>> clerk: good evening long to the october 6, 2021 of the san francisco board of appeals. president darryl honda will be the president tonight. missioner ann lazarus is absent tonight. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. scott sanchez representing the planning department, joseph duffey acting deputy director from the department building inspection.

the board meeting guidelines as follows. board request for turn off or silence of cell phones. the rules and presentation are as follows. appellants and departments are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within 7 or 3 minute period. members of the public have up to three minutes each to address the board. time maybe limited to two minutes if there's a larger number of speakers. our legal assistant will give all verbal warning before your time is up. if you have questions about requesting rehearing, please e-mail board staff at board of appeals on sfgov.org.

to watch the hearing on tv, go to sfgov tv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on friday at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website. public comment can be provided in two ways. you can join by zoom meeting by computer. go do our website or click on the link. you can call in by phone. 669-900-6833. enter webinar i.d., 811 7141 3429.

to block your phone number when calling in, dial star 67. listen for the public comment portion of your item to be called and dial star 9 so we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. you will have two or three minutes depending on the volume of speakers. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning before your time sun. there's a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volumes on your tvs or computers. if you have disability accommodations you can make a request in the chat function or send an e-mail to board of appeals at sfgov.org.

now we will swear in and affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking a oath pursuant to the right of the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify, raise your right hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay, thank you. if you're a participant and you're not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. we have two housekeeping items. first item is related to item 5, the parties have requested that the matter be continued to

october 20th. we would need a motion and a vote on that. >> i'll make that motion. >> clerk: is there any public comment on that motion to continue item 5 to october 20th? please raise your hand. seeing no public comment on that motion, commissioner lopez? [indiscernible] [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-0. i do see someone who are raising their hand. we're not taking any comments at this point. our second item, the parties for item number 6, they want to ask president honda if they can switch the order. they would like to go after item 7. they trying to work on an

settlement. can we switch the order and hear item -- >> president honda: i have no problem. especially if they're trying to come to a resolution. did we lose julie? >> that will be a problem. [laughter] >> what we do now? >> hold on please.

>> president honda: our calendar is cut in half what it used to be from years ago. no, i'm just kidding. [laughter] >> she's coming back on right now. >> president honda: thank you, alex.

>> president honda: i was at a fundraiser in napa. >> vice president swig: i hasn't been to napa valley if about a month. >> president honda: our former commissioner saw that on facebook. he was like are you stopping by? i'm like no, i'm going home after this event.

>> vice president swig: i saw steven williams last week having a good time. [laughter] >> president honda: you'll see him tonight i believe too. >> it was a great game. they won that one handedly. >> president honda: only game i won two weeks ago with our passport president norman yee. >> that's a rarity. you're invited to stay away then. [laughter]

>> president honda: can you mute whoever that is in the background? thank you. >> president honda: are you on mute? we now know the ship cannot go forward without the executive director. first time for everything.

>> clerk: hi everybody, can you hear me? >> president honda: yes. >> you're echoing. >> clerk: okay, let me get rid of this. okay everyone, year and a half with zoom meeting, i never had a technical problem. thank you for your patience. i believe we're on housekeeping

items. parties for item number 6, president honda like to go after number 7. >> president honda: i have no problem with that. especially since they are trying to come to an agreement. are both parties in agreement to that? >> clerk: yes. they both e-mailed me. they agree to that. we will hear that item -- we will switch the order. we are now moving on to item number 1. this is a special item. consideration of to allow teleconference meeting under california code section 54953e. this is for your consideration and we must allow for public comment on september 16, 2021, the governor signed ab361 a bill

amended state law to meet remotely without complying with the brown act normal rules regarding teleconferencing. the bill requires each policy body to make certain findings once every 30 days to allow the body to continue to meet remotely. >> president honda: i will make a motion to accept those. >> clerk: motion to adopt the resolution. is there any public comment on that motion? if so, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. on that motion, [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-0. we will now move on to item number 2. which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general

public comment to speak an item that's not on the calendar. i see one of the appellant's raising their hand. did you want to provide general public comment. did you want to provide general public comment? >> yes, i believe you guys can go back to city hall so we can have a governor. we don't have a governor in city hall. a government is supposed to be in person and not zooming. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other general public comment? please raise your hand. seeing none, i see one more hand. you already finished ma'am? we are now moving on to item number 3, commissioner comments and questions.

>> president honda: none. >> clerk: okay. we'll move on to item number 4. commissioners, minutes septembe. >> president honda: unless we have any changes or additions, i have a motion to enter the minutes in the record. >> clerk: is there any public comment on president honda's motion to adopt the minutes? please raise your hand? i don't see any public comment. on that motion. [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on as we previously indicated to item number 7. this is appeal number 21-071.

subject property is 500 felton street. we will hear from the appellants first. you have seven minutes. >> i would have my assistant speak on behalf of the san francisco community empower center. go ahead. >> clerk: we will pause the time until we get your speaker on. her name is ellen?

>> yes. >> clerk: i don't see her. did she join by phone or by computer? >> yes. okay, ellen? i see her. >> are you able to hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> my assistant ellen will speak on behalf of the san francisco community empower center. go ahead. >> we have studied what is going on in san francisco. we have draft two pages to the

commissioners and appeal board and the applicant. we, the people, residents and we the people do not want the 5g tower there because we study enough and give you enough information to let you know this is a global issue. it's not only san francisco. we have present you 11 pages about science and data that 5g is going to be damage lot of health issues. we gave you the data that the people who are behind this project that we suspect they are part of the globalist plan. we gave you 28 pages about the population plan to 5g. we go not make it up. i hope you guys have the information in front of you. we e-mail you already 28 pages.

the population of the united states from current 330 million population, by 2025, the globalist plan will populate the united states population to 100 million. which means more than 50% of the people will be depopulate, eliminated from the united states. the present you the data, we present the statistics and we present you the science data. tonight, we're here not only ask you the department or issue proof for the permit, most likely will not know that the population plan behind the permit. we present you the data. do you have it?

28 pages on the depopulation. 11 pages on 5g that is harmful to health. our cover pages, two pages we ask you questions. many of the questions we need to be answered. also, we supply to you pages on the population plan by the globalist. we're here strongly opposed to this permit. we not only strongly opposed this permit at 500 felton, children and the condensed population. at the same time, we also request all departments involved in all 5g permits stopped. you will not doing your job to defend the city of san

francisco. if you pulled this permit, our question is, who are the people liable for any future health issues, future death related to this 5g box. or the 5g box approved in san francisco. may be some of the people on this zoom call have to understand, san francisco has been operated by only one party, that is democratic party. there's no people's voice. all the 5g towers have been installed throughout san francisco neighborhood without public hearing. that is illegal. that is a violation for people who live in san francisco. violate air civil right, violate

our health code and constitutional right. i don't care what agency you are or who you work for, it is our neighbor, it is our city. you are not going to allow a globalist plan to depopulate people in san francisco and the united states. we are not talking empty talk. we present you the data inyou can do your own research. also, the question that we raised in the letter, we want the answers from the people in charge. you cannot approve a permit based on a -- our government is based on the people. our question is, who approve 5g towers in san francisco? there's no public hearing

meeting. it is illegal without public hearing. who approved it. there's no public hearing. we also wanted to know what is inside the 5g box? was the public able to review, to see what's inside a 5g box? according to what we know, what our research say, there's a switch inside the 5g box. which means it could ignite magnetic, electronic function for people who get the vaccine shot. that's what we learned. we present you the evidence and information. we present it to you and we urge you, number one, stop off the 5g towers installations throughout san francisco. number two, whoever is doing the 5g boxes, take a look at your 5g boxes inside.

i believe that all board of appeals commissioners staff may not know what we are presenting to you today. we ask you to look at the attachment that we give you on 5g depopulation, on the harmful 5g information that we present to you. we're not asking for anything for you that you cannot discount. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the permitholder. i believe we have an attorney for the permitholder. >> good evening. i'm for verizon wireless. i have my college with me as well as the modest team who the

agent for verizon wireless and bill hamlet. just as a preliminary matter with respect to due process, we did not receive this 11-page letter that ms. zao referenced earlier. it wasn't timely. we didn't receive it at all. based on her oral comments, we understand that there are two main issues that she is raised. she says that 5g can't be approved without a public hearing. all of the procedures related to article 25 were followed here and we obviously are at a public hearing here. with respect to some of the issues she brought up regarding safety, as this board as heard from us many times, the fcc regulates radio frequency emission from wireless

facilities. as long as the city confirms that the emissions fall within the fcc's exposure limit, the city inquiry with respect to radio frequency emissions and there. here, bill hamett prepared a report. the department of public health reviewed that report. i like to reserve the rest of he time to bill hamett. i see that commissioner swig hand is up. is there a question? >> vice president swig: i will ask after it's complete. >> can you address the points the appellants raised. >> good afternoon, i'm a registered professional engineer

from the state of california. i manage a firm of 18 in sonoma. i've been doing this for 37 years. been in front of this body a number of occasions. the report that ms. gupta referenced does find that the maximum exposure level at any location, including the three tower house across the street is 2.1% of the public limit set by the sec. that is about 50 times below the fcc limit. there's no question of that. i didn't hear in the appellant's testimony any challenge to that

particular calculation result or finding. i would note in addition that the city requires measurements following direction one of the sites. we've measured hundreds of places in san francisco with similar facilities all of them were always less than what we predict. because the projections includes several conservative factors. i don't know if there's any question been raised that this doesn't comply to the federal standards, indeed it does. >> are you done with your presentation, sir? >> yes, thank you. >> vice president swig, you have a question? >> vice president swig: i like to have mr. albritton join us, please. he has a continuity with this

board that the other two experts do not have. i like to continue a conversation with him on this subject. will you be so kind to join us if you feel that you could? i see he's on the screen. >> president honda: go ahead and ask him the question. >> vice president swig: you're really good at this stuff. you have for the last several years, you have addressed us chapter and verse. for the record, julie, i did not get the 11-page document because it indicated on my parcel that the appellant did not submit a brief. >> clerk: we did not receive a brief. i'm not sure what she's talking

about. >> vice president swig: i want to make sure we're on the same page. >> excuse me, it's four attachments. >> clerk: excuse me, please, we did not receive a brief from you. we contacted your party several times with no response. at this point, we can't accept any further briefing. please go ahead, vice president swig. >> vice president swig: you know i'm not a scientist, i'm not nearly as a depth or knowledgeable on this subject as yourself, the expert. for several years, you come in and chatted with us. i like your counsel on this place. how can title -- how can article

25 be all current, be at all valid, be at all legally compliant when there's a new technology that -- which is 5g, that was not even contemplated, not even viewed, that was not even tested when article 25 was passed and certainly wasn't around in 1996 when the f.c.c. made their rules. how is this even legal anymore that you come in front of with us a 5g and try to apply it to obsolete old statutes?

can you inform us, please? >> yes. i always appreciate your questions and opportunity to speak. i apologize, i'm having technical difficulties. i'm only able to dial in this evening. you always raise good questions. article 25 is a living document that's in this fourth iteration, fifth iteration. there were amendmented proposed this year for article 25. all of that being said, what you're asking about 5g. bill hamett can speak to this. 5g is not a new frequency. it's a frequency that's been used for decades for various different uses. it's the frequency that we're using with in facility, which is 23 gigahertz frequency. it has been regulated and bill hamett can tell you about those

standards and so forth. the frequency that we're using is a frequency that was purchased from the f.c.c. and licensed by the f.c.c. and new to cellular. that's the frequency. that's 23 gigahertz. that's what this facility will be running on. 5g, itself, is a technology. it is software that better utilizes the frequencies to carry more and more data. just as 1g was analogue, 2g was something called time delay where you put three signals on a frequency, 4g, cbma, which code delay so they're able to

digitize the signal. it's not frequency dependent. verizon is providing 5g over the old, original cellular band. using that technology use it that old frequency, which is close what the police and public safety use, to carry 5g increase the amount of data that's carried across that frequency. there's frequently a misconception difference between frequency and the 5g technology. it's just a software that amplifies the ability to send multiple in and multiple out signals to increase the amount of data that can be carried over the frequency. it doesn't change the emissions of that frequency. doesn't change the explore

calculation. i hope answers your question. the frequency will be using the san francisco what they call ultra wide band 5g, it has been regulated before 1996. bill hamett can speak to that. 5g is a software technology works across several frequency bands. it's just a software that allows for more data to be carried across the frequency. let me know if i answered your question. >> vice president swig: i have a follow-up question. in the past, you know that we've had a lineup, i don't have idea who will public comment. we had significant public comment on the fact that 4g was definitely going to kill us and just wait for 5g, it's really going to kill us. now we have testimony tonight there's somebody trying to reduce our population by

200 million. where are these -- where is san francisco health on this? by the way, we still haven't gotten report from them. somebody got most of these things to move over to the p.u.c. from our hearings. we've had stacks and reams on 4g telling us it would kill us. now we have somebody telling us it will reduce our population by 200 million. where is our safety level here? where is s.f. public health giving us a blessing that 5g is indeed, safe for consumption in the city of san francisco? i say this with complete baggage because we sat here for four years and we had people testify and put documentation in front of us and telling us it will be

harmful. we haven't heard from san francisco public health to tell us whether it's harmed or not. where are we on the health assurance for the public? >> i'll begin before i bail, i will give you a hands you. san francisco is the only city i know of or county in california that refers all of this wireless applications to a department of public health. most jurisdictions don't take extra step of additional review by the department of public health. san francisco has ongoing reports every two years to test the emissions from the facility throughout the city. the department of public health is actually obtained its own meter and done its own independent studies around the city each of those studies that i know show that the emissions from all sources in the city

related to cellular transmissions are well below less than a percent than the federal standard. the department of public health has been extremely vigilant. in terms of the health respects with respect to 5g and so forth and reliance public health put on professional engineers,ly pass it over to bill hamett. >> certainly, i'm familiar with the good work department of public health does. it shows that the facility is in compliant with the issues. i know they are following that issue. that is the federal threshold. if it meets the f.c.c. limits, then it's off the table in terms

of applying anything tighter than the limits. that's the threshold that shows it needs to be made. the presumption is because those are federal safety standards if it meets the standards, there's no risk. that's what the standard is based on. it has a 50 time safety factor below the level that science shows might have any observable effect. the safety factors involved is enormous. i'm happy to address other aspects of this if i can be of assistance. >> i'm not scientific enough. i have to ask the fundamental questions. they've been brought to us and we have heard from so many parties that 4g was bad and 5g is worse. we have to pay attention to that

stuff. thank you for attempting to answer them for me. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the department. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. welcome. >> hello president, vice president and commissioners. i'm representing public works. we believe this permit was issued in compliance of article 25 for personal wireless services facilities. article 25 requires public works refer wireless application to the department of public health and the planning department. both departments submitted in application comprise of article 25. planning department is in attendance and can speak more in regard with the planning review process and if the board has

questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. would the planning department like to weigh in on this case? >> thank you. nothing really further to add the referral was properly reviewed and approved by the planning department staff for a planning protective location. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there anyone here provide public comment on this item. please raise your hand. if you called in, presbyterian r 9. we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes.

>> are you able to hear? >> clerk: you have three minutes. >> yes. i heard departments. i heard you guys talk about, one thing you understand, you are not living near the park. you can talk all you want, we, the people live this. we the people that go to school there, we eat, sleep, near there. we present you four attachments, four documents, 28 pages on the harmful 5g to depopulate. second one, then all the scientific data from doctors and they prove to you that 5g is harmful. as you know, united states right now is at war.

this war, everybody may or may not know, we were talking about vaccinations. san francisco is mandated for vaccinations. this 5g will ignite the vaccination because it has functions to ignite what's in the vaccine that we know of. if you are not protecting us, then you should not be working for the government. this is a people government. the 5g is going to ignite the vaccine, the vaccines have an ingredient it's called graphine. that's why we present you the 11 pages and all the pages and four attached documents. this is a globalist plan to

depopulate the united states population from currently 333 million down to 100 million. which is now 2025. within the next five years. you can go to other neighborhoods, we do not want to 500 felton. we do not want any 5g in san francisco. we want to file this complaint. >> clerk: are you finished? >> i thought i was cut off. >> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >> the most important thing is, if you want to do something for

the good, we welcome. this 5g is meant to depopulate, meant to ignite the vaccination in people's body. we present you four documents, pages and of data. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permitholder. you have three minutes. >> nothing further from us unless the board has any questions for us. >> clerk: thank you. anything further from the department? >> no comment. >> clerk: mr. sanchez, anything further from the planning department? >> nothing further. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners this matter is submitted. >> president honda: any commissioner like to start off?

>> i like to thank the appellant for sharing her concerns. you're spot on. it's certainly important for the government to work for the people, which i certainly think is our intention. this board is comprised of individuals who want to hear their time. in order to provide public service to the government, i do think that -- it seems like the application for this permit was reviewed and properly approved by the various agencies. for that reason, i think i would feel comfortable denying the appeal and that the permanent was properly issued. i want to hear from other

commissioners as well. >> president honda: i would support that. if we don't have any other comments. would you like to make that your motion. you have the stage. commissioner lopez. >> commissioner lopez: i'm the rookie on the board meir and yo- board here. may be for the suggestion for the permitholder and their counsel, i'm not sure how much public information is able to be provided in a more accessible, digestible way. looking over the materials and i'm sure that your expert's report as well is pretty technical. you heard that we're not scientists. we're not overly technical.

i imagine that members of the public even have another degree of removal from our lack of technicality in this area. anything that you can do to help provide some materials in an accessible way even, counselors note that frequencies used before. something you can make available to folks. i'm not sure it will address every last concern. i do think that with the public affairs team, i think it might be good use of resources to soften the land for these types of proposals. >> i'll chime in too. as you mentioned, you're fairly new to the board. this board has gone to task

multiple times in the defense of the city. what has happened, we're strictly governed by what has been said several times for the appellants. you can google article 25. what indicate what is this board has power to do and not do. anything regarding health or emission, we have no basis to deny the permit on either one of those. we're on a very, very, narrow band. as the vice president mentioned, several more of our little powers were taken last year and moved to the p.u.c. and to the board of supervisors. not that it's a fight not worth fighting. what was mentioned tonight, even if it was proven one way or the other, we will not able to rule on those two particular reasons if were mentioned this evening.

commissioner chang, would you like make that motion. >> commissioner chang: yes, i move to deny the appeal. does that sound like an appropriate motion? >> clerk: perfect. we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal. on that motion. [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied about. we are now moving back to item number 6. as preliminary, she asked me to make a request that the three other people who have joined under his invitation rename themselves so that they can be clearly identified.

please rename yourself so you are properly identified. they are sharing his invitation. we do ask all the parties to give us a list. we did not get their names. we're moving on it item 6. this is appeal number 21-072 subject prom is 152 28th avenue. appealing the issuance of patrick gordon of alteration permit. on the first floor, remodel kitchen, and expand deck with new stairs. number three on the second floor, remodel balcony and add

hallway. as preliminary matter, president honda? >> president honda: i have to make -- i'm a partner and project that hired law -- [indiscernible]. >> clerk: we'll hear from the appellant first. did the parties come to a resolution? >> good evening, president honda and members of the board. steve williams on behalf of the appellant. we have not been able to complete the settlement. in fact, we wanted ask the board and ask for a brief continuance. we're trading drafts whale the meeting was going on. we have a computer glitch on one of the documents. the first time we're asked the board with this matter and i

really think these neighbors want to settle rather than continue the dispute. if you can push it over to your next meeting, i'm confident that it will be gone from the agenda long before that hearing. >> president honda: thank you mr. williams. may be executive director, do you mind do i ask counsel representing the project sponsor what their input is? do we have space for this meeting? >> clerk: we're very crowded. they don't settle. we're very busy in october and november. if they are capacity it will -- if they are confident it will go away, that's okay. we may have a longer night. four of the appeals are related. i imagine it won't be as long. we can possibly put it on the

20th. >> president honda: i see several people as representatives. >> if we could get the 20th, we'd appreciate that. i think we're close. we weren't able to quite do it tonight. i was looking forward to having all five speak this evening. that's okay. >> clerk: that's the last case. you will be receiving that case >> president honda: commissioner s, what do you think? appellants asked to continue this to the next hearing. as you heard from our executive director, our load is really quite full. are we in agreement that's okay? >> i think we're minutes away from resolving it.

>> president honda: thank you. what we need to do? >> clerk: we need the motion and i would ask if there's any public comment. >> president honda: i'll make that motion to continue this hearing to the next hearing on the 20th. with the appellant and permitholder are able to resolve the situation. >> clerk: is there any public comment on president honda's motion to continue this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. we have a motion from president honda to continue this matter until october 20th so the party have further time to reach settlement agreement. on that motion. [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-0.

the matter will be continued to october 20th. thank you. we are now moving on to item number 8. appeal number 21-060, appealing issuance to paramount estate l.l.c. of public works order. the tree is unhealthy. it has poor structure and hazardous. >> president honda: as matter of the procedure, i'm recusing for financial conflict with the project sponsor's representative. i'm leaving you all in good hands with my vice president.

>> clerk: thank you president honda. we will now hear first from the appellant. i believe mr. ralph peters is representing. >> i'm actually, i'm the president of the 11argent alley h.o.a. you can see behind me here is canopy of trees that for reasons unbeknownst to us, they are now a threat because there's a new

building being bill next door on a street that doesn't actually exist. six months ago, we woke up and i looked out in the canopy and there was an orange sign that said, tree to be removed on behalf of whomever. due to poor health -- poor health and hazardous. then on a light pole on the street, it says, tree to be removed due to new construction. there were varying reasons why this tree was being removed. we didn't understand it anyway, we have been caring it for unless until 1970s.

we have been hear for the last 10 years. every year, we maintain the hillside. that wasn't during covid. we couldn't rally neighbors. we couldn't do our maintenance of the tree. now the tree itself, we've had senior consultant come out and take a look at it. we were given a quote from a bid that said, that the trees is not in need of removal. could use nursing and be nursed back to health and with a quote for an actual amount. but is no not in need of removal. we have a adequate from asheries now saying, it doesn't need to be removed. if you pay us, we'll fix it for you.

it came to our attention a few months ago that in the canopy of trees that this tree is part of, it's home to all sorts of wildlife. we have the wind in the willows. in one night, may be we identified the great north american badger, a skunk, raccoon, not to mention all mice and rats that live there. as you can see here, this is north american badger. the stretch of street that you're seeing, that's our paper driveway which connects to market street. i've also done enough research with wildlife to know that the

badger's home is likely not to be on market street. there you can see the skunk. you can see the time frame, these are all within hours of one another. these are all going to the same area. the tree canopy heads to the same place. i understand that skunks and raccoon are less concerning to some folks. i never seen a badger. pretty excited to find out that yes, confirmed that the badger was the great north american badger. it is a species of great concern. you can see that badgers, here

they are. badger may live 3 meters below the surface. we haven't seen any indication of any inspection or any kind of wildlife authority coming out here and telling us that the badger that you have here on film doesn't actually live here. the only thing that i gotten from speaking with -- i have contacts at the peninsula who can confirm this. this canopy is wildlife protection. in the to mention the birds and anything else. the tree does not need to be premoved. the tree is being removed by -- in an effort to rebuild the area for a new building that's coming

up under the commission of sea of consulting. that's the same consulting agency that is completely -- connected to all the d.b.i. officials have been to -- having to step down in city hall. not only we're getting different letters saying different things that don't make sense. the tree is fine and it does not need removal. in our previous call, someone called in and said i'm worried about the trees overhanging, being unhealthy and hanging pedestrian overpass. it's ten feet away. you're not underneath the tree unless you get underneath the walking, the walking handle and go underneath the tree. we have one quote from an arborist saying the tree is

okay. we have video footage the great north american badger, a species of great concern that frankly no one ever seen it. thank you all for your time. we will hear from the determination holder. mr. patterson? >> hello. good evening. i'm going to turn it over to -- >> thank you, ryan. i want to thank the entire board and commissioners on this board

on board of appeals for listening tour cases today. the permanent was on the public right-of-way. it's not a private driveway cited by the appellant. the cite is near 4512 23rd street. this site has the 13 unit housing development. currently under review by the san francisco planning department and along with a major encroachment permit with the department of public works to extend the 21st street

public right-of-way to give future residents rightful and necessary access in order for this development to become possible. the tree removal application was put in right around february 2021. the public notice was posted on or about march 24, 2021. for the removal unhealthy christmas tree. that is on the public right-of-way near 23rd street. the appellant protested such a tree removal permit on april between, 2021. a hearing was held on may 24th this year. arborist is with us today.

he's a certified arborist. he submitted a report. the report determined that the tree in question was covered with argent alley. therefore, by definition, the tree in question is unhealthy and should be removed immediately.

the appellant appealed the decision. which bring us to where we are tonight. the appellant produced an invitation to trim the tree earlier. that document is nothing more than just a quotation to trim the tree. it does not certify the health and condition of the tree at all. i wanted to further say that the evidence that we presented to you in our brief is overwhelming. the tree is unhealthy and has dozen to the immediate neighbors. i want to address some of the high level findings. his report is available in our brief. we further ask steven howard to provide us with the peer review. he's a certified arborist.

he agree with the findings and recommendation. he state that the tree has poor structure. the appellant has made several claims that the tree -- [indiscernible] we found that the site was too small and heavily disturbed toy provide simple badger habitat and any badger site will be considered extremely rare event.

it's not expect to occur on this site. therefore no further review is needed. this site has no value or threaten of species, class 32 document issued by the san francisco planning. i want to conclude really quickly. i want to point out to commissioners and the entire board and the public that the appellant has offered -- has not offered a single shred of credible evidence. we dot want to repeat the same tragedy that we saw in north beach. which has left -- i want to further applaud board of appeals

-- i like to ask the board tonight to do the same for this particular project. approve our permit based on overwhelming evidence that we present. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. ryan patterson. i want to note few additional things. badgers as i understand it, have a whole range up to 27 square miles, move up to 1.2 miles. if this site cannot be developed because he saw a badger walk through there, it means half of the city cannot be developed. planning department concluded that the badger cited could be considered extremely rare. they don't live in trees. the appellant made series of

statements in that are unrelate to this permit. >> that's time. >> clerk: we'll hear from the department of public works. welcome. >> good evening. i will share a brief presentation and explain the basis for our approval. we approved our tree removal at 4512 23rd street with replacement. the construction of the 5-story condo building and that 23rd street right-of-way is the access point for that building outline you see in red. it's a little off because of the way the latitude places the

outline. that green square is the lot. the tree is in front of that lot. you can see on the left that's the access point to the right-of-way. we officially called unaccepted right-of-way. the building goes right up to the street eventually. the tree already in decline. any excavation will further cause the decline of the tree. there's the aerial view of the construction and the tree highlighted in yellow. this is just to show the canopy and the size of it. there's a lot of discussion about the removal of canopy and on the left, there's a tree

little orange square. it's the wrap that we used to close the tree. it's smaller because other trees has grown over. it's underneath the canopy all the other healthier trees. it's also in decline. because of the ivy growing over the canopy, it's not receiving sun light because of the ivy. the inspector highlighted to the right kind of a funny little outline. what the true canopy of the tree is, everything you see surrounding it is that ivy. total loss of canopy compared to the rest of the site is minimal. the tree is in decline.

that's the circled tree. tost the right is the lot. i don't know if you can see helpfully it's a little red dotted line circle to the right. that's estimated canopy removed. i will tell you less than that. most of the canopy there is the larger tree next to it. it's suppressed under the canopy. it is in decline. we're not talking about removing that whole area of canopy. that tree is directly adjacent to the area of excavation. the tree is in decline. coupled with that, those two reasons we approved the removal. we approved the removal and suggested replacement of three

trees. the hearing officer approved the replacement of three new street trees. the minimum size required for our code is 24-inch box tree. one tree is required for 25-foot lot. they will exceed that requirement with three trees. the inspector who approved this tree for removal will show them where to put the trees. sign off of the building is contingent upon planting these three trees. in addition, the permit for removal of the tree will be issued. we conditioned it upon the building actually being approved. that concludes our presentation. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president swig.

>> vice president swig: i think you answered my question. no new trees right? you can't get a certificate of occupancy until the trees are planted? >> correct. they can't have the job card finalized without new trees. >> vice president swig: that satisfies my question. how at one point will the trees will be planted? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we're now moving on to public comment. if you like to provide public comment please raise your hand. i see ally moss. please go ahead. >> caller: i wanted to speak in favor of this development 4512 23rd street. i live in upper market neighborhood, close to the

proposed project. i think it's really important that we focus on adding more housing in this neighborhood that has very little multifamily housing. i think the project is great since it's not -- it's going in a place where there's no housing. i think it's very important to add these extra units to neighborhood in a city where you need more housing everywhere. this a good little start to start making a dent in that. i want to support this project. >> clerk: we'll hear from margaret ing. please go ahead. >> caller: good evening. i'm the property owner in san francisco and also a concern neighbor. i'm no support of removing the tree. confirming the tree is unhealthy

and it's dying. based on the professional scientific fact, the tree is hazardous and it's a threat to pedestrians and the nearby residents. earlier, one of the speakers showed a video with badgers and raccoons and other animals. please keep in mind, this appeal is not about the badger, it's about the removal of a tree. the question here is whether the tree is healthy and is it suitable. i urge everyone not to get emotional and focus on the health of the tree. we need to have healthy environment for residents and our next generation. therefore, i strongly urge the

board of appeals take into conversation of professional science and approve to remove unhealthy tree. thank you. >> clerk: we'll now hear from cory smith. >> caller: good evening, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition in support of the project here today. asking that you reject the appeals. project team laid out, professional arborist came provided the analysis needed to make that decision. speaking little bit bigger picture, this project is utilizing a local density bonus program. which was passed unanimously by the board of supervisors in 2016 or 2017 i believe. it's specifically aimed at adding more housing within the neighborhood fabric.

there's affordable housing involved. there's family housing involved. it's really a fantastic project that we want to make sure continues through the process. i shared with you a petition that we cohosted. we've sent about 750 e-mails to the planning commission where this project is scheduledtor heard. there are lots of neighbors that are excited about this proposal. i ask that you reject the appeal. thank you very much. >> clerk: he'll hear from dan fedderman. >> caller: hi, i live mile and a half away from the project. i vote in favor of the project. this home is my transit.

this home is an area where there isn't enough home. it is a green home. we should be building more of these. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. we will hear from benjamin golden. you have three minutes >> thanks. my name is ben goldman, i live couple of months from the site. i go by there a lot.

i think more petitions -- [indiscernible] thank you very much. i hope that the panel will determine should not keep the going forward. >> caller: good evening. i support development of 13 homes. i really like that the homes will be all electric. i think it's a good way to pave the way for more sustainable and

affordable future. i don't think dying tree should stay in way of that goal. thank you for your time. >> clerk: we will now hear from mila. you can go ahead and provide public comment now. we can come back to you. we don't hear anything. we'll hear from -- >> good evening i'm a resident of district 8. i live less than a mile from the property. i strongly support the project and reject the appeal. we are in a housing crises.

also climate crises. this like a rare development in the area. it's close to several lines. i strongly support this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the phone number ending in 4683. please go ahead. you may have to push star 6 to unmute yourself. >> caller: thank you. i live on state street in the upper market area. by urge you to reject the appeal and allow the project to proceed. i won't repeat the strong arguments by others, i will net that if we are going to let a dying tree stand in the way of 13 units and perfectly

appropriate project, we are never going to make it happen. even a dent, it's the san francisco housing unit. >> clerk: please go ahead mila? we can't hear you. please go ahead. you're on mute. can you unmute yourself? we see that you're trying to join. i'm not sure why you can't

connect. i suggest may be that you call in and we can take your public comment that way. the phone number is on our website. you can call 669-900-6833. enter webinar i.d. 811 7141 3429. we're going to hear from michael chan. please go ahead. [please stand by]

>> caller: it's just ridiculous and i almost apologize that the members of the board and the members of the public have to sit through this. it's tiresome and it's doing a disservice to the environment and to the quality of life in

san francisco. you know, from corbett, i walk right up the street on the sidewalk in front of my place. get on the 37, take the trains down and don't need a car. these are transit oriented units on a major transit lines. the fact that we are debating whether or not we should cut down a tree to build more housing is embarrassing. it's perpetually embarrassing. that we continue to have these conversations. >> secretary: okay. thank you. i do see a hand raised from steven howard, but, mr. howard, i believe you're a consultant for the permit holder, so you would be speaking during the rebuttal time. >> gotcha. >> secretary: okay. is there any other public comment on this item, please raise your hand. okay. i don't -- i see 1 more hand. one moment.

okay. the phone number ending in '1225' please go ahead. the phone number ending in 1225. you may need to press star six. i see. go ahead. >> caller: hi. it's milo, i'm back. thank you for your patience. i wanted to register my support to this housing and urge you to deny the appeal. honestly, the previous speakers have gotten the words out of my mouth that it was a hard fought battle. i remember when that happened through past legislation to facilitate density throughout the west side of the city, we all know it's a social good, it's an environmental good. it's something that needs to happen yesterday and yet we still have this process where we don't trust our own

professionals. the planning staff made a recommendation, we've reviewed it. it should be a done deal. here we are debating it and it's really just a waste and it's a shame. so, yeah. please approve this housing and if others like this deny this appeal and other appealses like it. thank you. >> secretary: okay. is there any other public comment for this item? please raise your hand. i don't see hands raised, so we're going to move on to rebuttal. we're going to hear from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. i want to say thank you to everybody for their input. it's extremely important to us to keep the community alive here in san francisco. i'm the son of immigrants. most people here are and we are absolutely for development in this -- on this property. as you can see, the

conversation quickly turned from the tree to build more houses, build more houses when quite honestly the tree removal, the only reason for the tree removal will allow the developer to add another 10' in addition to the home sf program. so what that will do is actually put 15 units on the same size lot as our four. so you can imagine some underground units without subterranean units, no windows. call that middle income housing, i call that not totally sure who's going to live down there. we're right off of market street, so parking's going to be tough. what i want to press is we are for development. there needs to be something built behind there and if you look at the original seller plans, they call for a building that's 1" higher than hours and requires no tree removal.

yet, once this permit holder bought the property and redesigned it, suddenly, it's 15 feet higher and the trees need to be removed and all of a sudden things have changed. so i urge counsel and everyone involved to review the original seller's plans which were taken into account all the neighbors and everyone's thoughts and concerns around keeping enough housing in san francisco. we believe in housing and want more housing and we do believe there needs to be something built here. but removing a tree so you can add three subterranean units is not what we're discussing here. it's removal of a tree that's healthy and we haven't received any ecological report that is say that it's fine or anything else. we want to thank everyone for your time and really appreciate everyone's concern.

>> secretary: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the determination holder, mr. patterson. you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. first off, i'll just note that the ecological report is in our packet. it's quite extensive in addition to the planning department's own study of this issue, so i would urge the appellant and the board to please take a look at that. the appellant has made a series of statements that are simply unrelated to this project. including the scope and baseless insults against the owner and consultants. needless to say, these statements have no bearing on the appeal and should not be ignored. they also filed a brief and i have to object that. this appeal has never been about this one unhealthy hazardous tree. it's an obvious attempt to stop

a residential project. could it be that the proposed housing would block the appellant's views and that's why he's proposing this tree permit. both the project and this permit are subject to approval under the housing accountability act. there's overwhelming unrefuted elements that the tree should be removed. the tree would be replaced with three new healthy trees and would be a benefit to the city. thank you. we're available to answer any questions and i believe our certified arborist, steven howard had something he would like to add. >> yeah. i visited the tree on july 31st. i took a look at it. i was reviewing the health condition of the tree which i would say is poor. the reason being it only has probably less than 30% of the amount it should have for a

healthy tree. and all that foliage is concentrated at the upper tips of the vertical stems of which there are multiple. so you've got a common point of attachment at the -- on the trunk well that originates and then going upward. so the only healthy foliage is at the tips which kind of makes any pruning options pretty limited because you can't prune the tips back because you run out of live groetsz and if the tips continue to grow out, they get heavy and you get kind of a lever arm effect because you have a lot of bare stem before you get to the point of attachment from the main trunk. structurally -- >> 30 seconds. >>. >> caller: i don't think it's in good shape. you could crown clean to remove the dead wood, but that

wouldn't help the structure in the long-term by turning it in to a healthy tree. >> secretary: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry. you have three minutes. >> i have nothing further to add. >> secretary: okay. thank you. we do have a question from commissioner lopez. >> commissioner: yeah. i'm not very familiar with the tree removal process that you all undertake. can you just say a word about any of the efforts that you all may take to minimize the impact on any wild life in a tree for example in the surrounding area when you're doing a tree removal? >> basically, we only do wild

life assessments or look out for things like nesting birds in our own internal contracts. the responsibility fallses on the permit holder for private tree removal to do any sort of assessments for wild life or nesting birds. >> commissioner: thanks. that addresses my question. i think then i would, if i could, actually, if i could have -- director, would this be an appropriate time to ask that question of the permit holder? >> director: feel free. it's appropriate. >> commissioner: if i could direct that then towards mr. patterson. is that something that your clients looked at at all? >> thank you, commissioner. of course, the permit holder will comply with all requirements here and we already have two certified

arborists on the team, something we're taking very seriously along with the oncologist. if the permit holder would also like to speak, i'm happy to turn it over to him. >> happy to do that. thank you, ryan. thank you, commissioner lopez, for your question. we did look into that and we had performed a limited scope by a logical resource evaluation at the site and we found no nesting birds and we also have mr. patrick coveness who can give you the scientific finding here. patrick. >> yes. we surveyed the property and we didn't find any nesting birds. it's a little bit late in the season. the nesting bird season is approximately february 1st to september 1st. and, yeah, so we didn't find any nesting birds there and/or

other significant wildlife on the property. and, yeah. so we do surveys for, you know, a lot of different wildlife species. i've been doing this for 26 years in the city and so we do a lot of this type of work and so the site is really dominated by non-native kind of urban plant species and weedy species and doesn't support a habitat for any endangered species and that's all in the report. you know, our only recommendation would be that if the tree was cut down during the nesting season, that a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be done. and that is between february 1st and september 1st. >> commissioner: thanks for that background. >> director: okay. so, commissioners, this matter

is submitted. >> commissioner: commissioners, any comments? anybody want to get started or i can do it if nobody else. i have rarely seen a buff recommend the removal of the tree and i'm not going to question their motives here because they're the pros. my comfort level on losing a tree was satisfied when i heard that three trees would be required for replacement or three replacement trees would be required and certainly the occupancy of the building and the final pass would not be offered until those three trees

were planted. quite often, commissioners, given that you are newer on the block, we've gotten a lot of promises, oh, yeah we're going to plant three trees, five trees. we don't ever -- we rarely -- sorry. i don't want to overstate. we rarely get any level of specificity with regard to where those trees were planted or when they were planted. but here, it's very clear that no trees, no finished project. so i'm very comfortable with that. and i don't find that the appellant has any real merit here although i'm very sympathetic to their position, but no real merit because our own bureau of urban forestry is so strong on the subject.

>> commissioner: i can go commissioner swig, thank you. also to the permit holders for your research and, you know, the steps that you went into for getting the appropriate specialists on board. i know it's no easy task and i think the number of housing units that will be accompanying this project is definitely something that we in the city certainly look forward to and just to piggy-back on what commissioner swig said, i think it's fantastic we'll be replacing this one tree removal with three healthy trees that will certainly add to the tree canopy and hopefully add to the view that appellant has gotten

used to in a different way. so i am supportive of denying the appeal on the basis that the permit for tree removal was properly issued. >> commissioner: sounds like a motion to me. >> commissioner: i'd like to make that motion. >> director: okay. we have a motion from commissioner -- >> commissioner: any comments from our final commissioner? >> commissioner: no. i just wanted to mention i'm on the same page with my fellow commissioners. the one for three trade sounds good to me as well and i just wanted to voice that i really appreciate the public comment this evening. i think the comments were numerous and well received and i want to thank everyone for coming out and supporting that

position. >> commissioner swig: before we move forward, i want to underscore something that my fellow commissioners said. this is about a tree. this is not about a housing development. if commissioner lazarus was here, she would say let's focus on the subject matter. we all know this is in the context of a housing development. but for the purposes of this hearing, this is about the trees and it is not about the housing development. so i want to firmly state that that really shouldn't be part of the consideration of the commissioners' motion. thanks, commissioner lazarus, for being in my brain. go ahead with the motion. >> director: commissioner lopez has his hand raised. >> commissioner: one last thing i just wanted to comment

that it was comforting to also hear the permit holders assessment of the wildlife factor particularly the video evidence received of the area. so i wanted to express appreciation and it was comforting to know that that was explored thoroughly. >> director: okay. i just wanted to add, vice president swig, the bureau of urban forestry stated that a c.m.c. wouldn't be issued until the trees were replanted, but that's their own separate agreement with d.b.i. and that's part of the order. we can't make that order. >> commissioner swig: it's just a comfort to hear that. i'm not -- >> director: okay. just wanted to make sure. we have aa motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and uphold the order on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, [roll call]

okay. so that motion carries 3-0 and the appeal is denied. so this would conclude the hearing. would you like to adjourn, vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: i would love to adjourn. thank you very much. >> director: thank you everyone. >> commissioner: thanks everyone. >> commissioner: thank you. >> director: have a good evening. thank you. >> commissioner chang: good night. is --

>> our united states constitution requires every ten years that america counts every human being in the united states, which is incredibly important for many reasons. it's important for preliminary representation because if -- political representation because if we under count california, we get less representatives in congress. it's important for san francisco because if we don't have all of the people in our city, if we don't have all of the folks in california, california and san francisco stand to lose billions of dollars in funding. >> it's really important to the city of san francisco that the federal government gets the count right, so we've created

count sf to motivate all -- sf count to motivate all citizens to participate in the census. >> for the immigrant community, a lot of people aren't sure whether they should take part, whether this is something for u.s. citizens or whether it's something for anybody who's in the united states, and it is something for everybody. census counts the entire population. >> we've given out $2 million to over 30 community-based organizations to help people do the census in the communities where they live and work. we've also partnered with the public libraries here in the

city and also the public schools to make sure there are informational materials to make sure the folks do the census at those sites, as well, and we've initiated a campaign to motivate the citizens and make sure they participate in census 2020. because of the language issues that many chinese community and families experience, there is a lot of mistrust in the federal government and whether their private information will be kept private and confidential. >> so it's really important that communities like bayview-hunters point participate because in the past, they've been under counted, so what that means is that funding that should have

gone to these communities, it wasn't enough. >> we're going to help educate people in the tenderloin, the multicultural residents of the tenderloin. you know, any one of our given blocks, there's 35 different languages spoken, so we are the original u.n. of san francisco. so it's -- our job is to educate people and be able to familiarize themselves on doing this census. >> you go on-line and do the census. it's available in 13 languages, and you don't need anything. it's based on household. you put in your address and answer nine simple questions. how many people are in your household, do you rent, and your information. your name, your age, your race, your gender. >> everybody is $2,000 in funding for our child care, housing, food stamps, and

medical care. >> all of the residents in the city and county of san francisco need to be counted in census 2020. if you're not counted, then your community is underrepresented and will be underserved. . >> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san

francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a

wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6

years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack

herb man go hung out. >> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and you'd getetetetetetetetetett

>> clerk: -- held on october 4, 2021. the meeting is being called to order at 4:35 p.m. members of the public who will be calling in, the number is 415-