the trees as part of turo phase one would not live passed 30 years and i made that based on the years of observation on how well they do in san francisco. san francisco's urban forest, however, stated these were large sector trees and didn't know what type they were. i went back to 1100 connecticut and confirmed the trees are sustainuous and they're not large stature, medium stature with a maximum height of 25 feet and both trees grow 1 12-inchesa year and for every 100 street trees, only 50 will make it 13 to 20 years and the main life expectancy is 19 to 20 years. the planted trees look to be sex

to seven feet tall and they may make it over 20 feet for the few remaining years. earlier in the year, i fought to preserve trees at 645 fifth street and this week it hit the knews that the primary tenant slated to lease a half million square feet to pull out of the deal. so while trees come down, it remains to see whether this will reach intended usefulness. we talked a lot of the intersection of tree removal and the trees lose. my hope is going forward, there can be a robust discussion here and city-wide on development that looks not only at the bottom line for those that stand to profit in the short-term but those who have to live with the scents of thiconsequences in th. that's all. thank you. >> we will hear from mr. zach

carnazez. >> speaker: yes. i'm a disability advocate and a community organizer and i post videos of these hearings and others on youtube and you can find if you such deforesting san francisco. i'm an advocate for the forest we have remaining and i think at least most people are aware that bureau of urban forestry and department of public works are incredibly corrupt and have been deforesting a lot of our city, especially during covid-19, they've been accelerating. deforestation efforts they were previously doing and deprincessindeforestingforesting trees currently in appeal. this is extremely problematic and illegal and there's nothing to stop them from doing it. they get a slap on the wrist fine and they will save money by breaking the law and deforesting

trees during an appeal's process and they will actually save money because it is more profitable for them to do what is illegal than to do what is not illegal because they can then get the permits they want for multimillion construction projects and don't have to wait for the appeal's process to take place. this kind of corruption is unacceptable and the tiny, tiny the penaltpenalties in place are unacceptable and giving a presentation tonight on their own crimes is the most ridiculous conflict of interest thing i can think of. it is up to the public and up to us and this board to demand heftier fines for breaking the law in these multiple incidents. it's happening all over the city in the deforesting of our trees and canopy, which we need right now, especially with the wildfires poisoning the air that

we breathe, we need mature trees that produce fresh oxygen and provide good habitat for wildlife and other birds that need them during this really difficult time. it's also been shown in medical studies that covid-19 is more prevalent in places with worse air quality and more pollution and boy, i don't know what's going through the heads of public works and bus and i know this board has approved much of their illegal activity. my own complaint -- >> thirty seconds. >> -- my own complaint for 1501quinn street, trees were cut down and this board approved it anyway. so i ask what incentive does bureau of urban forestry and public works have to not break the law. they're getting away it and this

board is allowing it and i ask this board deny appeals, especially when those appeals break the law. you can find videos and information -- >> that's time. >> on my website and youtube. >> is there any other general public comment this evening? if so, please raise your hand. ok, i don't see anybody raising their hand. ok, item number two, question, comments and questions. >> commissioners, anything for this meeting? >> none. >> we will then move on to item number three, adoption of the minutes. commissioners for discussion of possible adoption, are the minutes of august 19, 2020 meeting. >> motion to adopt the minutes. >> ok, is there any public comments on this motion to adopt the minutes? please raise your hand.

i just want to make sure. i see mr. carnazeze. please go ahead. >> speaker: thank you, i just want to publically thank julie rosenburg for doing an excellent job with the meeting minutes. there was an important but small mistake in the end of the minutes that i understand is being corrected and these minutes are resubmitted and i just want to emphasize that that clearly looks like a mistake, not intentional and i feel like julie rosenburg is doing a terrific job improving accessibility for these meetings and improving the meeting minutes, as well, and so, while you all know i'm critical of problems when i see them, i'm also very vocal of good things when i see them as well and i see them here and thank you for that. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? ok, so we have a motion from commissioner swigg to adopt the august 19th minutes and on

that motion -- (role call) item four is the revision of the minutes and discussion of possibly revision to make a correction to the statement made by zach carnazes. the proposal is to remove the last sentence wherein he says, he stated that he would only be able to present his item if it was first on the agenda. and so the proposal is to remove that sentence from the minutes. >> is there a motion to adopt the revised minutes? >> adopt. >> any public comment on that motion? if so, please raise your hand.

commissioner tanner. before we go to public comment, commissioner tanner, did you have a question? >> no, there was a public comment and i just wanted to abstain from voting because i wasn't at that meeting. >> we've had advice previously from the city attorney's office that you need to participate in the vote. >> ok. and i've been in that same situation, commissioner tanner, so you do need to vote. >> we do have mr. carnazez would like to provide public comment. >> speaker: the statement i just made was meant for this item. that's all. thank you. >> any other public comment? ok, if not, we have a motion from commissioner swigg to adopt the revised minutes and on that motion -- (role call).

>> item number five, jurisdiction request at 1501 tennessee street, also known as 2,923rd street. a letter from the el nino training center for complaint (201)901-6112, which was issued on july 22, 2020 and the appeal period ended on august 6, 2020 and filed at the board office on august 20, 20. the determination holder was torenno tennessee street, the property owners and the description of the determination is the subject property authorized for warehouse use as a wholesale storage use under the pdr1g zoning district. the purpose is to retain and encourage existing production,

and repair activities and limit retail uses. the violation pertains to the current gym use at the subject property, which is a retail sales and service use under planning code section 102. it has been reported the above property is used as a gym doing business as el nino without authorization and benefit of a permit. pursuant to code 210.3, a gym use is not permitted in a zoning district where the subject property is located. wall and freestanding business signs have been installed without the benefits of permits. so i believe we will hear from the requester first, mr. molazab, will you be speaking? >> yes. yes >> speaker: thank you so much for hearing our request today. we're requesting that the board take jurisdiction of the appeal

of the noise violation that the planning department gave us in regards to el nino training center. we got this notice of violation on july 22nd and we have 15 days from the date of the letter to appeal. and it's covid time. i'm living with an office that's short staffed. i don't have a fully functioning place and we did our best to get our work done. we attempted to submit it on the tenth, which was 15 working days from the date of the decision and regrettably, we had missed our deadline.

the one thing you don't know this gym has been in business since 2011, which predates the zoning code section. i would like to argue the case, but i don't think this is the forum to do so and i would like to be given that opportunity. and this property has been moved at glacier-like speed. and i very much like to ask for the sake of my client that we be given a chance to talk about

what is there and what is a good use for the community, for the neighborhood and for the city. my client is here, as well, and he would like to speak -- >> thirty seconds remains. >> -- i'm sorry. >> thirty seconds remains. >> my client is here and he would like to -- he's on the call and he would like to say a few words. i respectfully request your jurisdiction so we can speak to you again. >> is he on the phone? >> gill melendez is on the call. >> how much time does he have left? >> seven seconds. >> let's give him a few extra seconds given the transition.

go ahead. >> i'm with the training center, the owner of the gym and i've been conducting business in san francisco for over ten years, nine years at this location. it's been fantastic, getting to know the community, the neighbors, providing a safe place for members to come train, providing jobs for people in the community, as well as athletes. >> thank you. that concludes your time. and so, we will now hear from the planning department, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the item before you is a jurisdiction request on a notice of the violation issued for the property at 150 1501 tennessee street. i don't see any city error that would lead to justifying granting the jurisdiction request. it's my understanding from staff

that a requesting thought it was 15 business days, not 15 calendar days and it's easy to file and appeal and really no reason is needed when the appeal is filed and often, that's how appeals are filed without any stated reason. there's a briefing schedule established through the appeal process where all of the arguments can come in at a later time. and i would note that from the history here, it goes back to a building department complaint from 2017 that has continued to the process. i think they're at an order of abatement for that complaint and 2018, the requester here submitted a letter of determination request ages, askg this question, is this use allowed. and the answer is, this use is not allowed. while it may have been allowed at a time it was established, no permit was sought at that time. in 2017, the law changed and the

use is not allowed currently and can't obtain a permit. the letter of determination was issued last year and no appeal was taken of that letter of determination. and so we have a final issue letter of determination stating that the use is not allowed and putting all of the rationale and demonstrating how it's not allowed and legal characterized under the planning code. we had an enforcement case and proceeded through the appropriate process. once the notice of violation is issued, they have the ability to either request a hearing or appeal it in a timely fashion to the board of appeals and they didn't do either and, unfortunately, within the 15 days and now we're before the board with the jurisdiction request and that's the information that i wanted to provide to the board and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> we have a question from vice president honda. and then commissioner tanner.

>> what was it that brought this to the attention in 2017? how were they able to have been operating that long? >> it looks like -- well, in 2017 is when the law changed and they were not allowed at that time -- at that point, a complaint was made to the department of building inspection regarding the use and then subsequent to that, my assumption is that they sought to address that complaint and found that they could not legalize it and then they requested the letter of determination from the zoner administrator which was issued last year and saying that they can't legalize it. inexplicably, they did not appeal that to the board of appeals as they could have. >> and are you finished, vice president honda? you're on mute.

>> at the time the violation was noted, would there have been a remedy trying to seek this to become legal or this was established in 2011 if they were properly permitted, they would have been a noncomcliennoncompl? >> at the time they did open, it could have been allowed and they could have obtained a proper permit, pay the fees, go through the appropriate process and they did not do so and it looks like in 2017 is when the law had changed, the board of supervisors prohibited gyms in the pdr districts and is when

the complaint was made to the department of building inspection and i don't know if it was before or after the law changed. and i could look that up quickly, but 2017 is when the law changed and when the complaint was made to the city. >> had they been properly permitted, would there have been an avenue for continuing? >> absolutely, it would have been a nonconforming use. >> and so at this point, the corrected action is to use that at that location? >> that's correct. that was the determination and the lotter of determination that was issued last year. >> price president honda, is there a followup question? >> this is to the business owner. and so, you stated that you've been in business in 2011.

did you think that you were properly permitted for the usage at that location? >> i did. i started in the bayview and i was assisted. i changed addresses when i moved to this building and my landlord told me it's fine to use as a gym at the time and i filed for my business permit and received it for that location and at that time, i felt like i thought i was good to go. >> and on your business permit, does it state specifically what your business is? >> yes. i have to double-check myself, sir. i have to do my diligence and pull that. but i don't have it in front of me. maybe i could receive help with that, but i've been registering as a gym. >> and then the last question, since you were notified in 2017, i mean, what actions did you

take? that's tough, you've been in business for six years, successful and then the rug is pulled out from underneath you. why are we here now in september of 20? if you want your attorney to help, that's fine, too. >> i would love him to jump in, but initially, we did take action. went to the planning department, asked the right questions and we went to -- spoke with the fire department and luckily, i was trying to solve this issue and that's when i reached ahmad and he's been guiding me but it's been a long process and this is my first time and so it's been a trial and error with it. but if ahmad can go through it all for you, that would be fantastic. we have been proactively trying to get this all since this happened. and i believe, to your question, when we were, we were still able to get zoned for our business

when we were written up the first time and it wasn't after. maybe ahmad could confirm that, as well. >> yes, your representative can continue, but please don't argue any more. can you just answer the question that i had, sir? >> yes, sir. >> i mean, to your representative. >> yes. i never was arguing. i have at the business registration certificate for the training center and the version their have is dated expiration date of 06-15 and it's a business registration number with el nino training center and the ownership by llc.

>> this is to see if the city is receiving money and taking money as a gym and the next question is, is that can you lightly go over what happened in 2017 when you found out the usage was no longer legal? >> yes. a lot of the time that we spent was time waiting. and i say that with -- and not only an attorney, i'm an architect. and i have spent a lot of time with the zoning administrator, with staff and with the planning and building staff. if we didn't file an appeal in 2019, it was because we thought we really would finally get somewhere with the zoning administrator. >> from 2017, on your communication with the planning

department -- >> planning department staff. >> when you started in 2017, how was the correspondence? how long did it take form them to get back to you? what timeline do we have here or do you have that available? >> i will have that available in due course. the communication was never within a day. >> thank you. >> that was my question. thank you. >> we are now moving -- i don't see any more questions at this point. so we're moving on to public comment. any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment, so commissioners, the matter is submitted. yes, commissioner tanner. >> i have one question for scott sanchez. in regards to the zoning change

that occurred in 2017 at some point, was the property owner and the occupants to be notified of the pending change? just the property owner and who would be knowing the zoning is changing at that time? >> so, i believe it was a text amendment and so, it goes to the standard notification process for legislative matters which when it's a text change, it's not a mailed notice to all of the property owners in the city. it's generally put in a newspaper and we have the planning commission hearings and so the notice toward the amendment was done properly by the board of supervisors. from what i could tell, the complaint was made with building department in may of 2017. around that time, that's when the legislative matter was happening and it was active before the board of supervisors and it became effective, it looks like in the following month, probably in june. and there are subsequent nob's

from dbi later in that year, but there doesn't seem to be an instance where they were made aware of the violation and the city failed to act in a timely manner to get them in compliance before the law changed because the law changed so quickly from when the complaint was made. but again, it's a matter of have they obtained the proper permits? when you go to get a business license, they will advise you to check your land use. a business license isn't an authorization or permit you to do work but so the city can take the tax money from that business. it doesn't authorize a land use and when you go to the registry of business, you're typically advised to check your zoning and make sure you're in the land use. one of the reasons it was made to the building department is because there was work done without any permits. and they were egress issues, as

well associated with the change of use that are part of the violation. >> thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner swigg. >> so, mr. sanchez, as you know, we're put in the situation of upholding legal statues that we don't love and don't seem fair. and it seems to me that if i were a business owner, in a district and suddenly the law changed in my business that i was successfully running for half a decade and suddenly it was illegal, i would kind of be cranky and concerned. so i'm sympathetic to the appellant today. however, i would like to know

from you, in this case, when there's a long-standing business or certainly an established business and zoning changes in the district in which the business is operating, has there ever been or is there any flexibility, evidence of flexibility to sustain that business even though the legislation has changed and the existence of that business in that location is now illegal? >> the only preface would be if it was to be legalized. the zoning board doesn't have a discretion of giving an exception to the use requirements. so it's something that it would have to be a legislative fix through the board of

supervisors. >> and so if we were to not take jurisdiction on this, where does this business owner go from here? does he shift gears and go to his supervisor who represents his district? or what is his next step? >> i mean, that's something they should have done over the last three years, would have been to pursue a legislative amendment to allow the use, but it's not the thing that we could do. it's something that should have been done in the last three years of time, discussions with the zoning administrator, unless they have a permit or evidence of a permit, there's nothing that we can do. i think, you know, if they were to cease the use and while during that time going to the board of supervisors and seeing if they could get a change to

allow them to legalize the use, that's the only path moving forward. >> and finally, it seems even if we did take jurisdiction here, it would be a failed hail mary pass in the making because our body wouldn't have even the jurisdiction to make the business owner happy. is that correct? >> that's certainly the opinion of the department given that it's clear-cut. they don't have a permit or any evidence of a permit, that the law does not allow it. i don't see how the board could allow the use because it's not allowed under the zoning and that would be our argument of any appeal hearing. >> i'll stand down. thank you very much. >> thanks. >> president lazarus has a

comment but first, we were having technical difficulties with our phone number that's posted. so we are now using a new phone number broadcast on our screen and is being put on our website for the public. the new phone number is (669)900-6833. and that number is going on along the bottom of the screen if you're watching on tv and will be on our website. so we may want to make one more call for public comment on this item after you make your comments. >> you can go ahead and do that if you wish. i can wait. >> so why don't we wait a moment and i'll just repeat that the telephone number to call in for public comment is (669)900-6833. and you use the same i.d. number code 81767603727. and so if you want to provide

public comment, you can call in on that number and you can raise your hand. i don't see anybody and it looks like a caller has gotten in, probably, with the other number but we have reports that there were difficulty using that phone number. so please go ahead, president lazarus. >> thank you, question for mr. sanchez. commissioner tanner asked earlier about had they sought a permit and then they likely could have been grandfathered or whatever the term is. should they have gotten a permit. are you allowed to operate that way without a permit? >> no, they needed a permit to change the use under the building code and planning code and pay the necessary fees, including the fees due at that time. and yes, a permit was required and not obtained. >> thank you.

>> so commissioners, this matter has been submitted. >> just a reminder, if i might, because mr. sanchez reminded us that the criteria for this, i believe, is whether the city inadvertently or intentionally caused the requester to be late. >> correct, in filing the appeal. >> right. >> and just i'll add my two cents, i don't believe that's the case. >> and i don't believe the same, and, unfortunately, for the appellant, i would make the motion to the same, to deny the appeal on the fact that the city did not error. >> so i'm a very strong pro-small business person here, always have been. and i think that navigating city

paperwork is often difficult and running your own business is challenging enough. i don't generally support people that fail to file their briefs or their appeals on a timely manner. but we are at a different time right now. everyday you pick up the paper and you're seeing that businesses are leaving in horts. landmark businesses are closing and san francisco will be a different place and so, although the zoning administrator says that there is no relief from this board, i am would support the jurisdiction request and to support small businesses that are planning on it and trying to stay in the city rather than folding up and leaving.

>> so i'm very sympathetic to commissioner honda's point. and if the appeal were in any way something that we could deal with even if the appeal actually came to us in a timely manner, then i might feel differently, but at this point, i agree, there isn't a reason to grant this jurisdiction request. >> i feel similar to the commissioner, i would love the board to take action to find relief for all of the reasons vice president honda mentioned. but we often run into which is we are evaluating the properness of a permit and were the laws of the day kind of administered properly and this is something that requires a legislative fix from supervisors that it's not existing before and it won't exist in the future were we to take jurisdiction. so i'm sympathetic. i wish i had some lifeline to

throw to this business but i don't know if taking jurisdiction would avail much to help them. >> broad and widening powers. we wear s's on our cape and if we allow city departments to not allow proper permitting, we should allow the public that same vantage, but ok. >> i guess i just don't see where we would go other than buying some time, which as we make that motion, i would support it, vice president honda. i don't know if you would get four votes, but it may be worth the effort. >> i thought commissioner swigg made a motion. >> i have a standing motion and i would like to continue the support of that motion by saying that i agree with th the last to

commissioner's points of view. i'm sympathetic to small business and this particular individual, but i see that regardless of what our broad and wide powers might be that we are still, unfortunately, stymied made by the board of supervisors. and i think they are the only ones at the direction of mr. sanchez, that can help throughout the helping hand to the small business owner in this case. and also, i really and i have said this, i don't know how many dusdozen times, but if we set ts precedent, then everybody else who may or may not deserve the attention that i believe that this small business owner does will come to us and say, well,

you did it for them, you have to do it for us. and although i'm very sympathetic with you, commissioner honda, those are my thoughts and why i would like to uphold my motion. >> for clarity, commissioner swigg, you would like to say that this was no in this motiont caused to be late. (role call). >> vice president honda. nay. >> so that motion carries four-one and the request is denied and so we are now moving on to item number six. this is appeal number 20-051 and teach williams versus the zoning

administrator and subject property of 1926 divizedero street. appealing to the kastrop group of a rear yard modification. the proposed project is to construct a 166 square-foot rear addition of the second floor of the base that will extend one foot and four inches in the required rear yard and a rear yard modification is required by planning code 134. the zoning administrator granted the rear yard modification upon determination that the facts of the case meet the three requirements of the planning code section 134-eight. this is (201)801-3422 and we'll hear from mr. williams first. welcome. >> good evening. steve williams on behalf of myself and joe kern.

our building is directly adjacent and north of the subject site. there ithis is south of califora street. i've been in this -- >> sorry to interrupt, but we're not seeing your slide and i would like you to get a fair take here. >> can we stop the time and we'll give you extra after.

>> let's just wait until it comes up. how much time does he have left? >> six minutes and 30 seconds. >> and so, go ahead, mr. williams. >> thank you. sorry about that. i'm still getting used to our new world. and so this is the neighborhood commercial zone and you can see our building is just north. the addition that includes this variance is very tall and that's one of the problems, 15 feet is this addition. and it's right on the property line.

>> did you send this in earlier? >> i didn't send one in. >> i think this was the determination antidepressant. >> if you want to open all your slides up in pdf and run through them as you were speaking.

>> do you want to email it to alec? >> just email it to me. >> it's fine. we don't have a long agenda so we're fine.

>> thank you for your understanding. >> maybe you should stop sharing your screen because alec will be sharing his shortly.

>> public comment is (669)900-6683. and it's post olds our website. >> san francisco government is showing item five and we have

moved on and so maybe they want to inform the public we're on item six. thank you. >> thank you for bringing that to our attention.

>> so alec, can you go to slide one? should we start off with slide two? >> that would be fine, thank you. we just see a list of all the slides.

>> slide one was the existing situation and this is the proposed situation which includes the variance to extend the building foot and half into the rear yard and up against the property line. there's currently setbacks, as you can see, in the rear which reduces the blockage of light and that's what we're asking for. we're asking fo to match the

setback but that didn't happen. can we go to slide three? so my building is on the left side and the subject building is on the right side and you can see where that setback exists. that's where they want to put the 15-foot addition, right on top of that. and this is the view looking east away from the divisdero. you can see the blockage which will occur right along there and that's the 30-foot high building shadows our entire side and if that addition goes in, that's exactly what will happen. it will block the sunlight to four different windows. slide four, please.

this is looking west and you can see the windows that are involved and there's a kitchen and two different bedrooms that will have all of the direct sunlight blocked to the windows. slide five, please. so that's the kitchen window and if you look through the window there, that is exactly where the addition will go, on top at 15 feet high and that shows you right up against the property line and can't help but block the direct sunlight and slide seven, please. again, you can see how all of

the sunlight comes in through the windows there and placing that 15-foot high addition on there will block the sunlight and go to slide eight, please. and this is the rear bedroom which, again, you're looking straight at the wall out there, where the addition will go up on top of it. and as i put in my brief, the board does not have code compliant plans in front of it. if you looked at my last exhibit in the brief, they failed to designate the windows on our building at all as sheets from the plans, the south elevation,

5.0, looking at the building and you can see where the windows should have been highlighted but they weren't at all. and i can only assume that that was why they failed to take into consideration the windows, is that this is how the plan should have appeared. it shouldn't have been accepted by dbi or planning because they failed to show openings of the windows. i'm hopeful the board can see this and now i think i'm sharing it. >> yes, you are. >> and so this is how it should -- this is the current configuration and here, right here is where the addition will go and none of these are shown in the plan, in front of the board. as i said, they aren't code

compliant. anthe project needs a variance d as i put in my brief, they failed to present any evidence that might justify a variance. no hardship is cited. and there's no exception for extraordinary or unique circumstance and they submitted, you know, noncompliant plans. on the photograph i just showed you, that is what will be blocked by the addition. the board is on the applicant and up to them to come forward to support the vee variance. they have to show that the

variance could be granted in this situation and it won't cause harm. obviously it will cause harm. it may be a smaller amount of harm because it's a foot and a half variance, but it will cause harm. the variance decision letter, as i highlighted, which is the subject of appeal is wholly insufficient. it's not section 134e but 134h. 134e is not applicable to this site. it misstates the law by die declaring views are not detected. >> thirty seconds remaining. >> the statue says that. it's a misuse of the variance procedure, the spirit in the letter and the body of law that established the variance procedure to grant multiple variances to this single parcel and it had a variance earlier which made it a substandard lot.

so it's only 1616 square feet. if it were a full-size lot, it wouldn't need another veer yeps. variance. >> that is time. >> thank you. >> we did give you 30 extra seconds. >> we have a question from vice president honda. >> mr. williams, so since the sunlight is a big part of this, did you prepare a shadow study? >> i did not. i asked the architect to do one and i asked him to put up story posts, both of which they refused. >> since the one side is attached and the north side is detached, the sunlight is from the divisidero.

basically, you're getting the sunlight in those pictures coming from divisdero since those are facing california street. >> those windows are facing due south. they're facing towards pine street. the buildings are situated facing east and west and facing on divisidero and we get our sun from the south, all of it. >> ok. thank you. that was it. thank you. >> we have a question from president lazarus. >> i want to clarify, is this your office, residence or both? >> it's an office, but we have one residential tenant. >> so it's a multiunit building? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. ok, we will now hear from the determination holders. are we going to hear from the

architect? >> the property owner will speak first and i will follow. >> ok. >> so we'll hear from the property owners first. if you could spotlight them, please. >> our house is from 1884 and the previous owner had approved -- obtained a permit for a much larger renovation project and we have given it a lot of thought. we want to be good neighbors and we talked to our neighbors, too. you've seen that the house is on the other side towards pine is kind of half of a double house and we've taken everything into account, we worked with the architect and decided to do part of a small renovation project

that was already permitted when we started. we didn't know we needed that variance in the backyard. the property lines did not come up in the previous proceedings. and we worked on many ways to do this project and we think this is the way that we'll most effectively protect the design and preserve the architectural design of this house. and we also feel that is necessary to do this upgrade because we have three relatively small rooms and really a half bathroom and we have now reached a time where our daughter wants to move in with her boyfriend and we need a bigger bathroom on the upper floor. we try to do the modest project that will not cause much change on the overall but will have an certain impact and will be more sustainable because of the

lines, the second floor, which is at the same level that this house has always been wit been. with the first floor, the room has always been cold and warmth escapes easily and having the second floor terminated at the same distance than the first floor, this will preserve that. the project is much smaller than what was already approved and this is what we want to do. we did have discussions with our neighbors and we did sit down with the planning commission and we've heard everyone and discussed some alternatives that were not acceptable for the neighbor and we hope that this can be approved now that we can proceed because this will create for affordable living space in san francisco which we believe san francisco urgently needs. and i think this i will ultimately be an improvement to the living space and a very nice and good position for our family. with that, i want to hand it

over to brian, our architect, going over many alternatives with us. we're lay people in this area. >> please go ahead. >> we can freeze the time. >> are you ready? >> i'm ready. >> please go ahead. >> good evening, board members. i'm a project manager at the kaspro group architects. >> can you speak a little louder. >> i'm trying to mush the mic to my mouth and hopefully this is better. so i'm a project engineer and thank you for reading our brief and i only have a short presentation. and exhibit a, this shows a view of the backyard of both properties. at the top of the page is

divisdero street. the subject property is on the left and appellant's building on the right. exhibit b, there is a good summary. our new walls stack under the existing walls underneath and we already have proposed a roof lower than the existing roof and small orange portion is the area passed the rear setback and please make note of the pink building on the left. this one right here. on exhibit c, a parallel line passed the rear setback and all of the properties south of our zoning and all but one seem to be already passed the required line. this told us that maybe the buildings were built prior to the rule. exhibit d, this is a picture of the existing office room that we are proposing to build on top of. please note that this rear most

space is already passed the setback line. exhibit e, on the right side is the same office room. the two properties on the left, 1918 and 1924 are already passed the setback line. and this is the pink house and the adjacent grey house. the pink house has a two-story bay that goes out even further. exhibit f on the left side of the screen is the same office room and the greenhouse is appellant's building and that's three feet longer than the subject house. though he does have a longer property. the window in the center is the one in question. please note that he does have a similar size window facing the east and so this room would get a lot of light even with the addition. exhibit g, this photo is taken from the subject property dining room window. it was taken in march at

3:00 p.m. and the shadow of the subject project is cast on the appellant's building. and the red-shaded area shows the assumed shadow it would cast and the yellow near the end shows the assumed shadow that would be cast by the portion that was approved through the variance. we made assumptions at the best and wors worst case and some are providing because the sun is high and the sun is lower in the horizon. the addition only affected at the most two windows. this one and this one. on march sixth of this year, we took the offer by the planning department to meet with the applicant prior to the review hearing. several ideas were, indeed, discussed and we proposed the revision three days later. >> can you speak up, please? i'm so sorry, but it's a little low. >> i'm sorry. and so i'll just repeat on

exhibit h, on march sixth, we took the -- >> thirty seconds remaining. >> prior to our discretionary review hearing, several ideas were discussed and we proposed the revision three days later. however, it was rejected by the appellant. during the design and review process, when we discovered that the existing first story was passed the setback line, we consulted with the planning department, we provided the option of the variance. after several back and forth in the same neighborhood examples we showed today, there was a tentative decision this was something that the appling department would bplanningdepar. we have to go through the process. this is a substandard lot. >> that is time. >> and thank you. we do have a question from vice president honda. >> this is to the representative. what modifications did you concede to initially or during

that meet. >> can i share my screen again? >> sure. >> this is the one we officially submitted to the appellant and what we did was lowered the proposed through by about a foot. >> and then the appellant refused that offer? >> correct. >> ok, thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, subject property at 1926 divisdero is located in a neighborhood commercial zoning district and the building is a potential historic resource and it appears to have been constructed before any code requirements at all. and it's an existing legal

noncompliance structure where it extended one foot, four inches to the 25% rear yard. what is before you is an appeal of a rear yard modification. to clarify and repeat, again, this is not a variance. this is a rear yard modification. so there are completely different findings. the findings that are established are established in section 134h, which up until last october was known as 134e and that explains why the template was out of date and so it is 134h providing three findings and it is in the decision letter. and this is just that rear modification and so we're dealing with that addition at the level of the second level, the last one foot, four inches and that's what is the scope of this decision. and given that it is such a small deviation from the code

requirement and when there's a less than ten% deviation done administratively without need for a public hearing on the modification request. and so there was no public hearing held for the modification because o of the minor deviation. there was one discretionary view card filed by the appellant. the planning commission heard that, i believe, this june, and did not take the discretionary review at that hearing. the appellant discussed the impacts of the property -- of the project on their property, and the commission found it to be compliant with residential design guidelines and unanimously approved it didn't take discretionary review. it was very reasonable project and didn't have severe negative impacts on the appellant's property and really was a modest addition compliant with all of the design guidelines. i would note at that hearing,

mr. williams in his presentation, like he did today, cited that there was the kitchen windows that were being impacted and the bedroom windows that were being impacted and i was confused because in the permit holder's materials, they referenced the adjacent office building. when i went to listen to the hearing on the matter, commissioner imperial what the use was. at that hearing, my recollection, watching the video is that he stated it was an office building and that it could be converted into a drawing unit. hearing there's a residential tenant tonight is the first that i've heard of that. i did look at the records of that building and according to the assessor records and also the 3r report, it states that adjacent property is a single family dwelling. and so, i guess for -- it seems

to be a legal use and probably could assume, you know, that that is the use it should be. i don't know about it being legally an office building or not. but really, what is before you now is this rear modification request and the planning commission found the requirements and it's not a variance. it is a rear modification and i know that the appellant in this matter has appealed other rear modification decisions and i think is well aware of what the findings that are necessary for the rear yard modification. and kind of with that, i think i'll be available for any questions. the required findings have been met and i know it's on page five on all pages and we apologize and we know it cited 134 etch. 134e.

that was an old template but that is the decision letter and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioner tanner has a question. >> hi, thank you, mr. sanchez. can you talk about the standards you used when you are determining that the proposed rear yard modification in this example would not have an impact on the views from the adjacent property? >> certainly. so in terms of that language, it's criteria number two and the proposed structure will not impede the access to the adjacent properties and we have found that the impacts on the adjacent property would not be significant. it has been highlighted that the adjacent building is set back more than three feet and it would be similar to a lightwell situation. and even that, it does have

still access -- there's room at the back that has access of light and air of the rear yard, as well. we understand there may be some impacts that are not significant impacts that would lead us to find that it didn't meet the criteria. >> and the appellant asserted that the windows on his property weren't shown in the plan that the applicant submitted. is that a requirement in this type of permit that the windows of the adjacent property be demonstrated in plans or illustrated? >> it is a requirement of the neighborhood notification process under section 311 and as a part of that, the appellant did highlight all of the issues. the purpose of the provision is to allow neighbors to understand the impacts on light and air to their property and the appellant is aware and we had a hearing on the merits of it and the windows and the relationship of the windows to the project were made very well and very clear to the

planning commissio commission af the parties and the commission felt that the design was appropriate. >> you're not concerned that's the type of misrepresentation of the project we would want to correct? >> the correction would be to renotice it and we would then have the appellant file a discretionary review and the same issues rehashed at the planning commission. i don't see what material benefit they would be. certainly it should have been done the first time around and, you know, but the fact is that it wasn't done. the impacts were recognised by the appellant and they had a full and fair hearing at the planning commission, where they were able to demonstrate how it impacted their property and the planning commission found it was appropriate and the zoning administrator found it was appropriate in issuing this rear yard modification. >> the person received the notice and was able to say there's a problem and raise that issue through the public

process. >> correct. >> and then, as far as the variance versus the rear yard modification, i did find it a little co confusing in that the decision letter, the description, maybe it's more inside in terms of how the planning department and the nomenclature used to title things and might lead one to believe this is a variance versus a different section of the code even though that section is clearly described or erroneously and missing the e instead of the h. can you speak to that? is that the terminology used for this type of letter or confusing in any way. >> it states that they need to strengthen our templates for such letters. the title of it is very clearly rear yard modification decision and it should not have description of variance saying rear yard modification sought

and under the code, for the rear yard modification, it does refer you to the variance process but not the variance findings and so, actually, the case type, the application is technically a variance application, but under the code, the variance findings are not required. so yes, it is a little bit of a bureaucratic issue, but ultimately, the findings that are outline red the correct findings. >> one minor questions in terms of applicants having this letter that has corrections needing, is this accurate in terms of the code sections or anything else that might need to be corrected is. >> we could administratively correct this. you know, i does state in one paragraph in the beginning, references 134h and in a subsequent section referencing the old 134e and we could make

those corrections and correct the page numbers. and administratively reissue that with those clarifications. it would not start a new appeal period, though. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> ok. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item, please raise your hand. if you press star nine, if you called in and you want to provide public comment. ok, i'm not seeing anybody and so we will move on to rebutle. rebuttal. mr. williams, you have three minutes. >> i'm glad the architect and applicants brought up this attempted settle. we went to a meeting with david winslow and he suggested two different solutions and i accepted both solutions. and so, they're giving you a

full picture of the negotiations. they turned down the david winslow solution to allow more sunlight or set it down with the step. and so, this idea that they were good neighbors and offered things and trying to settle is completely false. it blocks the sunlight. the variance blocks the sunlight. calling it insignificant, a foot and a half of sunlight, direct sunlight blocked out by use of the variance process. by the way, the application is for a variance. the process is the same as the variance. the code section says you have to meet the same standards of the variance. and so, this idea that somehow accommodating sunshine to the neighbors would hurt the design is also ridiculous because it's at the rear of the property. and according to other properties saying, well, they

may be encroaching into the rear yard, i don't think they are because their yard is unusually small. it's less than a hundred feet deep and i don't know that -- no one else is being granted a variance on the block and now this lot has two. and the only reason they need this one is because they have the prior one. and there was not a full and fair hearing before the planning commission and they were very confused. the plans were not code compliant and i failed to note it at that hearing. and unlike the board of appeal's, the planning commission doesn't have a zoom call. it's nearly impossible to advocate there now presently. you can only talk on the telephone and provide a slide show which is delayed some 30 seconds from your comments.

it can't be justified legally and we were never given that consideration. and finally, these folks don't live here. i get the feeling they're just going -- they don't reside in that building and haven't been there for the past ten months or more. and no one lives there. and it's ashame to punish those who are coming through their buildings everyday. my tenants and myself coming here everyday and the impacts from this project are going to be, i think, quite substantial. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from mr. involv vincenzio.

or are the property owners going to speak? >> i will speak first. >> i'll quickly share my screen again. >> so david winslowork, ofow, o, he's not here. the best way i can describe that idea and he's not here to speak for himself. but it's just design ideas. he's an architect and we're just throwing things around and, of course, myself and the property owners were not going to -- we were listening, but we are not going to make a decision right then and there. and i'm sure you can imagine what a shed roof would look like on this property if we went ahead and just put a shed on to

it and it just wouldn't match the architecture and the goal of any project is to make it look like it was there from the very beginning. and so i just want to kind of put our two cents in our point of view and perspective of what happened in that hearing, from the meeting with the appellant, the property owners and myself. and i'm going to go ahead and please pass it on to the homeowners. >> i don't want to lower myself to the level of insulting neighbors and i will not do that. i just want to say that we do live there. we do like to expand that bathroom and i'm not sure that these attacks we heard are constructive or have anything to do with the project. it is knew to me it is a

multifamily residence and we have not been consulted. we have somebody move into the garage next door, but we've not seen anyone on the first floor. i understand you do this for a living, that you are advising and we really are doing a part of the project that was already permitted and i think we've given all possible notices. some of the things proposed, they were not possible. they would have required extra stairs in the bathroom that created all kinds of problems from an accessibility perspective and created risks in terms of walking. >> thirty seconds. >> i'm not sure if this is a part of the process at this point. i think personally that the hearing from the planning department was very open and we were there as long as you wanted

to share thoughts and we made a concrete proposal and we've sent quite a bit of money and time on this process. >> thank you, your time is up and we will now move on to the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. in regards to the conversations that were had with staff, mr. david winslow is a staff architect and he represents the department, the planning commission hearings for the discretionary reviews and as a standard part of the practise, he'll meet with the parties and see if there could be a resolution. it does comply with the

residential guidelines. mr. winslow presented this at the planning commission hearing and stated that staff recommended approval of the project and that they not take discretionary review. i want to be clear there was no staff recommendation or requirement for additional changes to be made at the back, but that's clearly not the case and it wasn't referenced here in this brief, mr. williams put out there that his belief of the portion of the building at the back is un-permitted and he provided no evidence of that and just was thrown out there as one of the many arguments made and i did go back and look at historic aerial photos from 1937 and it appears to be there at that time. no indication or evidence that the portion of the rear is illegal. everything seems to be legally constructed and what they're proposing here meets the required finding findings.

in section 134h, there's to requirement for the variance finding that speaks to only the procedures for variances. only the procedures, not the findings for variances and this is how we have handled these for decades since we've had this provision for neighborhood commercial district. there's never been a time i can recall an in my 20 plus years we variance findings were sought. i know mr. williams appealed these before to the board and maybe we have the same argument every time, but the code is the code and this is properly reviewed and i'm available for any questions. thank you. we have a question from commissioner tanner. >> thank you. a question actually for attorney brad russey, if you can help us to understand whether or not it is the three criteria that need

to be met that are indicated in the rear yard variance or the five findings that we often hear about when we have variances before us for consideration. >> good evening, commission. i'm from the city attorney's office. i agree with mr. sanchez, the decision at issue here is a rear yard modification, not your section 134h of the planning code and the criteria is to determine whether that modification is -- the three are the ones you looked at so far and not if this were a variance decision. >> ok, thank you. >> one question for mr. williams. mr. williams. the permit holder said they did agree to have a one-foot lower roof and that you were not satisfied to that. can you speak to that particular concession and why you didn't feel that had any impact for

you? >> david winslow made two specific suggestions. one was a step-down and one was the shed roof and i -- >> i want to know about the concession they were willing to make, which is the one-foot lower roof. why is that not something you were interested in? >> if it was all i can get, i assume that would help a little. it wasn't what we discussed. i came away from the meeting with winslow thinking we had reached a settlement and this was all over. we met in person before the co-vid. >> they have saying you rejected that and do you find that be a representation of your opinion about the one-foot lower roof? >> i just -- i thought it was so little that it wouldn't help much. >> ok. understandable. just wanted to confirm that. thank you. >> the thing is 15 feet tall. >> ok, thank you. so commissioners, this matter is

submitted? >> commissioners? >> i think if you don't behind me starting, i believe this addition has been properly vetted and this is a deno york o hearing, i would deny the appeal and let the project go forward on the grounds there was nothing wrong with it. >> i agree. >> i would agree. >> commissioner honda, do you wish to make a motion? >> that would be my motion. >> let me read it back to you or make a suggestion. we have a motion from vice president honda to deny the appeal and uphold the rear yard modification on the basis that it meets the three criteria under code section 134h. is that accurate? >> exactly what i said. >> thank you. on that motion --

(role call). >> so that carries five-zero and the appeal is denied. we're moving on to item number seven. this is the special item and discussion and possible action regarding a presentation by representatives from san francisco public works, urban forestry on the fine composed for illegal tree removal. it will include the illegal authority and amount for the fine, the process for imposing the fines and once their made aware and the process fo procesr changing fine amounts. they will discuss remedies available for illegal tree removal and president lazarus. >> i was the one who asked to

calendar this. it seems to me there was dismay over cases that we've been hearing and reports that we've gotten of trees taken down illegally. and also, equally dismayed at what seemed to be pretty light fines or other punishment, if you will, for those actions. and there have been, in my tenure, at least, one, if not two occasions, where this board has written a letter to the appropriate authority, whether it be legislative or regulatory, suggesting that, perhaps, changes could be made that could avoid repeat cases. and so, i ask that we have this before us, and the goal would be some decision, if we wish to make one about any action. i caution that we all know we are not a policy body. we don't write it. we don't create it.

but there is nothing that really prohibits us from going on the record if we see something that we think is wrong with policy but i for one am not inclined to get into the specifics, necessarily, but it's a determination as to whether we want to, as i say, convey to the appropriate body. suggestion that some changes may be considered. and so, with that, i will turn it back over. thank you. >> thank you, madam president, for putting this forward. >> ok. so we will hear from the bureau of urban forestry and welcome and thank you for taking the time. who will go first, mr. buck or miss short? >> correct. hello, chris buck with public works. i was going to go first and then we'll both be available for questions after. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you. i'm chris bal buck with the pubc

works. public works bureau of urban forestry and we're asked to in a way to kick off this conversation to really address six specific questions and so it's jumping into the details on our code, the jurisdiction and the remedies. and so what i'm going to do is read through -- i won't reitreat word for word but i'll provide an overview on the document from this morning. i'm share a screen and use that as my sort of narrative guide this evening. the first was remedies outlined in the urban forestry residence

and we're going to spend most of our time del ving into the administrative. but it talks about criminal charges, civil penalties and administrative penalties, which is what we typically employed when trees are moved without a permit and that states that a tree that is destroyed or removed in violation of the provisions shall pay money to the tree's replacement value or the diminish of the value as set forth in the guide for plant appraisal and in no case it shall be less than $500 per violation and it also talks about if one or more violations continue to occur within one year, the director may assess parties double the tree's replacement value or diminishment of the trees's value. these from 8113 811.

a code designates having jurisdiction over trees within the public right-of-way and exhibit trees, which are trees on private property but meet a certain size criteria located within ten feet of a public right-of-way. and this is our urban forestry ordinance and some of the key sections are 804, 811, the penalties for the violation of the ordinance and section 812, enforcement of ordinance, designated employees. and the public work's website, bureau of urban forestry, we have a link to the code, the ordinance on our permit page and so that's out there and i'm just sharing that here. and our website is

sfpublicworks.org. and so the amount of the penalties that may be imposed and how that is determined. so section 811 establishes the penalties and the administrative penalties are the penalties set forth in various sections and that the director may require any person who removes, improves or destroys a tree. the director may assess a party double. so we covered that again. there's a large section in here that really gets into the weeds, but i wanted to really focus on how we establish. so as directed by the ordinance, our bureau issues the fine for the greater of the two amounts, either the standard, which is

$2,122 or the appraised value of the tree. when sufficient information is available to perform the landscape appraisal. this caused public works to plant a 24-inch box sized tree and water the tree once a week for three years which is basically how long it takes to get a young street tree established and those fines go into the adopted tree program. they don't go into the general fund. and just moving on to our next question here. so who sets the fines is one of the questions and this one we've covered is within section 811 of our urban forestry ordinance and then who has the authority to change the fines and that's the board -- the literal answer is the board of supervisors with approval by the mayor through an amendment of the urban forestry

ordinance. and the process for imposing fines once public works is made aware, including who determines the outcome and once the department is made aware, our urban forestry inspector for the area, we have six inspectors and we divide the city into six. that inspector goes and documents the violation with photos to confirm if the violations occurred and issues the th fine. it's issued expect responsible party has 60 days to appeal the fine or pay the fine and if they appeal, they're scheduled for an administrative hearing and they're held once a month at city hall and lately we have not had administrative hearings due to remote working conditions but we're looking at starting those up again next month. and public works' staff present the basis for issuing the fine and moving on to our final page

here. joining us is carla short and we could essentially both do now is listen to questions you all may have and questions from the public and we're open to take any questions. thank you. >> i have a question from

commissioner swigg and president lazarus. >> over the last six weeks, maybe eight weeks, we have had several -- just in the six to last eight weeks, several chen commentaries on oopsies. oops we tore down that tree, we pulled the trigger too fast, oops we did this or that and oh, the person responsible is our vendor and they got a little too overzealous and didn't wait for their permit. i mean, this is a chronic, chronic and serious problem. and what i see is oopsies and

neglect. mr. buck and also, miss short, i don't fault you guys. i have come to understand that you are very diligent in what you try to do. unfortunately, i think that other departments with whom you work are ineffective, abusive and really don't care. that's the bottom line. and i think to heck with fining people. you have to go to the root of the problem and get to the departments who aren't providing you this work and really don't give a darn about your urban forest and my urban forest. my comment on the fines is they are naively small and, in fact,

when you say mr. buck -- and, again, this is not about you but somebody who did some legislation. unfortunately, you're in the position to take the bullets. but these signs are naive. when you say the cost of replacing a tree, you know, the cost -- i would like to though -- and i know somebody has it, and problem josh clip because he has everything else. what is the cost to the environment, the financial cost to the environment when a tree is taken down prematurely, especially a mature tree? not just a go to the nursery supplier and b buy a tree and plant it and the cost and labor but what is the cost of the environment? and what if you do it 20 timeses as we have had examples of only in the last six weeks where we're 20 trees or certainly double digit trees were taken

down. what is that real cost? and then why also i believe the fines are naive is -- and i know there are some good purveyors of landscaping services and there are not. the same way there are good plumbers and bad plumbers. it's just the way of the world. but the cost of a couple thousand dollars at most to a negligent, grocery negligent purveyor of landscaping services who put forth a low bid and that's why they got the bid and they haven't been held accountable by the responsible department as we saw in a couple of these cases in the last few weeks. a couple thousand dollars is nothing. they're going to pass it on to probably a project person anyway. and a change order when the change order in the scheme of a

development, a light change order is 25,000, 30,000. that's a light-wai light-weighte scheme of a big building and so, a couple thousand or 500 bucks, that's not even a slap on the wrist. that's a slap on your pinky. and so i think that the review of the fine level to be contemporary -- in contemporary terms of what would be significant and what would catch the attention of the a developer and what would catch the attention of a landscaping vendor or whoever the person who did the bad deed, these need to be reviewed and i would suggest as a result of this hearing, if we go in that direction in a consensus basis, that we advise the board of supervisors to revise the whole fine structure

in a contemporaneous fashion. >> thank you. president lazarus. >> yes. i actually have several questions. mr. buck, if the memo, you list criminal charges, civil penalties fees and administrative fees. how is it those are applied in a particular case? >> sure. i'll probably have carla short, our superintendent talk to that. >> that's fine. >> miss short. >> good evening. what we have found -- and i'll just highlight a few notes about each of these sections. and so, the criminal penalties are actually limited to a maximum of a thousand dollars

per infraction. and the civil penalties are actually not to exceed $500. fo$500 foreach day of a violati. so we don't have an ongoing situation. >> i wondered about that language. that seems very peculiar. >> i think that language is taken from other right-of-way publpublications where someone s blocking the right-of-way and if they do that after the notice of violation, the fines stack up quickly. but, again, with tree works, potentially, we could catch someone on day one and we complete the work on day two and we would end up with a thousand dollars. and so what we have found that is in most cases, the industry penalties are the most impactful. i do want to note that the da has been a willing partner in the case of egregious

violations. when our own administrative penalties are either ineffective or insufficient. but i think what i note is the criminal find is smaller than our base fine and so our administrative penalties are likely to be more impactful and, also, you know, as you can imagine, the d.a. can't take on every department who has administrative issue if the d.a. took on all of the cases they would be swamped. so as a department, we really have to think, does this rise to the level of involving the d.a. in a criminal charge? we do currently have one case with the d.a. and it is an active case and have been advised not to comment further. but i do want to note a couple

of things that i hope will respond to your question, also, perhaps, a little bit of -- address what commissioner swigg pointed out. we have the ability to fine for the value of the tree and we do that whenever we have sufficient information to appraise a tree. and when it's a construction-related situation, we have sufficient information because we permitted that tree. so i think everyone on our team would agree that $2100 for a mature tree is absolutely insufficient. but we fine for the value of the tree whenever that's possible and in most cases, certainly for any mature tree, it exceeds 2100. i think the cases that recently came before you, those were very small trees that did not appraise -- they appraised at less than $2100 and so, we --

the minimum is $2100 because that is a true replacement cost to plant the tree and as the ordinance states, we can fine for the value of the replacement tree and if the appraised value is higher, we will always go with that. if the appraised value is that, we go with the city's cost to replace a tree. >> but you have the discretion to decide whether it's criminal, civil or administrative or some combination thereof? i would say our director has the discretion to request a criminal involvement. we would approach the d.a. and have done so to, you know, propose the circumstances to them and to discuss whether that is a case they would be willing to take on. basically, that we almost always stick with administrative fines because they tend to be much

more impactful. the criminal fine is limited to a thousand dollars. the administrative fine is limited to $500 and we start at $2100. and so, our routine approach is administrative fine. in truly egregious cases or if there were a circumstance where there was a case where someone was repeatedly violating, we would go for the civil and recoverying costs through the city attorney's office, probably, or, again, we have approached the district attorney to review whether they would take a case when it's particularly egregious. >> there were two other references to cost. one was enforcement cost and i'm curious how those are determined and when those are applied and then, section 811c2, i think, references a $10,000 fine for a violation. can you elaborate on both of

those, please? >> sure. the enforcement costs can be recovered and that, basically, relates to staff time that has been tracking the situation. and so, what i've been told is that, basically, if we were to involve the city attorney's office, they would try to recover attorney fees. in criminal cases, my understanding that they can't actually go after recovering enforcement costs in criminal cases. >> so it would be the city attorney or d.a. office. >> that's right. >> and then the $10,000 amount? >> the $10,000 provision was somewhat recent addition to the code. it is intended to be tied to

egregious pruning for sign visibility. this was an ongoing challenge that we were having where prior to public works taking over responsibility for all street tree maintenance, adjacent property owners were responsible. and in many cases, billboard company, you know, would top trees to get better visibility for their billboard and the adjacent property opener may not be the entity that has the billboard. and so our code really goes after the adjacent property otheowner prior to this revisio. and it, basically, meant they were in this awkward situation where we were going after them and they were the responsible party for the tree and we knew that the entity responsible for the topping was the general advertising sign company. some years ago, a permit was required to prune trees for general advertising signs

visibility and failure to get that permit in not only sign for the damage to the value of the trees and if they had illegally removed trees, candidate be the value of trees removed, but if addition, the failure to get the permit, particularly related to the general advertising stine to impose an additional fine of $10,000. >> so it relates only to that particular circumstance, the 10,000. two more questions. and do you know how often or how recently these fines have been in justice? >> that's a great question. when i started in chris' job, back in 2004, it was set at $560 exi$560and it had not been adjur years.

it does get annually adjusted to plant a 24-inch box tree and water it for years. there's an annual adjustment but hasn't been, to my knowledge, any adjustment. the nature of how that value is determined. >> and then, the last question and i don't th mean to put you n the spot, but do you feel that these fines are appropriate, where they sit? >> i think anyone in the bureau of urban forestry would support laws that would allow us to have more teeth and .

i frequently have said at hearings, we can't go back and put the limbs on the tree. people are, like, you're fining to make money. no, we've lost a tree. at that point, it's too late. and certainly, i think we are cautioned against abadi abdicatr changes this our code. >> thank you. vice president honda. >> i guess this is more of a comment and i know the reason we're having this is because we're all on the same page of preserving and enlarging or canopy in san francisco and in particular, the fines are at question. my tenure on the board, when i came on, carla short was in

chris' position and the only one that has more tenure that me is madam president here. trees have always been important and come before. only recently have we had this type of egregious behaviour and i don't know if it's due t becaf covid but i think the fines have to be dealt with. eight years ago when i was on the board o or or seven years ae weren't looking at such a large reduction of our canopy and i'll speak candidly that i feel that someone has put a war on not just specifically street trees but ficuses in the city. and because we have lost so many trees recently, now every tree that comes before us is such a

large battle. we have had developers begging for forgiveness and i don't know if it's prop e that gave us money to maintain but not add on but we those in san francisco who are extremely upset. goes back six years if we had a tree taken down, it wasn't this huge, huge battle every single time. but when people see that we're supposed to have 30,000 trees added to our canopy and, yet, we're at a negative amount or we've added 40 or 20 without the zeros on there, it seems like we're truly fighting for every single tree that we can possibly save, whether they're small or whether they're large. and i understand that we had a huge development boom here and

our population exploded and we were trying to do housing. but at this point, as i mentioned earlier, we need to stop and smell the coffee and see what we want our city to look like ten, 20, 30 years from now and do we really need to remove this many ficuses and replace them with little baby trees that are not going to cleaner air. and when the public mentioned, i mean, this week alone, we should understand that we need a canopy to fil filtrate all that's in or air. in my opinion, this has become

more of a muddy thing rather than an ecology thing. and i live here, my kids live here and hopefully i have grandkids and they'll live here. i would like to see a tree canopy. and i get razzed a lot on social media that they call me the big tree hugger and all this crazy stuff. i guess i am. you know. i can't hug people, i'll do the tree-hugging thing right now. that's my comment and i do believe the fines are necessary so that we stop this. but at the same time, in a larger picture, we have to look at trees that we're taking down and slow down. you can't knock them all down and put baby trees throughout the city and say this will look fantastic. and if we have to start denying permits because they have violated their tree, maybe that's what needs to happen at this point and who cares if they built it.

they'll have unbuild it. those are just my thoughts. again, i want to thank madam president and for you coming here and taking the heat. it's not directed at you at all but in recent times, it is just -- it's just like a fight over every tree and i don't mind. this is what i signed up for, but it appears that it's the majority of our hearings now. and it's the longest part of our hearings and each case is anywhere from an hour to two hours, easily. and so thank you again for coming and taking heat for us. and i appreciate all of the hard work you do and hopefully at the end, we can figure something out. >> thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. just a couple of questions on some of president lazarus' questions and at the end of this, he may put forward some suggestions to the board of

supervisors or other bodies that have the ability to change some of these things. it strikes me that the amount of money that is part of the administrative penalty is pretty low, 2,000 and some change. i'm happy to hear it includes the watering. are there any limitations, miss shore, in terms of what can set that rate at 2,000? do we have to follow other fees in the city and need to be connected. when it's a fine, is it connected to something specific or connected in a manner where it's intended to be punitive and discourage the bad behaviour? >> i will say it does have to be based on our actual costs to plant a 24-inch box tree and

water it for years. and i'm surprised and delighted to hear you say it's cost effective. most people say it's $2,000 to plant a tree, that's crazy and the vast majority, as you've heard mr. buck, the vast majority is the watering cost. i don't know whether -- and because the language i in the ce says it's the replacement value -- when we have the information to find the replacement value, we do. when mature trees are involved, they appraise at much higher than $2100. but i don't know whether a fine could be -- whether it would require a code change or whether that could be changed. you know, we've used this because it's the replacement cost when i don't know the replacement cost of the tree. and i would have to defer to the city attorney about whether or not that could be increased

simply to be punitive. i imagine it could, but i would expect it would take a change like the $10,000 that was added specifically to deter general advertising sign pruning. but i would defer to the city attorney. >> i'll ask in a second if he is aware of that. but let's say we have to set it based on something. we can't just be punitive with a fee or maybe there's a third way, a replacement cost and letter c or something that is a higher amount. would it be -- if you were to recalculate, would you include things like -- we heard mr. clip say street trees fail in this period of time and so, you'll be replacing it more than one time if you'll replace that tree. working with the department of environment to calculate what the developpal value, so more than replacing that tree and the cost of the bureau.

what have we lost or is that more related to the replacement tree cost, trying to calculate that tree cost? if you have a seps of that. sense of that. >> the appraisers to determined the appraised value do take into consideration some of the other benefits that trees provide and, you know, that is why mature trees don't value out at $2100. i think if we were to do environmental assessments on the trees that were valued at less than $2100, i think one know, that typically would indicate that they're in very poor condition or they're very small. and they're not going to be providing the same degree of environmental benefits, of course, that a mature tree would. and so, i think it's an interesting idea to consider the

failure rate of young trees and i am going to follow up with mr. clip, because some the data he mentioned tonight, i want to get his source for that information. but there's no question that the highest risk for trees is during the first five years of their life and so, that would be an interesting idea to pursue. i'm not sure how we would be able to account for that. we do successfully establish many trees and that's always the goal.

>> we were contacted by billboard holidayers and have only issued two fines to general advertising that violated that provision. it. they admitted they were planning to break the law. , which i found pretty astonishing. one other thing discussed internally and i know has been proposed in a proposed code amendment that has gone to some of the supervisors that mr. clip was involved with was

the idea of bonding contractors. and so, requiring bonds to help ensure the tree protection is followed. i think the challenge we might run into is if the value of the tree is considered low, you know, they'll be willing to let go of that. and so i think the greatest deterrent would be more, you know, as you say punitive-based fine value. >> last question for you an. a case that we heard two weeks ago about hope fs projects and beautiful tree that was in the project's area and wouldn't survive the construction. but what was, perhaps, more striking is that 200 and some trees cut down in order to make way for the project and i wondered what your thoughts are on how the bureau of urban --

not the bureau itself but how the trees could have been taken into consideration during the design of that process. i know it's expensive to work around tree and tree roots with excavation and things like that, but it strikes me that more trees could have been saved if that had been a goal and priority of the redevelopment of that project. do you have any opinion on that? is it urban forestry getting involved or code or planning, planning code? like, where does that type of valuvalue come to help with the large scale project to discourage them from legally doing it? they got permits to take them down but, again, removes those trees which we can't replace, really, ever. i'm sure we can have what we call replace a tree but the value of that tree in terms of carbon sequestration is lost. >> in many cases, the

jurisdiction of trees not under the urban forestry. a small number of trees within ten feet of the right-of-way and meet one of three size criteria. i think what we have found is that if the bureau of urban forestry is consulted earlier on is we have been working with colleagues, as mr. buck mentioned in the previous case, with mayor's office of housing, to try to ensure that it's included early on. had we had the opportunity to review plans of 1100 connecticut and said, whoa, this stone pine is worth working around, this is a tree in our jurisdiction that really should be incorporated into the design, you know, it won'would be great given that opportunity. i think that it's important to

recognise that not all trees are providing the same level of benefits and are providing the same value to -- where you might be making a decision between working around a tree that's costly and expensive and potentially losing housing units. a number of the trees that were on that site previously were not in good condition. and so, i think it's important while every tree should be saved if it could be saved, i would agree with that statement. but i think using that italian stone pine which was an extraordinary tree that we really wanted to see preserved and saying that all of these other trees should have been preserved, i think that confounds the issue and makes it harder to work around trees. if we can focus on trees -- and again, through a scientific assessment of the tree, are

providing really significant benefits. and those can be esthetic. i don't think they're only ecological benefits. if you look at, for example, those two illegal removals on that case, those were stump sprouts. we were luckily to get $2100 for those. our code is stressed about what a tree is. it's a woody species in the right-of-way. but if we had done an appraisal, they would have appraised at probably negative dollars because it would be more expensive to remove the stump. and so, i just would caution against -- again, i care about trees. this is why i'm in this job. but i don't think that all trees are necessarily worth working around. having said that, it would be great if we could have the other divisions, whether it's planning

or other entities also looking for at trees that aren't under our jurisdictions. we get a lot of attention on trees in the right-of-way, but a lot of trees are trees on parcels. in many cases, those trees are larger because they have more growing space. >> thank you very much. is there any knowledge about if signs can be set at a punitive level or tied to a calculated cost for replacement or, i guess, the second case where it's the calculation based on the known value of the tree? >> honestly, admissioner commisi would need to do more research. they can be punitive. but i do also think they can't be disproportionate to the legislative goal of what is trying to beachieved. there is a limit.

>> thank you. that's my questions. >> thank you. we will now hear from commissioner swigb. gg. >> i'll be shorter than last time and commissioner tanner, because i can't help myself, in testimony last week when we talked about the connecticut site, i, the the testimony was f was left out by ocii or whatever department was in charge of that development with the city and that since that has the poster child for what happens when you leave out buff, ocii has reestablished -- that a requisite that buff be included

in all conversations related to developments and i took it upon myself to chat with the senior leader at ocii this week and she confirmed that would be so and remorseful that in the connecticut project, buff was neglected as far as being brought in from the planning process. i hope that makes you feel better and i'm sure miss short, it makes you feel better. quick question, miss short, is there any data or a financial opinion about the value of a tree to the environment? that is, if you have a mature tree that's been around for a couple of decades, what is the monetary value of that tree with regard to not itself in existence but rather that tree

and what it cleanses as far as the carbon footprintor whatever chemicals are in the air and what the loss of a mature tree really costs as far as the impact on the environment or versus what a 24-inch box mature tree saves monetarily for the environment? >> yes. i mean, those values can be calculated. basically, there's and accepted program where you input the species of of tree, size of the tree, the location of the tree and more or less, and it will calculate for you the amount of carbon that's stored and the

amount of ozone chemicals like no2 absorbed by that tree and it will give you a value of those ecosystem services or the benefits of that tree is providing. and you can then compare that with entering the value, the size of the tree being a one and a half inch diameter tree and you can compare what that is. and, in fact, we have undertaken the exercises and i did that for this board some number of years ago. to compare what the value of the trees. as a result, there were additional changes made to the proposed replacement tree. that can be calculated. >> so common sense would dictate if i was taking down -- if a

tree which was three decade's old was taken down and replaced by a 24-inch box, that the fine should be commensurate not only with the cost of 24-inch box but also what the cost to the environment, financially, would be until that 24-inch box was around for two or three decades and replaced the value of that mature tree which was taken down. would not that not be a way of assessing a fine for an illegal take-down? >> it could be, certainly, but i think one of the things that, you know, if you look at the economic value o that an individual tree provides, you have to play the lawn game with trees. and so, i'm not sure that would

end up being a higher appraisal than the appraised value of a large tree, which does take into consideration some of the other benefits of having that tree. and i do just want to note, again, we have issued fines for trees that ranged between ten and $20,000 for an individual tree. so when we know the value of the tree and we can do an appraisal, as i said, it is frequently greater than $2100 and if it's a mature tree, it can be well over $10,000.

>> being somebody involved in commercial real estate or buildings used for business, i have a developer's -- i know the developer's nasty side of mindset. i try not to use that nasty side, but when i see a developer and they have to move in -- develop a building and they're

making a value judgment, well, do we tear down the trees or do we adjust the -- or do we take another six weeks to build this thing because we can't move the equipment in the way we want to? or do we tear down the tree because we really need that loading dock to be right where it is? and it's worth paying the damage to the city so we can get our building the way we want to do it or get or building done on time? this is where i believe the fees or fines should be the disincentive for that behavior or commensurate with the damage. how would you do that or do you perceive that would ever happen? >> i think a fine that could be punitive and not necessarily tied to a replacement value, i

think we saw that it was a det deterrence adding the $10,000 on top of our appraised damage to the tree's fine. and that seemed to have an impact, but you know better than i would it cost a project to take six extra weeks. it could be far greater than $10,000. i don't know. >> it could be my -- my fear is that it could be 50 or 100 or $250,000 or more. so you throw an extra ten grand in a fine and they say thank you, because instead of losing $250,000, i'm going to lose, you know, $20,000 because i can accelerate the activity and that's where i believe these fines should be adjusted to more real life or at least to

disinvendis-incentivize scoff ln that direction. >> president lazarus. >> what we're discussing is fine and wile while i appreciate the other issues on trees on any action we might take revolves around fines and that is the subject of the item. thank you. >> thank you. >> ok, vice president honda. >> last question, so, i mean, specifically in fines, so we've mentioned developers and how does that fine work when it's the city that's involved? that actually was the bad guy here. >> how does that pay? do they take their checkbook and write a check to themselves? >> we issued the fine to the

contractor in that case and i think that -- i'm not the project manager and i don't know if they'll be responsible for that cost, but i don't think they should be, i think the contractor should be. they didn't have a permit in hand and we issued the fine to the contractor and they need to pay it. and so, you know, in the interim, in a quick response, in the interim, says that cas sincs happened, we've had discussions about making sure that the contractor has a permit, not that they heard from somebody things went well but a permit was in hand before he remove trees and that message, i hope, will be more carried. in that case, the contractor developed the gun. >> do you miss seeing us on

wednesday evenings, carla? >> i've been watching you all a lot lately, so not really. i feel like i'm part of it all. >> thank you for answering that. >> thank you. and so we are now moving on to public comment for this item. if you would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand. ok, we will hear from miss casey asbury. >> speaker: thank you. good to see that this issue has made it to discussion and i appreciate miss short and mr. buck's request for support in this area.

we want t want to make this smod want development to work but in a way that takes into account the real value of trees to our communities, especially in this time when we are likely going to a period of extended drought. any tree can't be looked at as a replacement tree because we won't have the same conditions to work with climatically and we

need to preserve -- i agree with commissioner honda, we need to preserve the canopy that we have and build on it and the number that the city has asked for is $50,000 and we're thousands in deficit right now and losing trees every month. so it's an emergency. i applaud the boa board for havg this hearing and let's work together to make this happen to preserve more of our trees and have more to work with for the future. thank you. >> we'll now hear from josh clip. >> speaker: seems like i've started quite a bit of trouble here, but i want to thank president lazarus for putting

this on the agenda and for the thoughtful comments and questions. regarding criminal penalties, financially, it's one thing but it seems the city would be unlikely to engage a contractor who had committed criminal acts against it and i believe that the stakes are, in fact, higher than a $500 criminal fine. commissioner swigg, what superintendent short was referring to was itree, an open source software that's tree and easy to use. the city used to have a public website with information available, but that map has been taken down. regarding illegal removals, i'm not aware where the department would say you took out something that wasn't a big deal and not a big deal. the rules are the rules and exist for the reason and the city shouldn't be in the business of giving a cover. it's the contractors doing un-permitted work. regarding the fines for the value of the tree, which i

appreciate, superintendent short, one of the amendments that i proposed to article 16 was requiring contractors to put up a bond and if they hurt or remove the tree, they lose that bond and goes to the tree-planting fund and no overhead cost. i also propose that what we discuss as a replacement formula to account for the losses. these are all in my article 16 proposals that are currently sitting somewhere. regarding fees, again, this ends up being the in lieu fee and is planting a small tree. so if we tightened up this code, there wouldn't be construction delays and there won be cost and the implementation would be both ecological and financially responsible. regarding 811 administrate's fees to include $10,000, i don't see where an 811 it refers to street signs. it refers to 805b which doesn't refer to street signs.

so maybe i'm reading that wrong, but i just didn't see that. anyway, and then, finally, i have questions regarding -- i'm hoping that maybe the board cap take up regarding the reduction in collection of fees. my understanding is that even these fees that are assessed as penalties are oftentimes reduced and there's a backlog in terms of collection and i'm in the even sure what the penalties are for people that don't pay -- >> thirty seconds. >> -- that don't pay outstanding fees. so i would have a question about that. and how many are reduced and paid and what is done when people don't pay them? >> thank you, mr. clip. >> we will now hear from danny smith. >> speaker: so, yeah, i agree with a lot of what everybody is saying and i won't repeat as much of it as i can. but yeah, i think that with any

crime, you know, it's all you have to do is pay back the cost of the thing -- pay the cost to place the thing you stole and that's it. what's the deterrence for anyone doing that. and i think valuing trees beyond their replacement cost is pretty important, especially considering the years and, you know, decades of growth that it takes for it to get back to the size that it was. and so i think that's just inaccurate to make that a fine. and a couple times, it was mentioned that in specific cases they were able to assess the tree and realize that it was worth far more and so they charged a higher fine. in a lot of cases, you can't do

that, but i'm reading an article right here from the examiner that was contributed by carla short and mohamad nuru that states -- we finally have the detailed information. we need to know which trees are in bad shape and pose a risk. this is regarding tree removal. for the first time ever, the bureau of urban forestry has a tree in sensor. it tells us the location and species of every street tree, as well as condition, based on assessments made by professional arborists and certified by the international society of arbor isa. and so, i guess one of my questions is, how do we not know the value of all of our trees if we are specifically being told we have an entire database of every tree and its condition? and that to me seems like it

contradicts what's being said. and so, i don't know, just a couple of thoughts. i was directly impacted by this on august 4th, they chopped down three trees on my block at the corner of turk and webster and none of them had ever had any limbs fall and they were all in good condition. and i still have not found -- >> thirty seconds. where it was mentioned that they were going to be removed, including checking the website where they're supposed to be put. all i could think of was at some point maybe if it's found that they did it illegally, somebody will just pay to replace it so that 30 years there now it will be where it was then. i think fines should take into consideration all of the factors. >> that is time.

>> thank you, mr. smith. your time is up. thank you for your comments. >> we will now hear from miss boller. >> speaker: i've been following all this commentary and i want to suggest that trees being living beings, though they are not really honored as such, but they are in themselves and considering it that way, i feel like putting a price value on

killing them, we call it removing and replacing, but you're killing the tree. it's not only a loss to the tree but it's a loss to our environment as has been pointed out. so i want to suggest at some method of controlling their safety, some other method than paying money.

a moratorium would be desirable thing to have in the city. >> thank you. >> are there any other public commenters? can you raise your hand if you would like to speak in public comment? i don't see any other hands raised and we'll give it one more moment. you can send a message in the chat.

>> there's somebody in the attendee's box. >> i believe that's somebody from public works and they're not raising their hand. and so, ok, i think we've concluded the public comment portion. president lazarus. >> great, thank you. thanks to the department andless to thandalso to the public and y to turn it over to my fellow commissioners for discussion about any next steps we may want to consider. commissioner swigg. >> i don't think -- i think the next step is to ask buff if they're the appropriate body. i don't know. and certainly dpw to go back, based on this testimony tonight and review the fine schedule that is currently in place.

review it in terms of chron logically and ha is something that hasn't been reviewed in ten years and that should be updated. i say this because stay away from micromanaging because that's not our jobs. but i really, really would like buff and dpw to go back and review that and then come back to us and report on what their findings are. i think that if i could put forth - an idea and that is what mr. clip brought up, which is a bond. and bonding is very, very

effective. basically, if the bond says that if you do wrong with these trees, it's going to cost you whatever the value of the bond which is decided between the developer or the contractor, whomever and the city. if the bond says if you touch these four trees, it will cost you $200,000. $200,000, that will catch the attention of the contractor or developer and they're probably going to be a lot more responsible and conscious about whether they'll abuse their privilege with street trees. i think the concept of a bond as well as individual fines is a very good one. that's it. >> president lazarus.

yes, someone in follow-up, there was reference to a proposal that was made to the bureau of urban forestry on miss short. are there suggestions that have been put forward and ones that are considered and could be reported back out to us if we follow the path commissioner swigg is suggesting? >> there have been some proposed amendments made, proposed amendments to the public work's code that have been shared with a number of members of the board of supervisors. but, you know, public works doesn't initiate amendments to our own code and i think the members of the code would need to take that up. i know that there's some consideration going on but i would have to defer to their offices. >> but would you be in a position to potentially

incorporate some of that into a report back to us with potentially any recommendations on what we can do to be of assistance? again, we're not making policy. we want to be in a position potentially to advocate for changes in policy. >> sure. i mean, i think we can certainly reach out and -- we can do research to bonds we had. we had discussed with our advice attorney about what the mechanisms and requirements for bonds might be, and so we can continue to do research and reach out to the offices of the board of supervisors to see if they are planning to move forward with any kind of amendments to the public work's code. >> commissioner tanner.

>> i think it might be helpful if you are able to confer with some of the city attorneys in term of the ability to do more punitive signs, if you will, if there's any rails on what you can vet it at. but it does sound like the legislation mentioned, the proposed legislation, we're not familiar with it. so if there are thoughts, portions that you would supportive of. i don't know if, president lazarus, to make a recommendation to the board to say we have these issues and we hope we can solve it at a policy level so we aren't in the position we're in, which is the tree is already gone or being removed. >> but staff did work on that with proposed amendments is we're supportive of what's been proposed.

>> they would come back and give us their ideas and if necessary and appropriate, ask the executive director to craft a letter to the board of supervisors, calling these issues to their attention and suggesting that they maybe they should take them under consideration for revised legislation. >> thank you.

>> should we continue this matter to a time to get a set of suggestions? and i think going along the lines that commissioner tanner and commissioner swigg were discussing which is a letter to the board of supervisors, potentially. >> we should establish an examination with regard to time that we should hear back from buff or dpw so we're not waiting around for a year and a half to get some response. we should raise that level of time expectation in some fashion. >> i'll suggest three months and i don't, but maybe three or four

months and this is towards the end of the year. that might be enough time. >> i think that's a good start, to be honest. we're still in covid and a lot of people are still working remote at this point, but i think that would be a good start. >> way too long of a time. >> excuse me, public comment is over. >> president lazarus, i would like to suggest we clarify for the record what questions we would like the urban forestry to report back on. i had three items and the feasibility of bonds, the status of the proposed amendments and we have to know what the amendments are, as well, so they would have to report back on what the proposed amendments are and the status and then the feasibility of making the fines more punitive. anything else? i want to be clear.

>> do we want to set a date for the continued hearing? >> we can do that. we haven't set the 2021 calendar. we can put it december 16th is the latest hearing of the year. >> if that works for the department and other commissioners, that sounds reasonable to me. >> we could continue the item,

it would be an action. >> let's make a motion to continue the item until decembee expectation of feedback as noted from buff or dpw. and also, i would like to ask miss short whether we've left anything out and whether she is comfortable with the direction that we are requesting of her department. >> we're happy to do the research and reach out, but we're not typically in a position where we would abdicate for changes to our code as a department. so while we can come back to you with research, we can find out kind of what the legal limitations are on the attorney

and reach out to the members of the board to see if they have a status update on the proposed amendments and i just want to caution that i don't think our normally are allowed to advocate to make changes to our own code. >> but you can respond to the specific items that we are asking of you while not being an advocate. you are simply responding to what this body is asking of you as you it is being requested. correct? >> we can do that research and report back to you on those items. >> that would be my expectation. and is the date december 16th, does that give you enough time? >> i think it should, yes. >> thank you.

>> so, we need a motion, then, to continue this item to december 16th. >> i'll motion. >> we have a motion from vice president honda to continue this item to december 16th to get the questions so that dpw can report back on the items addressed by the commissioners, which i will spell out more in the minutes for this meeting and on that motion -- and so this is continuance to december 16th. on that motion -- (role call). >> that motion carries five-zero and this motion is carried to december 16th. >> thank you. >> and that concludes our agenda, i believe. >> yes, it does. >> thank you. >> see you in three weeks. >> thank you.

>> ok, we're adjourned.