>> and that's it for this show. we'll be back shortly. you've been watching san francisco rising. for sfgovtv, i'm chris manners. thanks for watching. from good evening welcome to the october 19 meeting of board of appeals rick swig will be presiding and joined we vice president lopez. american lemberg. trs vinnia and eppler and city attorney will provide with legal advise. the controls of the legal system i'm jewelet board's executive

director. we'll be joined by upon representatives from departments that will present before the board this evening. >> corey teague will i'm not sure he will be here that matter is finished the zoning add administrator. ure ban forest public works and urban forestry. the board asks you turn off phone and electronic devices so they will not disturb. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellates permit holders begin 7 emotionals to present and 3 minute for rebuttal include comments in the periods. members of the public not with the parties have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal there will be a 30 second warning before time is up.

now public access are pair mount importance to the board. sfgov.org is treatmenting live and receive comment for each item. sfgovtv providing closed captioning for the meeting to watch on tv go to sfgovtv chabl channel 78 tell be rebroadcast on friday on 4 p.m. of [speak very fast]. now public comment can be provide in the 3 ways, in person, zoom, go to the website. and phone. call 699-900-6833. and enter access code: 860 3330 5353#. and again sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming phone number on the stream if you are watching. >> to block your phone number

when call nothing sdiel star 67 and the number. [speak fast]. you will be bruin the hear when it is your turn. reduce or turn off volume on tv or computers otherwise there is intrefrns. if the participates or atendsees need disability accommendation or assistant [speak fast]. chat can not being used for comment or pregnancy. we will take comment first who are present in the room. now we will swear in or affirm those who intend to testify.

any member of the public may speak without take an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i do. do you swear that the testimony you will give the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay >> thank you. >> if you are a participate and you are not speak put zoom on mute. so commissioners, we have one housekeeping matter for appeal. before we we get to the matter. commissioner lemberg has a disclosure. >> i have a professional relationship through my service on the board of the eureka neighborhood association and a social relationship with the appellate in line item 6 at 145

jefferson street. they are members of the appellate. i conferred with the city attorney and i will be fir and imbe partial in handling this appeal. >> okay. thank you. the planning department upon requesting it be conditioned december 7 rth and permission to file a late brief the appellate agree. notice stated the client no long are intendses to move in the space and did not submit a broef and will not attends. i do need a motion to continue the matter to december 7 and allow the planning department to submit a late brief due on december first. anybody want to offer a motion. >> and i need public comment after. i move we continue had to december 7 of 22 to allow planning department submit a

late brief on december first of 22. is there public comment? raise your hand. that motion to continue the item to december 7 and allow planning to submit a late brief vice president lopez? >> aye. ja commissioner trs vina >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries. >> thank you. >> we are now moving on to item one which is general public comment this is an student for anyone who would like to speak in the board's jurisdiction and not on tonight's calendar. and i see a speaker. >> can you hear mow. joy want to welcome the 3 new are commissioners.

and i'm in the taxi industry and -- on november 16 you will hear 3 appeals to the continued and i'm agent for 2 of them. and mr. hart bell and the third a license in qualified attorney. be under having an upon general public comment i will sends you 2 e mails one pertains to a hearing yesterday boy the taxi regulator san francisco municipal transportation agency. they rejected annual attempt boy their taxi director to eliminate

board of appeal right for taxi permit holders facing adverse action. and so -- it is second one, i wrote a legal broef like war and peace it is lengthy but under the guise or heading of general public comment monday i will send you this. describes the last 50 years of history under ping the basically the taxi prove they exist. is there further general public

comment. we move on to item 2. commissioner upon comments and questions. >> commissioners. getting rings last night. congratulations >> anybody like to comment. >> thank you. >> yes , sir. just further to -- the public comment just now i think to -- for the benefit everybody for our newest commissioners. we receive notice these case going forward will be moved over to the sfmta. they will have the jurisdiction over the those -- appeals going forward. i think it may be worth it -- to just consider amongst ourselves given that these medallion cases

have been involved. and some come you know become you to like these matters currently scheduled for november 16th are coming back after some -- >> president lopez. this was not agendized i'm not sure we have have this discussion. so we could upon agendize something for the future. to concur. >> yes. >> point of information. i that was a lead in to just plant the seed to may be consider some letter to the mta continuing thoughts -- from our body to their's.

considering these case. >> i they are penning cases and would not be appropriate to be directing a letter at this point but the -- one last thing. this would not be with respect to the cases that we are about to hear on the 16th. this would be related to the benefitted future appeals that may be come up sprit low from what i understand those are in longer held by heard boy us. so -- my proposal just -- topic for thought that's all i'm -- suggesting now. is for my fellow commissioners consider whether or not for the case we will no longer be hearing if woad like to offer comment to the body hol now hear those to explain the points we

were taking in consideration would you like that on an goodbyed in the future. >> sure. >> so at tonight's meeting during this agenda item the commission should not discuss but appropriate to put it on the agenda for a future meeting at that meet if you go like. you could ask mta staff to attend. the the board could authorize a single member to appropriate a letter with through thes this the board wants to had i evero have a member draft an all right and come become for a second hearing where you approve sending the letter. >> okay. after the cases on the 16th.

>> that would be best to make it clear this does in the have anything to do with pending case. put it on december 7 or 14th? or puff on on as the final agenda item on the calendar that when we hold the hearing sns >> on the 16th. >> do it i guess the 16th. it will be fresh >> thank you. if i can make a comment here i noticed 2 members on the agenda on the queue. want to make clear at this point the board should not have a discussion about the proposal except discussing the date when put on agenda. >> okay.

commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. without attempt to challenge the advice, i want to join vice president lopez in this request. but i also like as part of this discussion to discuss the issue of i'm not clear whether we contemplating this part of the matter on the november 16th. the issue of how departments take away cases from the board of appeals. and i want to note that our new website first thing says we provide a review process for appeals a range of city determinations and help the public and new members to know what determinations there are and how they are on the list or

taken off. given the preliminary mention of that by vice president lopez i like that as part of the discussion. >> might i suggest we consider that a separate agenda item for a later time great idea and great training another great training item we should tag on to a future agenda and as soon as possible. >> okay. >> if i could you want that part. >> if i could responded. while it make a training item it is a substantive issue. as to whether we have the authority to decide what is in our mandate or whether the agencies dom and i don't want to get not guilty merits of it but continuing is worth discussion. >> okay. >> for sduchlgz an item for discussion. >> okay.

>> thank you. >> and if i can jump in as well. perhaps at that november 16th meeting part of the hearing, that is noticed i'm help to provide information did the board's authority to handle this type of mta taxi appeal. and the advice was given to the board in the past and the mta. thank you >> i want to commend vice president lopez for having the courage to bring this up and look forward discuss thanksgiving on november 16th. >> okay. thank you. is there public comment. i see carl, go ahead. >> thanks, again, julie. i want to make a couple things clear. the e mail i sent you has 5 brief attachments one section 30 of the business and tax code

regulations and another is section 4.10 sick b of the city charter and the documents define to be your responsibility and the taxi permitise right to have an appeal. i thank you existed for 9 years. the other thing i will sends this foenlt. the other thing i want top mention what happened yesterday at the mt aboard meetings is that one of the commissioners or directors approximate heminger, chided the taxi director for sent you that e mail or that memo and out to everyone in the taxi industry we no longer had appeal rights and told the taxi director she over stepped her authority and the board makes such decisions and had no right to sends out such a letter. and which is funny she through the -- transportation director

defy tumlin under the bus and said he told mow to do it. we will see. i want to make it clear that the mt aboard said, no to the taxi director you can't do this you don't have the authority to make a decision. i will sends you thank you for upon listening. >> thank you. further public comment? okay i don't see any we will move to item 3. adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion are minutes of october 12 of 22 meeting. commissioners, anybody have comments or a motion? >> commissioner lopez? yes. i thought it was important to add with the sprpt part we describe the public comment from mr. productman. one key thing they think note he

sited and quoted the 2018 report from the turn are center uc berkeley. and i think it would be good to note that was background he sighted for his comments i think it is important to note it is supported by research. with that ma'am i move to adopt minutes. >> okay. is public comment? >> i don't see public comment. so, we have a motion from vice president lopez to adopt the minutes at provided resunriseed reference the 2018 report from the turn are center from uc berkeley on that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig.

>> aye. >> the minutes are adopted. 5-0. now on to item 4. this is appeal 22-065600 alvarado street. subject property 600 alvarado appealing september 7 of 22 to 600 alvarado homeowner's association. denial of application to remove 2 cypress tree one on publicerate of way and one on private property. we'll will hear from the appellate first. >> mr. toll you have 7 minutes >> thank you, can you hear me? >> thank you. on will behalf of the 600 rid raid homeowner arabic association i want to thank you for making this appeal possible.

also thank the staff at the department of public works. instrumental in assisting us in make the original per mist application and now making this appeal to the board. all have been very responsive and helpful. any comments in our submission relating to the service by department were specific to our concern that the department may not have sufficient maintenance staff to [inaudible] the trees. had nothing to do with the service we received from the department in applying for the original per se mitt or applying for this appeal. the department's brief of october 13th of 22 was helpful. it provided a rule of law

comparison to the situation. with the description of the cypress tree on 1 huh human vasquez avenue the property owner request was not approved on condition the public works inspect the tree annually and this has been implemented. from the picture provide in the that brief, there are critical differences in the tree between the vasquez and the 2 on alvarado. first, the area rounding the vasquez tree is less dense low populated. compared to the alvarado trees. there are no larnl near by buildings. wide spaces between structures and the streets do not appear to be am vehicle and pedestrian passage way. the opposite is true on alvarado.

it is a busy community corridor with muni and silicon valley bus. secondly. vasquez tree is on flat ground the alvarado on a slope. third, the vasquez tree is not near cables. and the opposite is the case on alvarado. as there are trolley lines that are running on the castro street, which is perpendicular or crosses the alvarado street. the members of the hoa are not arborists but stewards of the property. committed to ensuring human safety and preventing property damageful this is the basis for our appeal as out lined in the submission to the board dated september 27th of 22. we have 2 arborist reports completed this past spring.

equip to remove the tree system based on the bartlett tree expert report. analysis used technologies detect internal decay which is in the visibility to the naked eye. this report stated 2 management options for the decay they found. one the first want its remove the trees which is the impetus for us applying to remove the tree and this appeal. second recommendation was the trees were not removeed install an additional steel support cable in the city tree monitor the trees annual and he acknowledge that the current decay will become larger over time with the resulting increase in the likelihood of failure. we'll like to emphasize in the city tree it is in the removed the bartlett and california

heartwood are recommendations. is to install an additional steel support cable in the city tree. the california hartwood report needs decaying top of the city tree should be removed. again we would like to thank the board and all of the d. public works staff to made the permit and peaceful process available and accessible. this completes my comments. >> okay. thank you. i don't see questions this time. we will hear from the bowero of urban forestry. i'm chris buk urbarn forester with opinion works i want to thank the 6 huh human rid raid hoa members i don't know fistated clearly in the brief we submitted but one of the reasons

that leading to our denial of the request to remove both trees is how well a job they have done in being stewards of the 2 large cypress. i want to start the conversation and match the good will of the hoa express and i appreciate it and -- did not approximate mean to be defensive in our brief. regard will of the decision we make tonight i want the narrative of the city being able to maintain assets and the public right of way to be clear. that was a narrative for decades this was different. and we were not maintaining trees in a proactive systematic and organized fashion. again weapon that i want to go through the images this evening. switch to the power point. what i like to do is baptist a visual inventory you read a lot

of text at this point. and i love to go through as a certified arborist we look at when we evaluate tree and how the trees stands and how do they break. at that different points. this is the over all site. you seen many photos. we recognize that public works both trees are not your typical average street tree. they are quite tall. and with that we therein is responsibility approximate in the decisionmaking process at public works. and just to -- add a bit of a layer of complexity or bureaucracy. both trees have different jurisdictions one is within the public right-of-way the public right-of-way on raids raid is 10 feet from the curb. and two 2006 public works and the board of supervisors the

board of supervisors amended our urban ordinance creating a distinction of treeos private property called significant treeos private property within 10 feet of public right-of-way. bottom tree is a significant tree. the uphill tree is a third of the trunk in the right-of-way and our code does not define how to when to qualify a tree in the right of wave. and so we'll call this a street free a portion of the trunk in the arrive way. so far at this point in time the uphill tree is the responsibility of public works as of july first 2017. downhill of the 2 is the upon responsibility of the fronting property typeset is on their property this . is showing the bottom of the 2 trees. this is the measure am of 10

feet. this vertical red pole is showing where this marker is showing that legalally the bottom downhill tree is on private property. within 10 feet of right of way. uphill tree you see has a good amount of trunk in the public right of way and therefore it is considered street tree. you notice a fresh concrete to the side of the tree that means there has been a recent sidewalk repair. that was made by the property owner. getting in the tree themselves individually the downhill tree is significant. this tree we have less concern. we believe the -- potential for fail you're is lower than the uphill tree this is the responsibility of the property owner. significant tree. it is very close to the high vollage lines but over all has developed somewhat uniform can

taupe has been pruned overnight years. never gone through periods of neglect. i want to bring the attention to the fact that loom is sidewalk damage on uphill tree there it is access point that is free of damage at this moment. and so a lot of case before you you will key repeated sidewalk damage. won't don't have that here we can put that aside as not a compelling data point. a cable could be placed there. there is decay in this tree i

disagree with the extent of the decay. trees can colerate up it 30% or more this does not have enough to warrant approval. ump hill tree the tree i want to spend attention in the present agsz the tree itself again had a sidewalk damage repair >> the failure where the 2 main unions join. the stems are equal size where they are directly adjacent there is a their over angle of attach am we acknowledge there is decay and we acknowledge this the decay will increase over time. there say vertical seam of decay and pocket below the point which the 2 main stems join. one reason i'm a little. frm comfortable with denying the

question to remove the tree the stem on the right by the larger stem on the left the stem on the left is taller. there is less canopy and weight on the right. if there were equal size and weight our findings would be different. >> with that said we have done our own examination of the trees. we don't believe the trees meet the criteria for removal at this point the one cable that is installed is in the installed to appoint that is helpful. to keep the 2 stems together. won't don't know the cable is required or nets at this point. we talked about street tree sf and example. of another. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you approximate president swig >> supervisor one thing you did not address was the appellate's

brief was the technology. i never -- you and i have seen each other dozens of times and i was impressed by if the third if party arborist technology with the belt around the tree that measured the amount of rot with weakness whatever. and i don't believe the city has enjoyed that level of technology in your program yet? >> that's correct. we used one, one time before. it hen a number of years. our staff is familiar in the use generally. but we have not been employing those in our tree evaluations. >> when -- and i'm not doubting your exteriorise i respect that expertise and applaud you repeatedly.

but how do you defend against when somebody is using new technology and state of art stuff and you are still doing at this time old physicianed way i'm not saying is a bad thing but like, you know, using a string with 2 cans versus a new phone. upon how do you manage that and deupon fendz against that. >> sure. great line of questioning. i think for these trees i think it is relevant to employ the use considering the size of the trees. what at stake. should any portion of the trees fail. so i think again applauding the hoa for being proactive and contacting us and selecting qualified professionals to assess the trees. of the very offer what we find

in our experience is that the technology confirms the defects that we agree are present. there are times when we may discover decay is more than we thought. and this case, i think the some of the a resist graph and a sonic tomography. i question some of the shell wall thickness. i think there is more sound wood presence. that said, it is confirming what both reports and our staff is agreeing with is that there is decay present. it is in the insignificant but not to the point we believe the tree needs to be removed. to get become to the point, the technology is expensive. there suspect training.

and a lot of interpretation. what the results mean. >> so, one ~ifiable question. would you obviously, you are here torment defend the continued life cycle of the 2 trees, but would you consider the proposition made by the appellate to am put in a supporting guide scombier also submit the trees to and -- do an annual study and review and reporting on the 2 trees to maintain their assure they are life cycle is maintaining -- adequately >> yes. one of the things we absolutely agree to is annual monitoring. the other case on the hernandez was an example i thought of just

to put it out there, we are not looking at apples and apples as a concept. so the annual monitoring, it is in the heart of the city. we are crisscrossing that area all the time. my sense is we will issue looking at those more than once a year. to will e lay fierce. we have been in cloems communication in the hoa or residents sees something that changes unrelated storms. i think the question for us statute cabling. i don't believe cable is required between the 2 main stems of the street tree. the of city has maintenance responsibility and liability for the cables are between 2 and not the main union that split left or right. and so -- and they

connect to appoint remove from the tree. i disagree about the need for a cable to be place instead street tree. we can consider that grown we have done it before it is something that we -- up for krigz and if that was the recommendation that is probably something this we would pursue and agree to. >> thank you. >> mr. trasvina. thank you for the presentation. i have really pleased to hear the mutual respect and good work realm that you have with the neighborhood association. will one thing i have seen over my time here is upon often lack of communication or citizen frustration. clearly, there is a disagreement

here but pleased you reached out and have a good relationship with the hoa. i first experienced in city government was a deputy city attorney in the days my first trial representing a fell o in golden gate park. these are this kind of situation is specialing that obviously we want to prevent damage and i will ask you in a bit about how much upon and what the technology is for us to anticipate. future damage that may be a different of viewpoint. what i'm hear suggest on the arborist recommendations i'm pleased you are open to some of the ideas, what i am unfamiliar

with and less familiar than president swig with your department, as you testified today, is it based on your inspection and own recommendations. or do you have staff that does this? i'm -- i hear had you are saying i'm trying to get a sense where it come from. i'm a bit at a loss as to -- the arborist. the hoa experts use of technology in the report and what i'm hearing from you which is your conclusions. i'm trying to get an understanding why there are differences. thank you, commissioner and thank you for the feedback and that about your involvement with city attorney's office. of the example there are 2 primary reports that the ho aobtained. one of them the hartwood exhibit

aggressives with the public works findings that the risk here is leave. the bartlett report recommendation is that the risk is moderate. difference, i don't disagree with their moderate assessment as a private entity. the customer up to the customer's threshold for risk. i think that is where this hinges a bit is that it is a reasonable report. you get 5 arborists we will be a bit a vin diagram inform most cases there is reasonableness in all of those. so i don't discount the report. i think the city has a public

safety is the priority i believe we have demonstrated a higher thresh hopefuled when will it come to accepting the liability in a face of manage assets like trees and the critical nature of the infrastructure they deliver. and so -- what we look for are -- additional signs of tree health in decline or potential for failure. and we are acknowledge there is decay gudon't believe it is a risk that makes the trees no longer sustainable. we are and unfortunate it is easy to argue a case when you feel like it is black and white. i think they for reason. we have a higher threshold for risk. one thing find out is that president annual monitoring

would that am in itself reduce risk. you know no one is here saying the trees are around for 20 years. it is an annual proposition and recognize minot wish to go through this. year after year and wondering. but as the city maintaining this asset we are willing to buzz it is the trees are viable and want to mic make sure we do everything we can that is behind how we differ slightly. i did evaluate the trees myself. but first they are evaluated by a certified arborist inspector danielle hoffman. i locked at the trees myself. danielle hoffman has and the matter reviewed by a public works hearing officer. and currently public works enjoys added insurance which is

carla short is the former urban forester and stepped away from the superintendent role but returning in spring. we have a multipaul layers of review. i have evaluated them and agree with assessments. >> one other question about the seismic danger. a block and a half forecast seismic zone. does that have impact. safety the tree? >> so, seismic activity thankfully has very little bearing on tree health. there is almost no in established connection between tree failures and seismic activity. i say san extreme i they that

would be the exception. but typical seismic activity we are it is in the written about i attended conference for i language time i never heard about any connection. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment. is there anyone to provide comment,? raise your hand. i see one hand. john multi go ahead. good evening commissioners can you hear me. great. i want it bring up will i did hear the first was at of the first hearing at public wishes and now at this hearing i want to bring up other, in the discussed by the hoa. they to being out permits to put in approximate in front of the building bell conys. the trees would be in the waist

balcony. and also plus the way -- the units have been bought and sold or sold in the last 2 years. therefore, there was only one property owner for this whole build and now somebody in that trust is now selling off pieces and upgrading the property this . is -- trying to get rid of trees in the yards to put in additional things to their property. and if you look at the planning department website you will see the permits pulled for this property. you will see that the additional things they are trying to do to the property in the last 5 years. so, i think that should be reason enough why they are trying to it has nothing to do about what you see in fronts of you. it it is also increasing the value of the property and to the new property ordinance that bought in the condos. thank you. >> thank you.

we will hear from john multi. mr. nulty. go ahead. we can't hear you you may need to press you did in the call in. can you unmute yourself? go ahead i think we heard you.

go ahead. michael >> this is michael nulty. it seems to me i was go with the recommendation of the city on the trees. if it is clear that there is not enough damage the trees have. and i understand this the -- the property ownerments to be do due diligence and appreciate that the city has a different idea. we are trying to protect trees.

this tree is native to san francisco. it is heard it get the right trees to begin with in san francisco alegality of the trees they have over the years are not natives. this is a native tree and makes a difference used to the climate of san francisco. obviously do better in surviving the san francisco weather and that's why it should stay. and if there is any mitigation measure this is need to happen that it is in part something that the time -- the property owner can deal with and community with the city if there needs to be mitigation measures. first mitigation measures not decide to remove the tree or trees in this case. because they have pleasants for the property. or considering other plans for

the property. i think pun the -- the -- commission needs to understand what other things are helping -- besides the tree removal here. thank you. >> thank you. >> i see derrick has his hand raised and mr. shinel the appellate listed you as an agent per of her party. are you officer of the hoa? >> no but i'm a resident and defer to [inaudible]. >> okay. you can provide public comment you can't speak during pelt's time. du want to provide public comment now? no. i will bow out. >> you want to speak during appellate's time or? i see no need to speak further. >> thank you >> further public comment.

raise you were hand. okay. no further comment we move on to rebuttal. you have 3 minutes. >> i'm here in response to the development on the property. yes, begin nothing 2019 or 2020 there were several permits pulled and completed to renovate 3 units in the building there has never been and will never be a permit to build i balcony out from the building. i have no idea where this come from. there is an apartment building next door and there has been activity there and may be something and have balcons men reper ses there. but no plan, no permit requests to develop the front yard, which on which the trees are located.

thank you you have 2 minutes. >> and just to be clear, twoft units were commolested and sold several machinings before the problem with the tree was discovered. there was not an arborist report of in march of upon 2021 and no problems identified and then in march of 2022, i had another orborist to check it locked like there werants that was the time when they have identified the need for more are substantial investigation and they did the special analysis it detect the decay and that was after twoft units had been sold and the third was in it escrow. so, it had nothing on do with the were renovation of the building. it was purely was a matter of

the timing of the assessments. >> thank you. are you finished? >> yes. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the urban forestry. >> anything further >> no. >> commissioners this merit is submitted. >> anybodiment to beginful you want to start. >> no. >> not yet >> pass it down. >> this is a hard one. but clearly 2 very clear and well briefed positions presented here tonight. i you know it is obviously touchy issue and there is a good chance that may be within a few years the trees need to be removed but i certainly understand the urban forest position on why they should not be removed and why does in the meet questions of law ifshgzs and than i have to have

standards which they decide whether to a tree can be removed or not in residential cestings and sounds like they did this properly and appropriately and so i think for that reason i'm inclineed deny the appeal but certainly interested in hear when other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i again want to reiterate my appreciation for the department's responsiveness to the hoa and good rep they have. i do see a disagreement between expert reports and but i'm -- as between the report as you stated -- president swig, the hoa experts bringing technology. that either the city does not have access or has in the used.

i am based on commissioner lemberg's -- approach i am per situated the hoa than for the testimony that brought by the city. in writing orally on the other hand i'm pleased the city seems willing to do more that represented in the written papers. of. hoa felt stealed walk away from the 2 trees i understand it is department to have inspections and given the communication that exists between the city and the hoa, that as we go in the future, and see potential damage coming up, that there may be there is a chance that -- the

future ways to fight off tree failure can be accomplished without -- having to reverse the decision of the city. i will inclineed support the city's position. >> lopez? yea. like to echo the comments. looks like you know classic battle of the experts. and i think in this situation when oui look at expertise and wide aperture cross the city and calibration of risk will card to the entire tree population. i think -- i think it is reason

given that we are operating in similar program terse in the vin diagram we are not looking at polar opposites. reasonable to defer to position which is informed by examination of the zoo00 tree inventory across the city in a -- also -- you know its -- state the obvious that the cities appreciation for public safety and you know appropriate prioritization for public safety considerations are you know top prior. so -- i'm inclineed trust their position on this. mr. eppler. >> thank you, i think commissioner lopez gets to the

heart of when i have been thinking as i electric at this the i think the issue this has us going is that right now the metrics are subjective. there is what statute risk of fail you're, moderate what does moderate and severe and low mean? i think commissioner trs trasvina quake happening in the next 40 years nice we collect did thea if we are able to make better predictions like 40% chance of treatment fail nothing 10 years to better measure the likelihood of failure. the battle expert system right. who is mod x-ray who is low what do they mean. and the way i balance that is look at the party that holds the risk this is the department and the party that has to allocate

resources across the treefs and the city that is the departmentful i'm sympathetic too the homeowner's association and the report that the defines a risk this is role and strikes me monitor this and allocating resource when is it becomes high enough to act upon is our best course of action. >> mr. lemberg. >> i wanted add one thing, i -- did note that the private tree reports submitted by the appellate remember considered by the d. public works. if than i had not been i think you know testimony is clear that it is we can decide arth way the fact the d. public works reviewed the reports this were submitted. along with the application and still found the way they did i think is just further support

for the position. >> mr. trasvina. >> thank you and -- again getting back to the expert reports i do know the city looked at the reports but it is a mystery why the stele found the expert of the hoa to be faulty or not persuasive. i think if we were coming. you want to ask this. mr. buk. it is a good question for mr. buk. why if i could -- in. within your that th is when it is about you got a question. . i heard your question about squaring the bauerlet exhibit recommendation findings moderate

risk. and recommending removal versus say -- public works saying in light of that information we are saying low are risk or we will am might agree with the finding moderate but to us that level risk some of the other mentioned -- were it is in the meeting our level and i wish we can continue to work as an industry on try to be objective. but -- looking at over all condition of the tree. like vigor. branch failure. what are the mechanism it is for failure the 2 main stemless. i think yes, in the future perhaps large trees like this aveil public ws to go ahead if we are statingow valuable the trees are asset to the public we puff machine in some technology

we can program vied the public with assurance that we are keeping pace with the industry. i would say that we are it is a vin diagram. xr have a believe there is moderate risk therefore remove. i'm at men hearings we are removing trees and recommendation is remove and the public is like when are you going to retain a tree there. is that your personal charge. not with public safety. so, i believe this it is sounds wood present in both trees to make them below moderate risk. we acknowledged the report. won't don't dispute their own findings but find that again through multiple layers and the fact we have hundreds of the species we manage city wide on

sunset we have hundreds of the species. and we are obtaining them for longer. so, granted there are fewer in some case targets but that's a bit i'm i could not be susinks. that is we have a light agendaip wanted provide context. >> thank you. >> and if i could ask another question. and this is -- are you -- may require a long answer and i hope it is doesn't. the hoa looking at the 2 trees and no other trees. is it strong or not strong. fail or not fail? you argue looking at this tree compared to others so that he feel you might be saying our

responsibility is to the 49 square miles of trees. this one does in the rise to the need to act. that's a different inquiry. and i'm wondering that may be the difference. if so i would say, that am this decision based on these 2 trees alone not the necessary priorities and limited resources the city department. >> thank you, commissioner i think for us, when i say we experienced managing in the species city wide, it it is experience in when we look at what trees fail during storms. which trees are they. how did they fail. it is familiarity with and comfort level with the approximate terrible for failure. and so referencing the entire city what i money to draw from this it is experience.

you know, like a mechanic would know a car in with the sound and you continue is mechanic like is it an i will not name a name if this better thanned typeset is dog this. that is typical of that species. it is comfort with the species how much decay is present. the type of failures we see. again we are seeing trees cared for carefully versus trees in the city that are more wild and don't receive this level of care. and still are newscast failing. so it it is -- it statute comfort level in our decisionmaking process and where we feel like the decision to approve or deny is crossd and for us feels like sustainability and would be if i were if the commissioner said, i wish we get

more than a year there is a finding. but that it is more about our process and our familiarity with the species and comfortable level when it the only tree in front of a home is what what you worry about and see. not this we don't worry. we worry about it like everyone else. so -- that's more about our process. background. >> i'm comforted that the level of attention you have begin this and that to the extent there men a chink in the 40 that you left open the door to the hoa to let you know that. and you would electric at it again. thank you. >> thank you. >> so i'd like to wrap this up and move on to motion. so -- um automatic00 welcome to

the world of tree cases and there will be dozens more. if i remember my first. it was on you remember your first kiss i remember my first tree it fulton and could not believe the beginning when i read i could in the believe that mr. buk was oldhave indicating not getting rid. tree and got an education why this tree will holdeen upon though oafs destroying a sue are pipe andup rooting a sidewalk tilt nothing a fashion and it was like near everfor me. get rid of the tree. it does not happen and i see why many tree cases later. one of the you will see this moving forward there a natural stress with buff and anybody who is asking for the removal of a

tree. that is the there is a macro view maintaining the over all tree population in san francisco and the canopy. which you will hear in the future. is a tremendous risk. so that is one stress. the other thing moderate you see is -- my can of water half full or bhpt it is at half way nameans moderately full. we have different views but it is the same. we are run nothing that circumstance. what i like about here is i don't see disagreement of significance. mandate it locked at 12 months later and later and et cetera and all that the recommendation

by the arborist and the hoa to puff in a cable regardless buff is in agreement gives comfort to the hoa and dispel some of that anxious. >> i like to figure out julie is -- what i like the result to be is that the trees are min tained but -- that they are a mandated inspection 12 machining basis and ask that a cable and i don't know by whom cable install instead tree recommended by the hoa arborist. is that a denial of appeal. >> granting the appeal would conscience. i thinked tree that needs the cable is the street tree that would be buff's responsible. and like to clarify for the

record there was a baptist conflicting information newscast material did woeful need an additional steel support cable or replace the existing one. >> mr. that would be appellate. mr. buk, the professional in the room and the xaelt asked if she affirms mr. buk's issuance. why thank you, commissioners. public works be willing to install the cable between the tw main stems of the street tree as requested of the hoa >> thank you. ask the hoa applicant whether agrees with this. you've can we also say part of report it remove the decaying stub and dying branch on the street tree. is that included? >> that's fine, i don't care. >> right. >> doeslet hoa

>> >> yes. president swig as a question you are on mute. do you agree with the interpretation of the arborist recommendation for the cable between those element was tree? yes. first i want it thank the board for the substantive discussion that has occurred. this gives us great confidence in the ability to the city to take care of the trees and yes, we would feel comfort with the replace am of the cable on by the city and also the removal of the dead branch. because these are not small branches they are substantial branch and falls could injury somebody and injury property. both of those things would be things we ask request. is the description of the

description of the mr. buk's replacement of the cable correct? as you. >> i'm going to defer to the experts on this. we have when we have in the arborist reports can i repeat that but i don't have a specific opinion on it because i don't have the technical knowledge to give this opinion i have to rely on the experts. >> replacement buff or additional cable. >> okay. >> so let's amend it to the buff will w with the arborist with regard to proper cable to sustaint trees. how is that. >> or say installation of a cable. if that would cover temperature what can you tell me what my. >> sure. >> i one question in terms of machine toring the appellate

request a buff report become to you want to include that? that would be appropriate. yes. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> common sense. >> okay. thank you. we have a motion from president swig grant appeal and issue the order resunriseed require that buff annually monitor the condition of the trees and report become to the appellate to that buff install a cable between the 2 main stemless of the street tree and buff remove the decaying stub and dying branch from the street tree. i upon didn't hear -- uphold the appeal but not take down dismanual the trees. kweef are not ato be removed we are modifying it. >> on what basis you make this

motion? president swig? on the basis of the recommendation of the bureau of urbeen forestry. >> okay. all right. so on that motion vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> lemberg y. aye >> eppler y. aye. >> president swig, this motion carries and the appeal is granted with conditions. we have one more item to vote on before we leave that is item number 5. this is appeal 22-052, peter poon versus dbi planning approval 331, 28th avenue. kenny and amy tseng.

first floor bathroom and office and kitchenette and stair connection with first and second floor. permit 2022077177. the board voted 5-0 to continue to november 16. planning interesting department conduct an inspection of the property. the merit was after rescheduled for the hearing tonight on october 19th and buzz after dbi and planning did the inspection recommending revocation and permit holder agreed. we need a motion to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis it was not properly issued. >> make that motion. >> okay. >> commissioner >> is there public comment on that motion? raise your hand? >> i don't see comment on that

motion violent lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> commissioner eppler yofrment that motion carries 5-0 and appeal is grant third degree concludes the hearing. thank you.

>> you know, i remember when i was a teenager, they did i think it was on the grammys, boss scags narrated the san francisco scene and they did a spot on it and how it's evolved and convergence of multi culture and the emergence of gay community, lgbtq, it was not even called that then. >> so like any good listening back then, i played softball and a friend on the team said, the fire department is recruiting women. i took the test in 88 and 89 i got hired. and i always say this, it was

like a perfect career, it was like social work, i love that connecting and helping people aspect and physical. so i was like a social worker with an ax basically. and i just thought, this is like, this is it, i hit the jackpot. part of my story is, i grew up across the street from a fire station and as a young girl, i use today love going in there and would go in there whenever my parents voted, they the old fashion voting machines. sxifs in awe of the place but i never saw anybody that looked anything like me. it was all men, it was all white men and so, i never knew that i could do that. this was in the 70s. and i worked in several different things and i was at the pride parade in 1991. >> and the chief of the department, she i did give her

courtesy card to come in, i remember it to this day, june 30th. the hand and hand together and i was with a friend of mine and fire fighter named anita prattly came up to me and we had a mutual friend and we didn't meet. and she came by the table and as soon as i looked at her, i said hi o to my friend, i could see she was super athletic. >> and she knew my friend and she said hey, do you want to be a fire fighter, here's an interest card, join us. >> there was something about her that could roll with the punches and also give a few punches. she would be great and i just knew it. i did give her the courtesy card. it was my greatest achievement. >> and it was something i saw

myself, yeah, i love a good crisis. and i'm good in crisis and i'm good on thinking on my feet. and i'm you know, super fit and physical, maybe i can do this awesome. >> but just in terms of pride in general, being able to go to pride and be who we are and be who i am, it's like the sense of digity and equality and inclusion. i was always incredibly proud to represent the community and to be doing service for the community, because that's what i love doing. >> coming to san francisco for me, was really key because i love the city. the city is so vibrant and diversity is really, it's one of its treasures. so being part of a department

that represents diversity is huge and so important to me that we welcome everyone. and not just face value, truly to integrate to have diversity, have representation not just on the fire fighter level but all levels in this department, all ranks up and down the chain of command. it's huge and it's, stepping in as a woman of color as part of the lgbtq community, means more than just myself, right. i represent more than just myself. but as a leader, other people in this department, other people in the community that are looking at me and seeing that there is space for them. and so that is really creating space for everyone. >> when i first joined the military, it was still under

don't ask don't tell. i had to be super cautious about what i was doing. i was still figuring out what i was doing. i joined when i was 19, i knew i was part of the community i was not accepting yet. my first duty station was officer guam and that's where i got to explore who i was. and being under the umbrella of don't ask don't tell, and having a friend being separated because he was gay. it was very rule. had you to make sure that you were following the rules you needed to do everything you need today do. i was fortunate to be there when don't ask don't tell was repealed. you find people who are making a big deal about it, the next day everybody went to work like nothing happened. we were accepted and nobody made a big deal about it.

work performance was even better because you didn't have to hide something and worry about hiding. the transition from that world into this one is basically the exact same. i was able to just jump in and just you know, not even test the waters. >> i grew up with firefighters, my uncle and cuss infor a volunteer department in canada. here it's quite different, bigger department, a lot of different people. you know, just working with san francisco i really enjoy having all the different personalities, background, experiences, i'm a pro lead rhyme now. i'm a year into my probation and i'm already finished. and i felt like everybody has brought me in and show me what they know. and regardless of my sexuality,

my gender, my race, i was 28 when i decided to change my career and go any different direction. i'm 35 now just starting out in a whole different field. >> san francisco has a large population of lgbtq community in general and our department is reflective on that. the one thing i love about the san francisco fire department, is we do look like the community we serve and we're making every strife to reflect that. so even in our out reach, recruitment efforts, we're trying to make sure that every single person including the lgbtq community has an opportunity to become a member of our department. soz a subpoena officer, it's important to make sure that i welcome my crew. that includes every single member that is on my apparatus, i feel we can do a

better job. >> my dad was a football coach and he taught me to persevere and be committed and i'm showing that i'm doing that. i'm very proud to say that i get to start my career off as a fire fighter for the san francisco fire department. and i'm proud to be who i am, proud to be all the colors that i represent, proud to be, you know, i love being a woman in the department and to feel comfortable with who i am and very secure and excited to come to work. >> you know, one thing my mom also en grained anything we set our heart to and anything we wanted to do, the only thing stopping us was us. it's my dream to be a fire department member and i'm here, being changed because of who i was and now being able to out and proud of who i am, it's, i

feel it should mean something. >> it's important as a san francisco fire fighter, that we understand the community that we serve. it's important that our department is made up of different genders, different ethnicities, different sexual orientations, because the community that we serve need to reflect the apparatus. >> i've seen, i've seen the evolution of this department, i've seen it change through the years. we're in a better place than we were many years ago. i think we continue to evolve. i'm really hopeful for this next generation of leaders who do smart, determined, lead with heart and i'm hopeful for our future for this department going forward. >> we're your department. we're here for you. we're you and that, and i really believe that san

francisco really embodies that. i tell you, it was the greatest decision i ever made. i kept thinking, my gosh if i didn't play softball i wonder if i would have heard about it. it's funny you plan in life and gu to college and you plan your next steps, but the most profound decision nz life, is how you meet people are random. i was meant to be i think and it was such a great fit being that social worker with the ax, that's it. >> so i see san francisco and san francisco leadership and government as a beacon for the entire country. because we are so up front about what we believe in, we're really up front about inclusivity and i know that, others look at us, many look to us.

we've had other departments, contact us in terms of how do you, how do you do this? how do you create a diverse equitable and inclusive workforce? and so, but i would be lying if i said that we don't have any problems in california or in san francisco or in the department. we are out liars, sure? are we doing our best again to address those things with implicit bias training? with changing the culture, our department has made huge huge leaps as has the city and i really feel like san francisco is part of the solution to moving forward in a better way. people are individuals, there are a lot of different types of people in this world and celebrating our differences is what pride is all about.

>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee of san francisco board of supervisors for today monday october 24, 2022. i am chair of this committee aaron peskin joined by supervisor mandelman and left, by committee member connie chan. the clerk is mr. young. any unnouncements? >> yes, the board of supervisors are convening high bred meetings to allow inperson attendance and public comment still providing remost access via telephone. the board recognizes equitable public