>> clerk: also present is deputy city attorney brad russi who will provide any needed legal assistance. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by steven keller, san francisco public works board of urban forestry. the rules of presentations are as follows. the appellants and department

are given seven minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have three minutes to address the board. four votes are needed to grant an appeal or modify an order or determination. to enable public participation, sfgov is streaming this hearing live, and we will have the opportunity to provide public comment for each item on the agenda. please note that this hearing will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26.

a link to the live stream is found on our website, sfgov.org/boa. sfgov is streaming the broadcast information and public comment information at the bottom of the broadcast. listen for the public comment portion of your item to be called and dial star, nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your

time is up. if any of the participants or members of the board need legal assistance, send an e-mail to boardofappeals@sf.org. the public chat cannot be used for public comment or opinions. now we will swear in any member of the public wishes to testify -- wishing to testify. if you wish to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please raise your right hand and say i do or i affirm. okay. do you answer that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and the whole

truth? >> i do. >> clerk: okay. we're moving onto item number one, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for the public to speak on any time in the board's jurisdiction than not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone wishing to speak in public comment? okay. i do not see any hands raised, so we will move onto item 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> president honda: none. >> clerk: okay. i don't see any comments or questions, so we will move onto item three. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption of the july 28, 2021 minutes. >> president honda: unless i see anyone -- i see vice president swig's hand is up. >> commissioner swig: i move to

adopt. >> clerk: okay. is there any objection or public comment on that motion? seeing no objection or public comment -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries 5-0, so the minutes are adopted. we are now moving onto item four. this is martha corea-mason having san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. this is appeal number 21-061 at 3718 mission street. this is appealing the issuance on june 17, 2021, to martha corea-mason, of a public works order, denial of the application to remove two street trees with replacement of one adjacent to the subject property, the two existing identify tuesday trees are

healthy, have been pruned and are the largest trees within a few blocks. mr. mason, we can't hear you. you're on mute. >> okay. can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. welcome. >> hello. thank you for our opportunity to present our counter arguments. [inaudible] i submitted a number of photographs that i personally took that clearly shows the damage to the sidewalk. here, we see the uplift caused by these roots. if we can move to the -- yes, this is a business on the ground floor of the 3718 mission street. the door to the business cannot open. we can see here the extent of cracking and uplift presenting a possible liability of injury

to pedestrians and this is directly attributable to the tree roots. in addition, there's been extensive damage to the sewage pipes that are proximate to these roots, the 3718 properties. i submitted quite a few pictures that martha had taken when the roots punctured and ruptured the pipes that flooded the ground floor and also the two floors above. so it is our contention based upon the photographic evidence and any other checks here that we can present that these trees have necessitated in the year

2021, that these trees are, in fact, not healthy, and they are impacting martha mason directly, her finances. she is on a fixed income. she is a latinx minority, and we feel that the board should overturn its initial ruling. >> clerk: thank you. does that conclude your presentation? >> yes, that's my presentation. >> clerk: looks like we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: yes, sir. so my question is, who planted the trees? are you aware of who planted the trees? >> no, we don't have that information. >> president honda: okay. and how long have you owned the property? >> martha mason has owned the property for perhaps 25 years? they've been a problem as

they've matured. now, i don't have the records of the correspondence between martha mason and the city on this, but this has been an on going problem, and that is actually why she's requested, to my knowledge, to have these trees removed. they've just become incredibly expensive. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the department, the bureau of urban forestry. >> hello. how you doing tonight in steve keller, acting forester with department of public works. i'm going to share my screen. can you see my screen? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. this is just a quick summary. the property owner, miss mason, applied for a true removal

permit -- >> president honda: hold on one second. vice president swig, do you have your hand up? >> commissioner swig: i will have a question after the presentation. >> president honda: okay. thank you. sorry to interrupt. please proceed. >> oh, it's fine. okay. is my screen still visible? did i restart the time? >> clerk: yes, please restart your time. >> okay. the summary of the permit, the applicant applied in march 2020. the reasons for the removal were the cost of maintenance of the trees, sidewalk damage and sewer issues. in june 2020, the bureau of urban forestry denied the tree removal permit on the basis that they're healthy. they are some of the largest trees on the block in an area

that lacks canopy coverage. and b.a.r.t. had also planned on doing a sidewalk repair at the site, so the bureau of urban forestry had spent considerable resources on maintaining the trees. we denied the permit in june, and we described to the applicant that the cost of pruning and the cost of sidewalk damages, that the bureau of urban forestry. this is just some photos from april 2020 showing the pruned trees, as we've stated. this is a record from our tree database, stating that the trees were pruned in october 2019, and that a sidewalk repair was performed on july 6, 2020, and again, the photo then

just shows how the trees were pruned away from the side of the building. and this is a picture of what the sidewalk looked like when miss mason applied for the -- the tree removal permit. and then, when i spoke to her on the phone, when -- i had denied -- i was the one who did this permit, denied it originally, and i had spoken to miss mason on the phone several times. when i denied the permit, i agreed that the sidewalk was in that condition, and i would have it repaired after i denied the tree removal permit because it was public works' responsibility to fix that. this is just a photo showing the general grid, the parcel outlined in red, the property

in the area, and just showing there's not a lot of tree canopy in the area. and i just wanted to talk about the sewer line a little bit. the red line is the perceived route of the sewer line. after we had denied miss mason's permit, she had spoken to me on the phone and said they were experiencing sewer back up, but after i got that initial call, i had not heard from the applicant. and to my knowledge, the sewer knowledge has been resolved or not been resolved without digging up of the sidewalk or a full lateral sewer replacement. and we think as generally sewers run perpendicularly to

the sidewalk, they could do a full lateral sewer replacement and preserve the tree. additionally, we just wanted to point out that if both trees were approved for removal, only one tree can be planted at this site because of the sewer line, and the red zone on the curb is a bus line, so it is the illumination of a full planting site. and also, the city wants to reiterate the prior stance that the trees are not the primary factor in damaging the sewer lines. typically, sewer lines will decay over time and develop

leaks and that's what attracts the trees to go into the sewer line. it's uncommon that the tree causes the cracks. it exacerbates the leaking of the sewer, but it is not the primary reason the sewer is leaking. and then, i wanted to share one -- hold on -- one additional screen. >> clerk: we can pause the time. >> yeah, pause the time. i need to figure out how to stop sharing. >> clerk: okay. you stopped sharing. >> okay. i appreciate it. okay. can you see the screen now? >> clerk: yes. >> i just wanted to -- the

appellant said we had not fixed the sidewalk, and i wanted to say that is definitely not true. we did send a crew here to repair the sidewalk. this is a picture from february 2021, where you can see kind of -- right in front of the door, you can see new sidewalk matching kind of older sidewalk as when i did the original inspection of the permit, where you can clearly see uplifted sidewalk, a tripping hazard, and public works also uses green paint to mark damaged sidewalks. and again, just going back, this is a picture from february 2021 of this street, clearly showing that public works did repair the street at this site. and here's the two pictures lined up next to one another.

-- if the -- however long the salon door did have trouble reopening, and that was one of the reasons we wanted to get that sidewalk fixed, if that is still happening, we can go back and fix that, but i was hoping it would be resolved when we did the original repair, so i apologize for that. thank you. that is all. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: so it seems like many years ago, but it was only about five -- i think it was my second board of appeals meeting. maybe it was longer than that, and it was a house on fulton street, and it was a tree like this, different kind, but it was much like this.

i believe it was a pine tree, and again, this was my second meeting, so rookie season, for sure, and i was appalled at the fact that the claim was simply the same; that there was a tree, and there was a problem with a sewer line, and it was causing significant damage to a person's house, and i thought for sure that this tree was going to be a dead tree. and i was surprised to find out that -- that the tree was going to be saved because of the situation that you just described. so i think one of the issues, when we have these -- these

tree cases like this, is the clarity of, you know, what impact the rules are when it comes to trees and the public, and generally, the trees win. can you just confirm a couple of questions for me. if a tree is healthy, that tree is most likely not going anywhere unless there is a significant threat -- a significant, significant threat to human life or property, and maybe the property, i could leave out. is that true? >> yes. the bureau of urban forestry generally denies tree removal permits if it is safe and

healthy. that's the original basis of most denials. the only time that they're approved are, for instance, like, you have development related [inaudible] of healthy trees, and that happens. and then, sometimes, when a sewer line -- often, you have sewer lines, like, literally beneath a tree trunk or a foot off a tree trunk where it's impossible to dig it up. that would be an instance where you would remove a healthy tree. >> commissioner swig: and you indicated the sidewalk becomes the responsibility of d.p.w. to make sure that it's a safe place and there's no slip and falls, correct? it's a yes-no, please. >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner swig: okay. so anything else, if that tree

grows and matures, and what often happens in nature is the roots grow and push and go in whatever direction that they want to, and if it impacts a home, if it impacts a sewer line, then that issue becomes not the issue for the tree but for the property owner or homeowner, as the case may be. >> correct. >> commissioner swig: so in this case, given that those situations are what they are, the only reason that the city would consider taking down one of those trees is if the sewer line is directly under the tree or is so close to the tree that

it is absolutely impossible for those two to coexist, and that would be the only time that the sewer line would beat the tree. >> correct. >> commissioner swig: okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. we are now moving onto public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment for this item? please raise your hand. mr. nolte, are you here for public comment? >> i just want to say that hearing the testimony from d.p.w., i concur with their decision to maintain the two ficus trees at that location. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? okay. i don't see any further public comment, so we will move onto rebuttal. mr. mason, you have three minutes. >> first point of rebuttal, the supposition that the pruning of trees, that's a red herring.

we're not talking about pruning of trees, with all due respect, we're talking about the damage that the trees have caused to the sidewalk and the sewage. number two, the position that the sewer problem has been resolved, so, it hasn't, and it's not upon a minority latinx senior to solve it. number three, we have a problem of aging versus the roots. well, the roots are causing the damage. as trees age, that's really something of a [inaudible] the repair has all been taken care of by martha mason, so the city is taking the position that it's all on the homeowner, quite literally. the tree always wins. i would ask -- that's a pretty interesting supposition that the trees win over actual citizens of the city, and

particularly citizens of marginalized communities. maybe we should review that. and the issue here about clarity and trees win, and in particular, this notion that martha mason could resolve the issue about the sewage, well, martha mason could move to forest hills, right? the point here again is that you're putting the onus upon this aging woman to solve this problem. i took these photos in june 2021, and it's clear whatever work was done back in february, that the uplift has occurred yet again, making martha mason potentially liable to anybody who trips over that. the ground floor business is

impacted once again, and i would present that the issue is not the pruning but the age of the tree. we've had some reports from the state that worked on doing at least temporary repair that yeah, the pipe was very much impacted by the [inaudible] so i don't have that paperwork with me because that would cost martha mason additional moneys, but certainly if we can get an extension on this, i would urge upon her to present this evidence. so those are my four points of rebuttal that i would like -- >> that's time. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from

president honda. >> yeah. >> president honda: so you've had sewage work done to the property in the past, sir -- repair? >> work done on the property based upon the damage of the trees. >> president honda: okay. so when you had that done, did you have a camera line taken? that's pretty common when you have supralateral -- >> i don't know. i was just brought in on this. >> president honda: the other thing is that building looks like it was build in the 20s or 30s. does it still have the clay pipes or was a supralateral done with cast iron? >> you think the building was constructed in the 30s? it's my knowledge the building was constructed much later than that, probably as late as the 1980s. >> president honda: so do you know if it has the original

clay pipes or cast iron? if it was built in the 80s, it would have cast iron, so are you aware of that? >> i am not aware of that. >> president honda: thank you. that was my question. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of urban forestry. >> yes. i guess i would say that starting in july 2017, public works assumed the maintenance responsibility of all sidewalk trees, so that involves the -- that involves the liability for trip and falls on the sidewalk. so the property owner did not have any liability at this property when it comes to -- when it comes to sidewalk that is damaged by tree roots. if someone were to trip on the tree roots, that is not the responsibility of the owner.

the liability lies with the city, and it's public works' stance that trees are not the primary puzzle factor in a sewer line cracking. generally, lines can begin to decay or leak through [inaudible] and other things, and as that begins to leak, it will attract the fine nutrient seeking roots, and if those roots are allowed to grow, they can crack a sewer, they can significantly damage a sewer, but the tree will not damage the sewer line if the line is not leaking in the first place. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from commissioner lopez.

>> commissioner lopez: thank you. we saw the evidence of the repair to the business. if the owner of the business was still having problems with that problem, can you lay out what the steps would be? >> yeah. likely, i would go to the door and see how it's preventing it from opening, and then, there's two ways to deal with it. we can either demothe adjacent squares closest to the door and then make sure that those are repoured and sloped correctly to allow the door to open, and then, we have a contract with a concrete slicing company to where you can reduce the grade of flat concrete by several --

at least an inch, and that would allow the door to fully open, and that would be the first thing we would try. >> commissioner lopez: thank. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from commissioner chang? . >> how does this get reconciled because it could potentially turn what could be an affordable fix into something that's incredibly costly, right? like, if there's a slight crack that's noticed over time versus a crack that has then turned into a much more severe open or

more severe damage to the line, does that fall [inaudible]. >> yeah, i don't disagree with you -- like i said, the tree will exacerbate a sewer issue, and it will turn an affordable repair into a much more costly repair. most repairs for a sewer lateral -- i think the quotes start at $10,000, so obviously, that's a problem. but i would say, like, you know, if the tree roots are attracted to a leaky sewer, then the sewer laterals are leaking in the first place, and we don't want leaky sewage

leaking into the soil and can you repeat the last part of the question? i don't think i understood. >> commissioner chang: [inaudible] does the city then take into account the damage that is caused or that is exacerbated by the tree roots?

>> no. the feeling is generally, if a sewer line can be repaired without removing -- without -- how do i -- if a -- if a tree -- if a sewer line can be repaired without drastically removing the tree, then we're going to say the sewer line needs to be fixed. the tree needs to stay and the sewer line needs to be fixed. we generally don't approve trees to be removed for future perceived sewer problems. we don't allow people to remove trees because they might damage the sewer line in the future. >> commissioner chang: and my question wasn't about removal

of the trees, it was the continued exacerbation of that damage. >> president honda: can i jump in? san francisco is one of the counties in the bay area that doesn't require a sewer lateral during the sale of a property. san bruno, oakland, all require it. >> okay. i would say -- but yeah, no, in general, when we're thinking about approving or denying a tree to be removed, the potential cost of sewer repair is not -- is not something we take into account when removing.

it's only whether or not we can safely repair without disturbing the tree's roots, and the cost is not really considered. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president honda: would anyone like to start first? >> commissioner swig: sure. >> president honda: you're first, rick. >> commissioner swig: well, i'll take my shot. as i said, at my second hearing, i was appalled that a tree could actually overrule a landowner, but i've come to learn on multiple occasions that that is the way it is, and if we have healthy trees, the trees stay unless there are

really significant circumstances, the trees stay. and i remember on the first case that i referred to, it was a hefty bill that the landowner had to face, and everybody was very sorry about that, but them's the rules, both fortunately and unfortunately if you're a tree. and unfortunately for landowner, fortunately for a tree. so i think we have to stay consistent with this. i'm sorry for the landowner. i'm sorry this situation involves a senior on a fixed income. that is a horrible coincidence, but that doesn't change the law, that doesn't change the practice, and if we go in a

different direction because of the circumstances, then we'll have to answer the same condition in a different case maybe next week or the week after, so i think we have to deny this appeal. >> president honda: thank you. i'll follow up, i guess. so a little bit different. i don't think that it becomes a contest between trees and property owners, and each case is individual and comes before us. i believe that the urban forestry are our tree stewards, and if the tree needs to be removed, they give recommendations for removal. at the same time, if the tree is healthy, and the only issue is a potential sewer lateral issue, which, as the department

mentioned, is still their liability and the responsibility of the property owner. these trees look to be healthy, and at this point, the city has, as they've stated, has put great effort into replacing the sidewalk, and if there's a door problem or malfunction, that should be addressed with the department and they'll come back and deal with it, i believe. but on this particular case, i do believe that urban forestry has given the direction on what should happen to the trees. i will make a motion to deny the appeal and that the -- that the -- >> clerk: the order was properly issued? >> president honda: thank you. the order was properly issued. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a motion from president honda to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis it was properly issued.

on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner chang: i am prepared to support this motion, however, i believe it would be good of us as servants of the public to explain maybe if there isn't clarity about, you know, the sewer issue, and mr. may have been, you know, i'm just surmising here that it might be helpful -- i don't know how regularly sewer inspections occur, but maybe it would be good to perform these more regularly. i -- this is something that is less familiar to me, but it sounds like it is something to me that is supposed to happen more regularly. i wish that -- that the trees weren't exacerbating what seems

to be a -- you know, damage to the sewer line, but i think that that is something that's worth looking into and to hopefully abate the damage to the sewer line and the property line as much as possible, and also take them up on their off to fix the sidewalk more regularly if that's necessary. so on that, i'm prepared to support the motion. >> clerk: okay. thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries 5-0, and the appeal is denied. >> commissioner swig: okay. i have a -- >> okay. so i have a couple of

questions. >> clerk: okay. so that concludes the hearing. if you have a couple of questions, staff will be happy to inform you about the process. okay. do you want to handle the adjournment? >> president honda: thank you for a long hearing this week. we are adjourned. >> okay. thank you. >> good night.

>> still a lot of people wonder since the trees have a lot of issues, why did we plant them in the first place? >> trees are widely planted in san francisco. with good reason. they are workhorses when it comes to urban forestry. we have begun to see our ficustrees are too big and dangerous in san francisco. we have a lot of tree failures with this species in particular. this is a perfect example of the challenges with the structure of the ficustrees. you can see four very large stems that are all coming from the same main truck. you can see the two branches attached to one another at a

really sharp angle. in between you can't it is a lot of strong wood. they are attached so sharply together. this is a much weaker union of a branch than if you had a wide angel. this is what it looks like after the fi c.u. resolution s limb l. >> we see decline. you can see the patches where there aren't any leaves at all. that is a sign the tree is in decline. the other big challenge is the root system of the tree are aggressive and can impact nearby utilities, and we can fix the sidewalk around the tree in many cases. we don't want to cuts the roots too severely because we can destabilize the tree. >> in a city like san francisco

our walks are not that wide. we have had to clear the branches away from the properties. most of the canopy is on the street side and that is heavyweight on those branches out over the street. that can be a factor in tree limb failures. a lot of people wonder since these trees have a lot of issues. why did we plant them in the first place? they provided the city with benefits for decades. they are big and provide storage for carbon which is important to fight climate change and they provide shade and really i think many people think they are a beautiful asset. >> when we identify trees like this for removal and people protest our decision, we really understand where they are coming from. i got into this job because i love trees.

it just breaks my heart to cut down trees, particularly if they are healthy and the issue is a structural flaw. i have also seen first hand what happens when we have failures. we have had a couple of injuries due to tree failures. that is something we can't live with either. it is a challenging situation. we hate to lose mature trees, but public safety has to always good morning phil.o always good morning san francisco. i am san francisco mayor london breed and i am so excited to be here with each and every one of you because san francisco although we're dealing with some challenges with this delta virus, we're still coming alive

again, we're still re-opening, we're still wearing our masks. and what's most important, what's most important we are enjoying our city and we are making these cable cars available to the public, to san franciscans, for the month of august at no charge. so what does that mean? well, you know what happens when someone gives you something free. that means you have to be patient because during the month of august, typically what will be happening is these operators that are with me today would normally be testing the equipment, making sure things are running smoothly, making sure that they are safe and making sure that the public is safe, so, please, listen to your operators, be patient, be understanding. this is a process. there is not going to be a complete time schedule, right.

yes. but there will be fun and it is worth the wait. you know, san francisco, i can't think of this city without cable cars. and i can't think of this city without all of the great things that we know, love, and treasure. when people come to visit our city, they come downtown here in union square. they go to pier 39 and the fary building. they visit the crooked road on lumbard street. no trip to san francisco is complete without a ride on our cable car. so today, we are officially and i see people are already lined up and waiting to go. we are officially making them available and, as i said to you all before, please be patient. please be understanding. we have just been through a very challenging 16 months with this pandemic and what that means is things won't just go back to the way that they used

to be automatically. it requires all of us to be patient, all of us to be understanding and all of us to do everything we can to just really appreciate the fact that there were lives lost during this pandemic and we are still here, we're still standing and we're still able to enjoy the beauty of san francisco. so, with that, i'll just say have a good time and know and before i introduce jeff actuallin, you have to wear your mask on the cable cars and on muni at this time and please make sure you get vaccinated. it's like this delta variant is like covid on steroids and it's important that people get vaccinated and most of the people coming through our hospital doors are not

vaccinated. we want to get back to normal life. we don't want to shut this country down any longer than we have to so thank you all for being here today and without further adieu, i want to introduce the director jeff tumlin. >> thank you mayor breed. my name is jeffery tumlin and i'm proud to say that on this day, 148 years ago, andrew holiday tested what was then called holiday's falling. adapting obscure gold rush mining technology in order to try to make a form of transportation that can bring san franciscans up and down our crazy hills. no one thought it would work. and cable cars became one of the most popular forms of

public transportation in the city and allow the city to develop beyond the tiny clusters of buildings. we're so pleased that not only did the symbol of san francisco's enginuity survived, but the symbol of our resilience has survived as well. we're many efforts to try to shut them down so i'm so happy to be bringing these services back and i have so many people i have to thank. i need to thank all of the cable car operates and administrators most of whom worked keeping the vaccination clinics running and doing a thousand other jobs as disaster service workers throughout the pandemic. and, they are here. we are so grateful to them.

there are so many people who during the pandemic work to maintain our fleets and rebuild historic ancient cars but i particularly want to thank all of the crews, arnie hanson who delayed his retirement to make sure all of these services made it through the pandemic stronger than they were before so we can continue sustaining this great symbol of san francisco's resiliency. so, without any further adieu, i want to make a couple reminders. first of all, things are going to be a little rough. all three things are operating. they'll be operating from around 7:00 a.m. to around 10:00 p.m. yes, you do need to wear your masks and without any further adieu, i want to invite all of you to join me and the mayor riding the cable cars half way to the stars and beyond. thank you so much.

[cheers and applause]

you're watching san francisco rising with chris manors. today's special guest is dr. steven zutnick. >> hello. the show is focused on restarting, rebuilding, and reimagining our city. the director of the therapy center of san francisco and he's a professor in counseling psychology at usf. he's here today to talk to us about resocializing, and returning to the office. welcome to the show. >>. >> thanks, chris. good to be back. >> as we re-open, people are having different reactions. some are embracing the recent shifts while others are having a hard time readjusting. >> yes. i think it's an excellent question. my basic bias on this i think

to give you a general overview is we ought to be following cdc suggestions and requirements, what they say, because that's where a lot of the things come. should i wear a mask. should i not wear a mask. my answer is, yes, absolutely. i think we should wear a mask. i think we should social distance. it not only makes an impact on covid, it makes an impact on other diseases as well. as you and i were chatting, the deaths from flu usually average 30,000 a year. we've had 2,500 deaths from the flu so far this year, but at the very least, you need to be vaccinated. >> going back to the office is also an issue. there are some people are thrilled returning to work, others are nervous about it and there's a group of people

who've been working onsite all along. let's start with those who are worried about returning to the office. what can be done to relieve their concerns? >> i think identifying a cohort of colleagues, fellow workers who you can just talk to and share experiences with. you know, when you look at the advantages of groups, the major one is when we sit and talk to other people, we suddenly discover, oh, this isn't just me, i'm not some strange guy here. so everybody else i'm talking to is worried about the same thing. i think that will raise awareness among people. to say, oh, i don't know, what are we going to do? do we have fresh air in here? can we open some windows? does the boss care if i wear a mask? >> how about those who've been going to work all along. possibly the most traumatized. how would you talk to them about managing the possible

stress and resentment they may have been feeling. >> the most at-risk population is the essential worker who because they are also one of the lowest paid populations, have taken the biggest hits and the most risks. they're still at high risk. so they're dealing with a lot. they're dealing with depression, anxiety, insomnia quite a bit. and you've got a lot of ptsd by the way one last point on the health care workers. that's the tip of the iceberg. these are also the people who often have the least access to therapy. so we've got all these people out of there who've been in the trenches the entire time, never had a break, suffering a lot of trauma, and there are no services available for them.

>> lastly, let's talk about management. with varying attitudes towards the lifting of restrictions, there may be some struggles in the work place. how would you advise management to ease the transition? >> management can encourage vaccination or require it. they can keep masks, physical distance, hand washing, all of these things. and hopefully management will be responsive. i think, you know, given the title that the series, this is all new. we're all just moving in to a whole new phase. we haven't begun to see the research that's going to come out of what we've just been through. we've been through a terrible pandemic. there's been a huge toll and i don't think we've seen the tip of the iceberg on the impact. >> do you have any final thoughts to share? >> yeah. i think this pandemic has highlighted a lot of things. for me, certainly, is mental

health professional and a behavioral scientist. it's clear to me, we need to educate people about science. this is not unknowable to people. the basic of science is constant questioning. when you ask a question in research, you get one answer and about five new questions. things evolve continuously. so, yeah, when the cdc first came out a year and a half ago, they said, no, we don't need masks and then they said oh, we do and then everybody went crazy. oh, look how bad the sciencetists are. that's exactly what science does. we thought we didn't need it. then we discovered it was air born. i think we're seeing we have huge holes in the health care system and conversely, i think

we're finding with the vaccination, what it means for everyone to have access to health care without worrying about how am i going to pay for it. so i think this is really forcing us to look at everything. it's been a very difficult time. it's going to continue to be a difficult time for people, but i think that's also getting us to look at some really critical issues in health care. >> well, thank you so much for coming on the show dr. zlotnick. well, thanks again. we'll be back with another episode of san francisco rising shortly. for sfgov tv i'm chris manors. thanks for watching.