Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

OK, good evening, and welcome to the September 2, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvino will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan, Commissioner Jose Lopez, and Commissioner Lily Wong. Commissioner Robin Abad-Ocubillo is absent tonight. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minardi, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. At the controls is the board's legal assistant, Alec Longway, and I'm Julie Lamar, the board's executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Up front, we have Corey Teague, the zoning administrator, and Carrie McElroy, senior building inspector with the Department of Building Inspection. We also have Charlie Murphy, Assistant Superintendent for Trees with San Francisco Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry. The board meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Mr. Longway, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules, please email board staff at boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. SFGov TV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGovTV cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on Fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the homepage of our website at sfgov.org forward slash BOA. Now, public comment can be provided in three ways, one in person, two via Zoom, or three by telephone. To attend via Zoom, go to our website at sfgov.org forward slash BOA, and under the calendar, click on the link next to today's date, and then click on the blue rectangular box that says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to attend by telephone, call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 978-7091-8625. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star six seven, then the phone number. Listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. You will have up to three minutes, depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note that there is 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 volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on Zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to Alec Longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. Now, we will swear and affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? OK, thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. So commissioners, we have one announcement. Item number six, this is appeal number 26-040 at 649 28th Street, has been withdrawn by the appellants and will not be heard tonight. Thank you. So we are now moving on to item number one. This is general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's calendar? I don't see anyone in person or via Zoom. So we'll move on to item number two. There's a raised hand on Zoom. Oh, we do have a hand raised. OK. I'm sorry, I don't see where Alec, on Zoom?

The phone number. I see, okay.

The phone number ending in 7629, please go ahead. You need to press star six to unmute yourself. The phone number ending in 7629.

oh hello my name is richard rothman and i follow these meetings and i'm concerned about attendance a couple of meetings ago somebody requested that they have all the commissioners present and they weren't present and they had to present their hearing And then last meeting or the meeting before, they needed four votes and there are only three present. And so I think they're back today. And I follow other commissions and people and commissioners attend this meeting. I don't know why these commissioners don't attend the meeting. Maybe there should be a simple rule. If you miss three meetings, you're out. And let the president or the mayor appoint new commissioners. Because it's not fair to the public if they come down the city hall and some of you guys don't show up. So either you're not going to attend and let somebody else be a commissioner because it's not fair to the public. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any further general public comment? I don't see any, so we're going to move on to item number two, Commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I want to welcome those of you who are here in the room and those on Zoom to our Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. I want to bring my colleagues and the public up to date on a matter that we discussed last week, a special item. That was at that time the board voted unanimously 4-0 to direct me and with the assistance of our executive director to write to the Board of Supervisors regarding at that time pending legislation, it's still pending, that would limit the board's jurisdiction over certain city-initiated tree removals. We turned around and crafted a letter, presented it to the mayor's office, to the departments, to the Board of Supervisors. We received some feedback on that. the vote of the of the matter the first reading of the ordinance was on Tuesday and The vote was while there was there was discussion regarding the points that we raised about the about the importance of public access to the appeals to the appeals process and to the very few cases that come before us only two since 2024 and and the way in which we have, under the new legislation, restrict our time, both the time of the public as well as the time of the board, to act in a dispositive manner. We also discussed the limitations and the disadvantages of taking away our jurisdiction on some cases. The board discussed those matters and the board voted for first reading at least on Tuesday 7 to 4 to support the legislation without the amendment that we sought which would have restored our full jurisdiction. So the matter remains on the second floor of City Hall. The matter will come back to the Board of Supervisors next week for second reading, but as of now, we have presented our views to the Board and to other responsible officials on the second floor, and that is the update that I wanted to provide to everyone here. Colleagues, any comments or opening comments?

OK. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any hands raised. So we will move on to item number three, adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion of possible adoption are the minutes of the August 26, 2026 meeting.

Ms. Lauer, I'll move the approval of the minutes, but I wanted to make a comment about the part that describes the action that we took in Special Item 5. I'm not going to seek an amendment to what is there, but I want to make sure that as people read it, when we talk about our comments in opposition to the pending legislation as it relates to the elimination of the Board of Appeals review that our action was to oppose that part of the legislation. We did not take a position on the entire legislation, but only sought an amendment. So the language in the minutes is accurate as to the legislation as it relates to the elimination of the board, but we did not oppose the legislation.

So did you want to change on the minutes? I guess I don't understand. What would you like changed?

No, I just want for anyone to look back at this to know that to clarify that the language here is correct. We did oppose the legislation as it relates to the elimination of the board's review, but we did not oppose the legislation itself. So with that explanation, I'm not seeking an amendment to the motion.

Thank you. OK. Is there any public comment on that motion? I DON'T SEE ANY, SO ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? AYE. VICE PRESIDENT CERROYAN? AYE. COMMISSIONER WONG? AYE. THAT MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ZERO AND THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THIS IS APPEAL NUMBER 26-039, NINA SALTMAN VERSUS SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS, SUBJECT PROPERTY, 4227 26th STREET. APPEALING THE ISSUANCE ON JULY 24, 2026, TO NEED ASSAULTMENT OF A PUBLIC WORKS ORDER. DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE ONE SIGNIFICANT TREE, A MEXICAN FAN PALM WITH REPLACEMENT. THE TREE IS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT AND WENT DECADES OF GROWTH TO REACH ITS CURRENT SIZE AND SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. THIS IS ORDER NUMBER 300186 AND PERMIT NUMBER 795261. SO THANK YOU. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPEALENT FIRST. WELCOME. YOU HAVE SEVEN MINUTES.

Thank you. Can you hear me OK?

Yes.

And does this show up there yet? Overhead?

Laptop?

Computer, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to be here tonight. My name is Nina Saltman. I'm here with my husband, James Bullock, to appeal the Department of Urban Forestry's decision that denied our application to remove one dangerous Mexican fan palm from our property. Because the palm is within 10 feet of the public sidewalk, we are required to obtain a permit from the city to remove the tree, even though it is in our front yard on our property, where we have lived in Noe Valley for 30 years. The tree itself poses a threat to the general public, especially to our friends and neighbors, as well as to ourselves. We have the right to live on our property without fear of injury. It's been two and a half years since I first applied to get rid of this palm, and the palm continues to grow and exert pressure on the retaining wall. I'm appealing to this board to take a more common sense approach to this request. As homeowners, we are put in an untenable situation. James and I see a potential hazard, yet we're unable to do anything about it. Requiring us to keep the palm puts us in a situation where we are aware of a known risk, yet are prevented from addressing it. That outcome is inconsistent with orderly and responsible land use and with basic duty of care principles, not to mention the fact that this tree is on our own property and not the city's. It seems important that the board considers proportionality in this case, which is something that the Department of Urban Forestry did not do. As you can see from letters from our adjacent neighbors, nobody likes this tree. We feel it is unsafe. It is scary. It sways threateningly in the daily wind. The roots look unhealthy. And even in their own words, the Department of Urban Forestry says that the tree is only in fair shape. Though we are not arborists, we are citizens who pay our taxes and neighbors who perceive a threat to life and limb. A city street tree fell on me in 2024 and nearly killed me, and it was also a palm. Though the DUF speaks of palms as monocots with completely normal exposed root balls, it's obvious that this does not mean a tree is safe from failure simply because they say it is. Let's see.

I paused your time.

There we go. Our palm shows no redeeming urban forestry benefit. It does not provide shade or canopy. The DUF states that the palm provides carbon storage, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics that can hold emotional value. It's interesting to me that the DUF uses emotional value as a virtue here, but not as a detriment as in my personal trauma. The only wildlife I've seen in the palm has been rodents, and clearly the tree is not particularly pleasing. The only virtue is its size, and its size is totally inappropriate for its location. The tree was planted before we bought the property in 1988. We did not realize how big it would get, nor did we realize the stress and strain that it would place on our retaining wall, as well as the adjacent palms and other plantings. The wall has had visible...

Sorry, here.

The wall has had visible movement. Though we do not have engineers report, our contractor has examined the wall and has stated in his letter to the DUF, warns of the danger from the tree's root pressure on the wall. The wall provides lateral support for our front yard and the adjacent property, and the risk of failure increases daily. Retaining walls do not fail gradually, they fail suddenly. Failure in this case would be catastrophic. And as a point of information, that wall has been patched and painted several times. since we moved in. The wall failure is not speculative. San Francisco's urban forest plan and public works urban forestry guidelines recognize that tree retention must be balanced against public safety, infrastructure protection, and risk management. Similarly, the planning code does not require retention of vegetation where it threatens structures or creates hazardous conditions. Safety considerations must prevail. The palm's removal would allow the front yard to flourish without burden of an inappropriate planting in our landscape. Our yard is an oasis. We love plants and trees, and we're recently on the Noe Valley Garden Tour. We have planted eight trees in the last 30 years on our property. We have contributed significantly to the 2014 Urban Forestry Plan's major goals in more ways as well by being members of the Friends of the Urban Forest and have participated in neighborhood tree plantings. Alternative measures, such as root pruning, let's see, Alternative measures such as pruning do not address the root-related issues of the tree and do not mitigate the risk of imminent failure of the tree or the structural risk to the retaining wall. Engineering solutions to preserve the wall are disproportionate and unreasonable given the tree's limited benefits and condition. Removal is the only effective and proportionate response to ensure public safety. There are several other considerations to make note of. Recently, the city of San Jose has decided to remove many Mexican fan palms that they deemed unsafe. These trees were just a little bit older than the one in our yard, but they were seen as unstable and posing a public safety hazard due to their size and poor condition. The other consideration is the upcoming El Nino The upcoming El Nino seasonal weather event with higher rainfall, windy conditions, and generally unpredictable weather, a potentially hazardous condition such as our tree should be taken as part of the risk-benefit consideration in this case. My accident in February 2024 was disastrous. The Department of Urban Forestry was responsible for planting and maintenance of that tree. That palm was inappropriate as a street tree and was neglected for years. It's obvious that the DUF is understaffed and ill-equipped to adequately care for or examine each tree in the city, but they should take the safety of the public into consideration when they determine which trees to save and which to remove. We respectfully request that the board consider the facts in this case and the risks involved, as well as the lengthy ordeal that we've endured. We urge you to ensure the safety of our home and neighborhood, as well as peace of mind, by approving this appeal and allowing us to remove the palm tree in our front yard. Our lives have already been negatively impacted by one tree planted in the wrong place. While the continued retention of this tree creates foreseeable risk to structural integrity as well as public safety, and where its removal results in no material loss of urban forest value, the only reasonable and responsible outcome for this committee is to approve the removal of the palm. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. We have a question from President Trasvidia. Yes.

Thank you, Ms. Saltman, for your testimony and the materials that you provided. I don't want to minimize your statement or the personal traumatic pain that you've gone through already. That's very clear from the record. But I do want to ask you about Matt Nichols and the Deep Elm construction. Yes. His letter seems to be the most authoritative part of the record, frankly on either side, about the potential safety, risk, and danger. So what I'm wondering about is Matt Nichols, is he an engineer?

He's a licensed general contractor.

Licensed general contractor.

And I should say that I was also in construction for 30 years, and I can see a potential risk both in the tree, because I'm a gardener as well, as well as on the wall. And it's a problem.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. Thank you for your testimony. A couple questions. So was there ever a discussion about the cost of the tree? Do you think that it was cost prohibitive? Did you ever talk to the department about what an estimate would be?

I'm willing to pay for it. Oh, you are? Yeah. Okay. I'm not asking the city to pay for it. Okay. I just want to remove it. Okay. That's really good to know. And it's not cheap. And I should add that I've already spent $1,000 in these appeals and the applications.

I understand. And I'm not trying to get you to spend more money, but I was looking at the...

I mean, I'd be happy if the city wanted to take it out.

I'm looking at the brief for... Oh, my God. Wait. It's the city's brief. And... You know, your pictures show safety concerns of the retaining wall. And interestingly enough, it doesn't have page numbers on it. It says, if the appellant has an engineering report they can produce, the department believes that the Board of Appeals should use it in their deliberation. BUF inspectors are not engineers and cannot speak to this point. Do you have... Has anyone mentioned getting... An engineering report to you?

No, I saw that in the bundle of information. And no, I'd have to pay for it. I mean, that's more money that I'd have to pay. I totally understand.

But I was wondering if in your preparation or if there's a neighbor that's an engineer or anything like that.

I have a friend that's an engineer, and he saw it, and he said it looked horrible. OK.

OK.

I should add that that was a couple of years ago.

Right. And my other thought is the Bureau of Urban Forestry, they're overseen by Department of Public Works. Did they send an engineer out? As far as I know, they did not. Because last week, we had a hearing that the Bureau of Urban Forestry was removing a tree. But then Department of Public Works came to oversee the removal of a tree. So it's interesting that they haven't sent anyone, an engineer, to actually.

As far as I know, they sent two different tree inspectors. over the course of two years. And that's all I know about it. CAROLYN J.

Tree inspectors only. Nobody from Department of Public Works. CAROLYN J. That's what I know of. CAROLYN J. OK. OK. Thank you so much. CAROLYN J. Anything else?

Thank you. I just have one follow up, Ms. Haltman. And I wanted to just be clear for the record. You said you had a friend who was an engineer, came out to look at it, and it looked terrible. Is it the wall or it the tree?

The wall. He was referring to the wall. And I mean, for what it's worth, everybody that comes over to the house looks at the tree and goes, ew. It's scary. It's leaning. It sways around. The roots look bad. Whatever.

Thank you. I see my question or your answer has attracted the attention of Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Wong, who now also have questions. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. And sorry to hear about the accident as well. I'm not necessarily expecting you to have done this, but I'm just curious in terms of understanding the landscape and where the various city agencies may fit into this issue. But have you been in touch with the Department of Building Inspection at all with respect to the wall?

Have not.

OK. That'll probably tee up another question from me to the department, but thank you for that.

Okay, Commissioner Wong.

Thank you for presenting. I just wanted a little bit of clarification. So I know that it was mentioned that the Bureau has only come over twice to review the tree. When was the last time that they came to inspect the tree?

I believe it was in October.

October of this past year? I think so.

I think that's what I saw on their timeline.

Okay. And then the photos that you showed today, were they taken more recently? Yes.

Most of those, well, with the exception of the tree on Castro Street that's up there right now, they were taken in the last week.

Okay. And then just based on your estimate, I know that this tree has taken a while to grow to this height. Has it kind of stayed at this height in the last few years, or has it actually increased in height?

Well, I just noticed it being over the top of our house. Okay. Just like the other day, I was in the backyard, and I was like, oh.

Yeah. It does look significantly over your two-story house. So I definitely noticed that. I'm just trying to think about the growth pattern and if it's going to continue to grow. But that may be a question.

Well, I think that what I read is that Mexican fan palms have a tendency to grow about three feet a year.

OK. Indefinitely?

I could be wrong, but I think that's what I saw.

OK. I will ask that of the city department as well. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We will now hear from the Bureau of Urban Forestry. Welcome. You have seven minutes.

OK. Can we share the laptop, please? Thank you. Thank you for having me. Charlie Murphy, I was here last week. I am the assistant superintendent for the Bureau of Urban Forestry. I have, now it's, I guess, three months and three weeks that I've been with the department. So learning a lot, kind of getting up to speed with all the different code and things like that that come in front of you. here to talk about the location that we just had. So the goal of the Bureau of Urban Forestry and DPW as a whole is to ensure safe, clean, and green infrastructure within the public right-of-way, and the Bureau of Urban Forestry's mission is to preserve and grow the urban forest while balancing safety and the needs of a growing and evolving city. So we do a lot of different work with trees within the right-of-way. The tree ordinance establishes authorization and standards for addressing a wide range of issues regarding trees, and it is codified under Article 16 of Public Works Code. It was mentioned a little earlier. This is not a city tree. This is a tree of significance that the city has some jurisdiction over. It is a private tree. It is the private property's responsibility for maintenance. It is just a protection from the city on those trees because trees do provide additional benefits to the community at large. Article 16. The urban forestry ordinance requires a permit to remove a street tree, a significant tree, or a landmark tree. There's been updates here and there, but basically just requiring replacement of trees that may be removed and that the requirement can be put onto the property owner, ideally for replanting at that site, but potentially with a fee in lieu if there's no plantable site at the location. So for the criteria of a tree removal, there's a lot of different factors that come into play from the health of the tree, the species selection, potential serious damage, the hazardousness of a tree, as well as other things like different projects that may require the tree's removal. including projects that may not necessarily require the removal of the tree, but potentially will destabilize the tree. So these are all different things that kind of come into consideration when a permit for removal comes in to our department. Okay, so for this location where the staff denied the removal, We have about a little over 35-foot tall Mexican fan palm with a 14-inch diameter, although because it is a palm, diameter doesn't mean as much as, say, an oak tree or some sort of native tree because, as you can tell, palms grow straight up, not so much outward. The tree is in fair condition, which was mentioned a few times. I just want to be very clear on what that means in terms of trees. per previous conversations in terms of hazard and things like that, these types of terms mean something very specific in the tree world and our terminology when we're assessing trees. A tree that is determined fair is one rung above or below the top tier it can get. So it can only be dead, poor, fair, or good. A fair tree is considered a tree that you can do some remediative work, whether pruning some branches or, in this case, dead fawns, TO MAKE THE TREE INTO THE GOOD CONDITION. SO IT HAS THAT CAPACITY TO BE BROUGHT INTO GOOD CONDITION. SO A FAIR CONDITION DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING BAD. MOST TREES IN THE CITY ARE IN FAIR CONDITION UNTIL WE PRUNE THEM JUST BECAUSE THAT'S AS TREES GROW, THINGS HAPPEN. AND SO THOSE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. MENTIONED BEFORE BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE IS THE RETENTION WALL OR THE RETAINING WALL. AGAIN, WE ARE NOT ENGINEERS BY ANY MEANS. I know a lot of cracks in walls. Some of them are serious, some are not. We are not here to determine that. And then just to note, because it is private property, there is no replantable space in terms of what we consider replantable because it's not a public right-of-way location. So I just wanted to add a few pictures just for your guys' own edification. This is like a kind of a side angle where you can kind of see, I guess, some of the crack on the wall, but nothing great. Also, it should be noted, and I think it was mentioned in the appellant's brief, that it's not actual brick. It's painted on brick. It gave me... It was a very good paint job, so it gave me a bit of a delusion. I was like, whoa, OK. So yeah, I just wanted to share a few pictures of the wall and the tree itself. And I had one more note on my phone. Yeah, so again, safety of the tree, we had two different certified arborists assess the tree in terms of safety. The swaying is absolutely a tendency of palms. I know you guys have seen hurricane coverage and how bad those palms look around. The way that that plant grows is to withstand those winds. So it is intended to go back and forth. It alleviates the ability for break along the stem. And then for the root ball, that is just that way that that palm grows. Not all palms are the same, but certain palms, as they continually grow up, the roots just kind of go up. It is not like a tree where the roots are going out in all distances very far. It is much more round. In fact, we have a project on Embarcadero Plaza coming up that we're literally going to transplant palms that are 30 feet tall. So like if you did that with a normal tree, you would kill the tree because the roots couldn't handle that. But because palms don't have super extended roots, we don't have that concern and we can actually transplant pretty large palms. And that's why if you've ever driven down the freeway and seen a 30-foot palm on the back of a truck. A lot of them are grown in like Palm Springs and things. Clever name. And brought up to these types of areas. And then the only last thing that I'll say is in terms of the benefits that palms provide, there are benefits in terms of carbon sequestration and storage as well as wildlife habitat. I have not sat and done a wildlife visit for this specific palm, but I have experience in palms where like owls have nested in it and hawks have utilized it as a perch and things like that. And that's all I have.

Thanks. Welcome back, Mr. Murphy. Thanks. Interesting other side of the coin. Last week we heard a case about objections to the removal of a tree.

I end up on both sides of everything.

Yes, we are on both sides of the point tonight. So I'm going to go back to this. I mean, because DPW has a lot of engineers, and would it be possible to send a DPW engineer out? I mean, last week what we heard was that Bureau of Urban Forestry was only able to make a decision on the health and safety of an actual tree, and that DPW would make the determination about the structure surrounding those trees or the sidewalk. Is there any way we could get somebody from DPW? I mean, I do think it's a significant concern that the retaining wall is cracking due to the roots from the tree.

So that's an excellent question. I think if This tree was a city-owned and maintained tree. And it was a city retaining wall that we were looking at. I think absolutely, if we were determining to remove the tree, we'd kind of bring them in. I do not know the city's policy in terms of a private tree slash private wall and what they would do. I'd have to look into that.

But you could certainly look into it.

Absolutely.

Because the reason, I mean, again, Ms. Saltman is here because I think it's within 10 feet of a public sidewalk that she needs to apply for a removal.

Yes, that's what's making it.

I actually would be sort of curious about having a city engineer come out to look at the retaining wall, since you nicely address it in your report. The other question I wanted to ask or bring up is, it's kind of the flip side of things. I think San Francisco has many tree ordinances, and I'm actually looking at the definition of hazard tree from the Department of Public Works. And it says, hazard tree shall mean any tree that poses an imminent hazard to person or property. The director, here again, is it Ms. Carla, Ms. White? Short. Short, sorry. Yes. The director may determine that a tree is hazard if any part of it, blah, blah, blah, is likely to fall even after proper maintenance activities are performed to eliminate dead or dangerous parts. Some of this doesn't apply but poses any other significant hazard or potential hazard as determined by the director. So again, I I don't think this section applies because, or maybe it does apply. Does the definition of hazard street tree apply to this particular tree?

To that definition that you just shared, essentially the only current potential hazard would be the dead fronds, which with regular maintenance could be remedied. So then there wouldn't be the hazard.

Is that what your arborists determined? Did they actually write up that it's not a hazard?

Yeah, if it was hazard, it wouldn't be in fair condition.

But this doesn't seem to imply that it has to be one of those categories in order to, I mean, it says or likely to fall or poses any other significant hazard or potential hazard. So it doesn't equate your definition of fair with the definition of hazard tree is my point.

I don't think I understand what you're asking. Sorry.

So the arborist has said that the tree is in fair condition? Yes. Understood. However, I don't think that our code definition of hazard tree contains a definition that encompasses whether there's a determination if the tree is in fair or great condition. It seems to focus on other things, like poses any other significant hazard or potential hazard. That's what I'm saying.

Oh, sure. Yeah. Hazard is a different, so there's different tiers of, or not tiers, but ways of assessing a tree. So when we say a tree is fair, we're using track, which is tree risk assessment qualification. So that's a whole level of assessing a tree when it's, you're looking at the potential of failure, the catastrophic-ness of the failure, and where, like, the potential of that catastrophe happening. So for example, if a tree is right by a playground and you think it potentially could fail, It's catastrophic, so that's a very high level. And kids are there because it's by a school, so they're there all day. So then the likelihood is very high. And then you assessing the tree go, it's in poor condition, so it might fail. So the poor good in that is for the health of the tree in that condition. So the hazard part comes into play. what are the other impacts that potentially could come into play? So when assessing this tree, we're looking at the health of the tree. There's some dead fronds, but that again, general maintenance of a palm can get rid of that. And then the hazard of the tree in general, the likelihood of failure is low, determined by the arborist. So then all of a sudden, the likelihood is low. So it essentially within the track format, that means that the risk is low once those actions are taking place. So once we've determined, or once the fronds are removed, then any sort of risk for the palm is considered low from an arborist standpoint.

So the arborist did take into account the definition of hazard.

Yes.

Tree.

Yes. And what that means. Definition of hazard is essentially a label that we provide to trees that meet certain criteria. And it's a bunch of different criteria that kind of are matched up.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I mean, you could argue that this tree poses a significant hazard or potential hazard to the residents of the block if it were to fall over. That's my point.

What you mean is the tree full failure? Or, because as an arborist, the risk that we saw with the tree is the potential of the dead fronds to fall. Which, that's it. We don't believe that the tree would fully fail. I see.

Could they fall on pedestrians? The fronds? Correct.

Yes. And that's why, again, the reason that if we didn't believe that you could remove the fronds without causing issue to the tree, then the tree would be either in poor condition or lower. But because we believe regular maintenance could remove those fronds, then the tree should not be a risk because you can take the steps to make the tree into good condition.

Okay, thank you so much. But I do think it would be interesting to have an engineer from DPW go out.

I can look into that.

I'm going to yield my time.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. So kind of going down the same path that Vice President Sorin was just going down with you with respect to looping in engineers from DPW, with understanding that we'll see, but it may be that because this is in private property, the DPW engineers say, hey, that's outside of scope. But in that scenario, are there ever situations where you might loop in DBI, for example, if the threat to public safety exists on private property such that there might be a code violation on private property?

Good question. And as you were talking, actually, I kind of thought of an analysis. I was here in Forrester in Davis for the last four years before I came here. And one of the things that came up routinely with tree removal requests were that the tree roots were getting into my sewer line or my water line. And so when that came up, we said, well, show us the report. Show us the information that you can to prove it. We wouldn't say, hey, we're going to send our plumbers out to go and do that for you. So, like, there's that weird, like, We have to have the facts, but it's not on us to prove the point. As far as stuff on private property that we believe is a risk, yes. And again, I'm not an engineer, so I can't fully determine it. But from what I saw, I don't believe that the retaining wall is an eminent hazard or a risk to that degree. I've only been here for three and a half months, but I've walked by much worse walls on my walks with my dog. I don't know that it would be something that I would consider. But every time we learn something new, we start to consider that. So in Davis, we started to report the elevation of a lip on the sidewalk, which in San Francisco, everyone's aware of the lips and sidewalks that lip from trees. But going through litigation, I found that I'm supposed to be reporting things like this much. And I was like, oh, I don't even think I've noticed them. So more information from folks like engineers and DBI to let us know what we should be reporting always is helpful. But at this point, I don't think anyone on my staff would have thought that the retaining wall should be sent to somebody else. Thank you.

President Trusvinia?

Thank you, Mr. Nervik. Can you just repeat the last part of what you said? You don't believe anybody on your staff believed?

The current retaining wall would be something that we would need to report to somebody as a risk to the public.

You haven't seen the wall, have you?

Just the pictures.

Just the pictures, OK. You've described the arborist report on the tree. Yes. But it wasn't presented to us. It's not referenced in the underlying hearing by the underlying hearing officer. So is there a report?

Oh, you mean from the arborist that looked at the tree? That's a good question. My understanding is that when we have tree removal requests like this, the report is basically putting together the presentation, which I used a portion of tonight. I don't believe we provide anything more than a cover page of just what comes to the original hearing. I honestly am probably going to change that as our standard operating procedure. Because in Davis, I used to write a pretty full-fledged report for tree removal requests. But I believe it's just doing a standard track assessment and then putting together the presentation for the initial hearing. I don't think there's a written report, per se. It's all captured within our CMMS system, which is our asset management system.

So I guess as you come in new, you review what's there, I would encourage you to consider what is the member of the public going to know or not know in order to not only make their case, but also to feel comfortable with the department's decision about the disposition of a tree one way or the other. Because for right now, You've described a report by an arborist. You haven't seen the tree itself. You're going on what's in the record somewhere, which we don't have.

Well, the records are the information that's recorded within our CMMS system, which are the notes from the assessment.

Well, whatever you're relying on, it would help for the board to know and for the public to know, here's what they found. In the same way that we've asked Ms. Saltman for an engineering report, and the department said, if there was an engineering report, we'd certainly look at it. Well, we would certainly look at things from both sides, both parties, as to what's there, what's not there.

So the notes that were captured were what was put into the brief that I provided. So the details from those notes of the assessment are what made up the brief that was sent to you guys last week, or earlier this week. Sorry.

And can you describe the impact this tree has on The house, the block, the neighborhood?

In generality or like which aspect? I mean, so a tree is going to sequester carbon, basically filtering the air. It provides wildlife habitat. Again, to what wildlife? I have not been out. assessing the wildlife that comes in. But again, birds can perch on especially higher trees. They love, especially birds of prey, love perching on larger trees that have a space, like a view of open space. I have seen like owls nest in palms.

This is all generically.

I'm sorry. I don't think I understand what you're trying to get me to say here. I didn't knock on everybody's door and ask their opinion.

I don't know what you're asking of me. As part of, as I read the department's case, the department says, we have a really small canopy in San Francisco. And we've got this grand plan to increase the canopy. And I'm trying to get a sense as to what part of. The city's canopy. Does this tree involve and what is the benefit? Of this tree. 2. The homeowner. Passers by on the block. The neighbors. Yeah.

I mean the benefit of a tree walking down the street for its residents is up for them to determine, not me.

Okay. All right. Well, I am taking that from the brief and from what we've heard about the city's plan to increase, recognizing that we have a small canopy, and presumably we need a larger one, and we need a larger one for certain advantages and certain needs. But you've answered what I need to know about this particular tree. And... I'll yield to Commissioner Wong.

Thank you. Similar to the questions that I had before for the appellant, can you talk to me about your familiarity with this type of tree and how quickly it grows? I'm trying to understand if it's one step away from being a good tree. then technically it's also one step away from being a poor tree, right? Like, it can go either way. So I'm trying to figure out for the growth of this type of tree, in your professional assessment as a tree expert, can you walk me through, like, what that could look like in the future?

Sure, yeah. So as a tree grows, it doesn't necessarily grow into poor, bad, good, or any of those things. Honestly, trees want to grow, and if they aren't, like, inhibited, then they're going to grow. And honestly, with growth of a tree, it actually kind of, I won't say the words heal itself, because it doesn't, and that's told to us very clearly, but can compartmentalize damage and things like that. And as trees continue to grow, they're showing you the vigor and health that they have. So that's a key component when we are assessing trees, is looking at new growth and determining how much it's putting on and how green it is and what it looks like, because that is a good indicator of the vigor of a tree. So that's something we are constantly considering. So when we're looking at the tree, it's not just like the fronds or the branches that have died. it's also considering and looking at that new growth. And that can be deceiving. So sometimes we'll have trees that look very green, but if you actually look closely at the tree, it's because the tree is extremely stressed and it's shooting out what we call sprouts. And so that becomes very problematic because the public may go, oh, it's very green. And then a tree person will look at it and go, oh, no, that's just like it's last ditch effort kind of thing. So with palms, they're actually pretty clear in terms of their overall health because All branches on trees essentially are going to be shaded out and kind of die off in nature, et cetera. Palms, basically, that's their fronds, so that's expected. But if the fronds start to die higher up while they're still outward rather than downward is when we start to recognize that, hey, that vigor's not there, that health isn't there, and so that's what we're kind of seeing and taking into consideration when we're doing our assessments. In terms of growth, Ranges of palms can vary, and one of the biggest factors, it can be a foot a year, it can be five feet a year, it really depends on the conditions that it's in. So if it's in ideal conditions with all the water in the world that it needs and the proper soil and no confinement, that's when you're going to get really fast growth. When you're in an urban area with lots of stress and poor air quality and lack of water and pervious surfaces, a confined space like walls, Growth is much slower, so that's why you see a lot of the trees along our streets aren't nearly as big as the ones in the park or out in the woods. So those are all kind of things that kind of play into the growth of the tree itself. I've never seen an urban tree grow to the top level of what any book says a tree can grow. It's usually on the slower, smaller end just because of the environment that it's in.

And then this tree in particular, it looks like it's in the front yard, which is a little bit smaller. So proportionality-wise, based on the photos, because that's what you've seen, how much more do you think that this tree could grow, given the limits of the front yard?

Sure. It's a great question. I... If I could go back and look at Google Street View over the last couple of years, that kind of tells you. Because as trees start to hit their limit in terms of surroundings, you can see the growth start to slow down. So it might be that you plant a tree, and it's got a ton of space because it's young and small. So it grows five feet a year when it first starts. And then it starts hitting the edges of the walls and stuff. And then it starts to slow down its growth because it doesn't have the ability to absorb nutrients and set down its base. I can't tell you for this one. I will say in this city, again, most of our tree wells are like three by three. So this is a bigger space than most for trees. And we do have some pretty large Mexican fan palms in some of our pavilions and things like that. And they're not in super large spaces. So I really don't know. I'd have to go back and look at Google Street View. But I can't imagine it's going to get too, too much taller just because of the space. It's also, now that it's above the roof, it is hitting wind level. So that also kind of slows down growth because it's got to have that flexibility within the wind.

Yeah, I think I would have loved to have a better understanding, like somebody who has actually gone to the site, reviewed it, gave us more of a report. And it looks like the most recent review of this tree was last year. Is that correct? OK. And then I also saw in the brief, there was a mention of denial because you're removing a tree without a replacement. Is that a possibility for the owners to be able to replace a tree if this Mexican Palm is the one that they want to remove. And it sounds like they've planted eight trees on their property since they moved in. So clearly they are tree people that are willing to plant trees. Could that be an alternative?

It seems like a very reasonable one. Again, being new, I'm not positive how replacement plantings work on private property. I'd have to verify that.

Okay. And then more, not necessarily for you, but what type of review are we doing tonight? Can I get a clarification?

Yes, Commissioner, you're doing a de novo review. And yeah, so you're doing de novo review, which means you're sort of starting from scratch, essentially.

Cool.

That's it.

Thank you. You can be seated. Deputy City Attorney Minority would like to.

I just thought in response to Vice President Soroyan's comments to just I could read the definition of a hazard tree if you would be interested in that. I think there's a different definition than maybe what on the Okay. So a hazard tree means any tree that poses an imminent hazard to person or property. Director may determine that a tree is a hazard if it or any part of it, one, appears dead, dangerous, or likely to fall even after proper maintenance activities are performed to eliminate dead or dangerous parts. Two, obstructs or damages a street, sidewalk, or other existing structure. Three, harbors serious disease or infestation threatening the health of other trees. Four, interferes with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Or five, poses any other significant hazard or potential hazard as determined by the director. Provided, however, that feasible measures have been applied to abate any such hazard, such as applicable maintenance activities as defined in 802. And whether the tree is in fact a hazard tree is one of the things, is one of the factors that the director should use in determining whether to remove what's, this is a significant tree because it's within 10 feet of property and it's a certain height. And so that's one of the factors in addition to things like size, age, species, visual aesthetic characteristics, cultural historical characteristics, ecological characteristics, location characteristics, those things.

Thank you. That's the same definition I was using.

Okay.

But my question is, does that even apply to this particular circumstance? You may not be able to answer it.

Well, you can consider, well, the director in determining whether to authorize the removal of a significant tree can take into account whether the tree is in fact a hazard tree. Yeah.

Thank you. And which is why I brought it up because I wasn't sure if that consideration had come up in BUF's or Department of Public Works analysis. There was no discussion of it. So thank you, Mr. Minardi.

And Vice President Shroyan, if you would yield, I think one answer to your question may be that in the definition of hazard tree includes the tree obstructs or damages a street, sidewalk, or other existing structure. So at least according to the appellant, there is the damage to the wall.

OK, thank you. We're now moving on to public comment. Is there anyone on Zoom who would like to provide public comment? I see one person. Please go ahead. Judith.

Did you want to provide public comment? I just wanted to say that I live like two blocks down and I'm a friend of Nina's and that it is a tree that, I mean, it is a very large tree and I just know Nina and it's very disturbing to her. And so I just wanted to, you know, after what she's gone through along with the wall and the retaining wall and the safety, and I just was here to support her and say that, you know, I mean, Nina is, of all people, a very conscious person around plants and growing things. She worked for a plant for years, so she's very knowledgeable about gardening, and I don't think she would do this, you know, if it wasn't serious.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any further public comments, so we're going to move on to rebuttal. Ms. Saltman, you have three minutes to address the board for rebuttal.

Thank you. The one thing I wanted to address was the fact that talking about palm swaying and moving and that that's part of how they work is that this palm tree also is leaning so that And as my photo of the tree that fell on me shows you, the roots, you know, can come apart and fall down. The tree can fall down, even though the top of the tree looks great. And even though this was a city tree that fell on me, obviously the city thought it looked okay, but it wasn't. And the fact that our palm tree not just leans this way, it also leans over the sidewalk. You know, it's leaning that way that is putting pressure on the retaining wall so that if and when it fails, it will fall on the street, on the sidewalk, on whoever's walking by. You know, it's a disaster just waiting to happen. So that's all I wanted to say about that.

OK, thank you. We will now hear from Bureau of Urban Forestry. You have three minutes to address the board if you have anything further.

Just to make a comment, I can't speak to the tree that fell on the appellant. And I am sincerely apologetic that it happened. And that's terrible. I also can't say that we inspected that tree and then it fell. Like we have 125,000 trees and we don't inspect every one of them every day. So we can only speak confidently of the trees that we have seen to the best of our ability. So we have looked at this tree a couple of times and we provided the information that we found within that brief that was provided this week. But yeah, every time we go out and look at a tree, we're considering if it's hazardous, we're considering the lean, we're considering not just the tree, we're considering the surrounding environment. So sometimes we'll be bringing trees here that look extremely healthy, but the tree beside it fell. And because the tree beside it fell, The tree that is brought here is dealing with the impact of that moving. Buildings getting put up can cause damage. Trees can get sun-skulled when new windows and things get put in. When we are assessing a tree, we're not just assessing the tree right there. In fact, a lot of times when people are assessing trees, myself included, we actually use Google Street View to go back in time to look at the surroundings and understand what has happened to that site and location over time, because these are things that have to be taken into consideration. So yeah, we are not experts in all of these other things, but we are taking all of them into consideration when we're assessing trees.

Thank you. President Chesvena has a question for you, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy, I'm wondering whether the arborist took into account the impact on the wall.

Absolutely, yes. The wall was part of the initial hearing as well as the presentation of his findings when this was originally heard on the first appeal.

So there are findings from the arborist?

Yes. That's what's in the brief. It's the information. So a request for removal was, there was a application for removal. We took it. We went and assessed. We denied it. And then it was appealed. And we presented why we believe that it shouldn't be removed with the notes and findings of the initial assessment. the hearing officer made a decision, and then that was appealed, and that's why we're here. So presenting that information to you all to make a decision.

I realize that. Well, what I'm asking for is, is there a finding by the Bureau or by the arborist that the tree will not have a catastrophic impact on the wall?

Palms are not known to cause damage to the severity that would cause catastrophic.

I'm sorry. Did you say palms or all trees? Palms.

Oh, no. All trees are different. Every species of trees has a different variety or pros and cons. So as we assess new tree species, we stop planting certain ones. So like ficus, we don't really plant anymore because of all the damage that it can cause to sidewalks and things like that.

I was just trying to clarify your testimony because the acoustics, or maybe because the distance between you and the microphone, I couldn't tell whether you were saying trees or whether you were saying palms.

So you're saying palms don't cause... Aren't known to cause severe impacts to infrastructure.

And was that one of the findings of the arborist? This palm and this wall?

Unless we were to dig out the tree, I can't guarantee what caused the cracks in the wall.

I'm just asking whether the arborist found that the tree was not causing the damage to the wall.

Cannot answer that and neither could the arborist that assessed it because unless you're digging out the root ball We can't tell what is putting pressure on the wall.

Okay.

Thank you Commissioner Lopez I Changed my mind. I'll I'll yield Okay.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. So Commissioners this matter submitted

I thank you all for your written testimony, your presentations tonight, and the public commentary as well. I think in this case, I will yield to any of my colleagues who'd like to go first. I'll have some comments. But if there are any to anyone else who wants to start, I'd be happy to yield to you. Vice President Soroyan, thank you.

If you could put your microphone on, please.

Yes, it's on.

OK. I didn't hear you. It's on. Thank you.

So I think there's three things I'm thinking about. To be honest with you, if we were to deny the appeal, I don't think I have enough information. I think that if we were to grant the appeal, I might have enough information. But I don't think I'm ready to deny the appeal. I've focused on the engineering report, potentially that. I also like, I mean, I think Commissioner Wong, your question about if the tree is removed and the property owner has agreed to pay for a replacement tree, that could be a solution that doesn't seem to have been explored, analyzed, looked into by the city. And Possibly this could be a hazard tree by our own definition in the code. So those three Points of information stand out to me as being unresolved and so at that with with those comments I'd be happy to hear from my fellow commissioners Commissioner Wong

Yeah, I think that's why I asked the question about the replacement planting, because I understand the San Francisco doesn't have a lot of tree canopy and coverage. It does sound like the appellant is somebody who cares about trees, and they've already planted eight, right? I think I'm in a similar vein as Vice President Sorayan. I would also want to know, like, if there's a possibility to go maybe Google Street View or something where we can see when the retaining wall started to fail and kind of see if that tree is the cause. Because retaining walls, like, over time, there's just degradation of its effectiveness. So I am no expert, but I would love an expert to advise on... Is this really the ultimate reason, or is time, or is something else? Because I don't have that answer. I don't know if I can make a decision on that part of the hazard.

Commissioner Lopez, do you want to proceed?

Sure. Thank you. Just my initial reaction to kind of opening the door Appellants property owners, you know paying for replacement tree I'm a little bit reluctant to go down that path just because I think we've seen over time that the city doesn't have a great record of actually planting the trees that has the money to plant But on on kind of the four corners of the appeal I'm inclined to believe that and trust the report of Buff with respect to the health of the tree. They're the tree people. And I think absent the retaining wall question, I'd be inclined to deny the appeal. But I do think that the retaining wall is a key open item. And I think we have that question in front of the wrong people. We're talking to the tree people about wall questions. And they're not the experts on walls. They're the experts on trees. And so I'd love to find a way to get this in front of the right people. I'd propose it seemed like Mr. Murphy was open to connecting with his colleagues at TPW to see if there are engineers who'd be able to review this item with that kind of context. If we go down that path, maybe a continuance would help us get the right eyes focused on this question. I would say, as an aside, because it is on private property, I feel like that is potentially more squarely within the DBI kind of universe. I'm just reluctant to, you know, when DBI inspects your property and finds things that are not safe that can that can lead to bills, to replacement and repair costs that we typically don't see people reporting the matters themselves to DBI. It's often DBI kind of being there for some reason and seeing something that doesn't look safe, or maybe someone reporting work that doesn't look safe. And so I'm reluctant to advise anyone necessarily proceed on that basis. But I'm putting that out there as a possibility, as an aside, because I do believe that that's potentially a way to have someone from the city who is qualified to look at those types of questions potentially to review. if seeking an independent kind of engineer report is not something that is as appealing. But that's just one person's view and opinion, not advice. So yeah, I'd be most, I think, in support of having Mr. Murphy and his colleagues connect about a potential for an engineer within DPW to review it. And outside of that, I just feel like I can't decide either way on denying or granting the appeal without that question being answered.

Thank you, colleagues, for the breadth of views on this matter. I see this as a growing nightmare. For a member of the public. Had a terrible unfortunate. Situation with the tree prior to this, which is. At one level, legally, it's not relevant. On another level, it is relevant as to the harm and trauma that she has expressed in her papers and that she obviously has, as she shared with us. My first trial, I've been a lawyer now for 43 years. My first trial was representing a tree that fell on Golden Gate Park when I was a young deputy city attorney. And I know a little bit about this matter, but I defer to the experts. And unfortunately, what we have here is, again, similar to last week, an institutional failure by the department. to be prepared and to be straight with a member of the public. And I use those words advisedly, and I say institutional. There's nothing about Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy's new, and he's expressed both last week and this week a willingness to look at things differently, particularly tonight. And I, as one, welcome that in terms of a department's preparation Not just to us. These matters shouldn't necessarily come to us. They should be resolved between the member of the public and the department. We have, by all appearances, a responsible member of the public saying, I've got this tree. It may cause some damage, or it is causing damage. I want to cut it down. And then being denied, and we don't really understand or know the full length of the reasons for the denial. We hear about the arborist's notes. We see references to things in the briefs. We hear, well, the department doesn't have any engineers. We can't send anybody out. We know the health of the tree, but we can't tell the tree's impact on the wall. To suggest, I mean, I would worry that DBI would get involved and then say, James, you have this really dangerous wall. You've got to fix it. And then she's got the expense of the wall. And meanwhile, she has been trying for a long period of time to deal with this situation by removing the tree. And I note that there was a long period of time when we are criticized for delaying matters. I see in the record from the department saying, oh, sorry, we forgot to tell you. We made a decision. We just realized we didn't tell you. So I think the department needs to step up. And the department should step up by providing the member of the public first, first and foremost, the information to provide them the ability to know, here's why the department is making its decision. You can get your own expert. You can criticize our expert. But at least they know. And I haven't seen that in this record. We hear the arborists about the tree. We don't hear anything about the wall. But we hear tonight that the arborists can't tell about the wall, that the trees impact on the wall, unless they dig everything up. Now, that could be very well true. But we don't know that because all we have is it's a response to a question. So I want to Move this along. I hear that my colleagues would like a continuance. I believe, from what I'm hearing from my three colleagues, that a continuance may be in order for either a report from the city or another report of an official engineer's report by a member of the public. But I'm reluctant, frankly, I'm reluctant to go down that route. I believe that particularly because this is a significant tree by the city's own designation and it is a tree that is, one, it's on the private property of. A homeowner and second. There doesn't seem to be any public support for this tree. Every public comment in the record says. Remove remove the tree. I know that we've got this canopy shortage in the city and the lack of trees. But this one, when I balance the impact on the homeowner, very, very clear, very specific harm, on the one hand, with the testimony and the record from the department, a generalized supposed harm, maybe there's some owls, maybe there's something else. In general, that's true. But for this specific tree, there's no record of what the impact of losing the tree is. So on balance, I would favor granting the appeal and I would make that motion to grant the appeal based on the inability of the department to substantiate the reasons for the denial.

OK, is that your motion, or is there further discussion? That's my motion. OK. Deputy City Attorney or Minority would like to add something.

Just want to add one thing is that under the process often when trees are removed there have to be a replacements or in lieu fees but they can those can be waived so I would just recommend that if you don't want to impose a replacement or in lieu fee for for for the tree just wave the requirement based on considerations of fairness or something to that effect.

Well, I'm happy to hear my colleagues' thoughts on whether there's a replacement or not in lieu fi or not. I'd also hear from the department as to what it would have had it granted the removal, what its position would be. So why don't we start with the department's position on what would What would accompany a granting of a tree removal request? So Mr. Murphy, can you help us with that?

If you could come up to the microphone, that would be helpful. Thank you.

The request is about replacementry?

The question is, had On a request to remove a tree, what is the typical, what are any typical requirements on the homeowner to replace it or to pay a fee and whether you might be able to, if you can, opine on what would be appropriate in this particular case if the tree were a granted removal?

So because the tree is on private property, again, I'm not positive what the policy states in terms of replanting on private property because, again, it's not a city tree. Typically, when it is a city tree, we charge the cost for a tree and its replacement, planting and watering and maintenance, which is like $2,400 or something. I think, which is the in lieu fee for a tree. If you are making that decision, again, because I don't know the specific policy language around these trees being on private property, I mean, a replacement tree would be essentially something that they could do on their own and water and maintain.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Commissioner Wong.

Two part questions. One actually for the appellant. Ms. Saltman, would you be open to planting a tree in that location?

I would. It would depend on if there's a requirement for a specific type of tree. I don't know if you can tell from the photos, but our front yard is quite lush. There's already two other trees there and a big tree fern and a bunch of bushes and all kinds of plantings in there. So it would have to be a small tree.

Thank you. And then the other piece, she had mentioned that she already planted eight trees, eight trees since moving in. Could we recognize that as a reason to waive an additional tree planting?

OK. Commissioner Wong, it sounds like we are able to make our best judgment on this matter. The department is, in a sense, leaving it up to us, and they have their parameters. I think we're not in the best position to do that. If it were possible, I would ask the appellant and the department to work out something that's mutually agreeable on whether it's that we could, and as you note, at least from the appearances, this appellant seems to be doing more than her fair share for providing greenery. And maybe that should be taken into account, but I don't think we're prepared to make that kind of decision right now. Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with granting the appeal, just because I'm looking at the precedent that this could open us up to. I would say one guy's opinion, I think that this appellant is, I think, extremely conscientious in a way that I haven't seen with a lot of appellants trying to get rid of trees on their property. Many of those are not out planting trees. And yeah. At the end of the day, we still have before us the tree people saying that this is a healthy tree. And I'm also not bothered by the, before I get to that, I agree that this is not the banner performance that I would highlight on the part of the department in terms of following through. The question that I kind of decided to forego at the end was about the part in Buff's brief where it essentially says, we can't comment on the retaining wall. And from my perspective, the question is, OK, so now what? It doesn't seem appropriate for the department to essentially be saying, hey, we're the tree people. You know, that's all we got. And so I do think, in my mind, that's why the continuance makes a little bit more sense. But I do wish that we had the arborist report for example, more of those materials. I do wish that there had been that follow through on the part of the agency without being prompted by us to say, hey, clearly there's indications of at least potential damage to property. maybe someone else within the city can take a look at that. And that's what, in an ideal world, what I wish would have happened. I also am not super supportive of creating the precedent that the lack of public opinion in support of saving the tree is necessarily something that we should over index on because I think in practice, Private property, the people who are going to take the time to submit something or to call in or show up are going to be friends of the property owner, unless we're dealing with some major landmark tree that tourists recognize and stuff. And so I'm just a little bit worried about the precedent, so not sure I could support that motion. My suggestion. would be if my fellow commissioners want to go down that path, I would suggest that the board actually designate that this is a hazard tree. Because from my understanding, based on what Mr. Minardi shared from the code, if the director was in a position to be able to designate it as a hazard tree, and this is de novo, I don't understand why we wouldn't be able to make that designation ourselves. That would at least, in my mind, soften the precedential impact of the moving forward with the appeal, I think, without the actual engineering input. Because then we're relying on a formal designation that's recognized under the code and not just, hey, we didn't get this in the brief, and we got these calls from the public. I feel like that feels like a stronger basis. Just a suggestion.

I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Lopez, and even though you're currently not an officer of this board, you certainly add value through your seniority and your experience on these matters because you've given me a lot of things to think about. In particular, I think in terms of the precedent. The precedent that is being set, I believe, is that the department, any department, must present its case and be persuasive to us. In this particular case, on the issue of the wall and of safety, we have a statement from a construction professional. It's not based on. We don't know his qualifications or expertise. We don't know whether there were load-bearing measurements or how he came to that conclusion. But he came to a conclusion. On the other side, we don't have anything. So I think that's, while I recognize the limitations, also recognize the absence of information on the other side. I also believe that it is, we could, I think we could run into some danger of designating a hazard tree without really getting any briefs on the hazard tree, how it qualifies. We read the definition. We think there's a case to be made that it's a hazard tree. But that is a caution. It is a process that we have also worried that the department can easily classify something as a hazard tree because of the words that are in there. And I'm not sure whether, I'm not prepared to say it's a hazard tree tonight. Perhaps that just adds to the things in terms of a continuance. What else we need to hear from the department and from the appellant on? Vice President Soroyan.

I want to recognize, President Trasvinia, your motion to grant the appeal. But what I'm hearing collectively from my colleagues is that perhaps we're not quite there yet. So I would make an opposite motion. I don't know if we need to vote on President Trasvinia's motion first, but I would move for a continuance on the matter.

I don't see anyone who seeks to be heard. I would say two things. One is I will withdraw my motion for now. But I also wanted to say, because I was intending to say this earlier, just to reiterate, that my comments about the department are about the department. They're not about the representative who's come before us tonight. He inherits this case from many months, perhaps longer than many months. But I want to make sure that the message that goes back to the department is in terms of an institutional perspective and not anything about the individual who comes before us. So your motion is now pending before us. Vice President Saroyan, if you want to elaborate on it or just move to continue, that's up to you.

I'd like to move to continue. And if we want to add to the motion to continue in terms of what exactly we're looking for, I would suggest that we ask for further analysis, perhaps from the city, regarding the safety of the retaining wall. without infringing or creating additional costs for the appellant. And I would also ask for more information from the Bureau of Urban Forestry in regards to if there were notes that the arborist made that perhaps could be shared with the board so that we could have a greater perspective on the report. And Mr. Murphy, I just want to say thank you to you for your earnestness and answering all of our questions because we appreciate your representation of the city on this matter.

OK, ideally, we would continue this to September 23, because a case will be moving off and we have room on that calendar. Would that be enough time? I'm assuming you would like an engineer from Public Works. Mr. Murphy, would that be possible for you to get someone from DPW to go out and look at the wall to analyze this? As I stated before, I'm not even sure that's something that they would do. OK, I mean, Public Works, I mean, I know they have engineers and structural specialists. I mean, we've heard it in the hearings, but is that maybe we should ask DBI? I don't know. If you could come up to the microphone, please, just so your comments are captured for the record. Thank you.

Then we should just vote. The issue with assessing things on private property, again, it becomes a liability. So that's why I don't go and assess trees beyond the protections of city code, because if I see something or don't, that opens up liability to the city. This tree is protected via the code, which allows us that authority. I don't know what the engineers look, what that looks like. So I cannot speak for them. I cannot speak that they would say yes. I cannot speak that they would say no. I don't know what their turnaround would be either. I would have to ask if it's something they could even, they're even open to doing. And then what their turnaround would be, I do not know.

Okay, thank you.

Point of information, Julie, why do we need this on the 23rd?

Oh, there was just room on the calendar. Oh, I see. It could be later, but it would be, we have busy calendars, so.

I mean, I think it's appropriate to give the department time to answer the question. I think he's equivocated because he doesn't know the answer. I'm happy to give him some time to find out if that's feasible or not. And then if not, we can reconvene this matter and make our decision. Okay. I mean, if the... if they're not able to provide it then that's okay i mean at a minimum he could provide the arborist notes yeah he could provide the arborist notes and if we don't have an engineering report because the city won't provide it or isn't able to that's uh that's fine so mr murphy she's she would like you to look into the feasibility of finding how much time do you think you would need would you do you need more than

Right now, we have room on our September 23 calendar. Otherwise, how much time would you need? Otherwise, I would like to move this to the end of October, October 28.

I haven't. It doesn't matter to me. I would like to keep it as early as possible. We have a member of the public who has been waiting. And it's her house. It's her wall that's in danger, potentially. So the department has, according to the record, has taken quite a while on this. The department should know Between now and September 23rd whether it can do that can do the work and and they should be able to get this done if they're not willing to or unable to Or for whatever reason then we should know in three weeks what what the answer is going to be Okay, so do you want to make I see Commissioner Lopez do you know?

Okay. So I

Let me just ask, or you may want to ask the appellant if she is available on September 23rd.

I've been waiting for two and a half years for this.

I'm sorry, just yes or no, please? Are you available on September 23rd? No, you're not?

Okay.

So then it would be a later date?

Well, then we need even further delay if we're going to go down this road of continuing because we need both parties here.

Okay. October 14th or October 28th? Mr. Murphy, would that work for you? Ms. Saltman?

October 14th?

Yes.

Do I have to be here in person?

You can attend via Zoom if you want. Mr. Murphy, would October 14th work for you? Thank you.

OK.

So we have a motion from Vice President Sorian to continue this matter to October 14th so that the Bureau of Urban Forestry can determine if it's feasible for there to be an analysis performed by DPW regarding the safety of the retaining wall. And two, so that the Bureau of Urban Forestry can provide the notes from the arborist that pertain to the retaining wall. And is the basis for the motion that you need more information before making a decision? Correct. Okay.

Ms. Lamar, just to be clear, it's not just to determine whether they can do it. It's to do it. So if they say, I don't want them to come back on the 14th and say, oh, we can do it. And then there's no time. We need to know if they can do it and do it. If the answer is yes, they can.

OK.

So what is the expectation that somebody's going to come and look at the retaining wall and say, yes, the tree is causing the problem, or no, the tree is not causing the problem, or the retaining wall is a problem or not a problem? I don't understand.

You have brought as an issue that the tree is causing damage to the retaining wall. Right. You have your witness providing testimony. We are now giving the... city the opportunity and put in the requirement to give its expert as to whether the tree is causing damage to the retaining wall.

He's already stated that they can't tell that unless they dig the root ball up.

Well, that may be, but we need an answer from them.

Okay. Thank you. Do you want me to read the motion again?

Yes, thank you.

OK, so we have a motion from Vice President Stroyan to continue this matter to October 14 so that Buff can consult with his DPW colleagues to determine if it's feasible to get them to evaluate the safety of the retaining wall, and if so, to perform an analysis of the safety of the retaining wall. And two so that the Bureau of urban forestry can provide the notes from the arborists and so on and the base of this There should be some timelines placed on that so that the appellant can review them prior to the here Yeah, I mean we would like to get an answer by the Thursday prior to the hearing 430 that's generally is that sufficient and

That would give the, well, the appellant should have the opportunity to respond.

OK. Then what date would you like for any reporting back? How much time do you want to give her to respond? We post everything on the Friday before the hearing, so she would need to provide her response before Thursday. So do you want to give her a week to respond? Have her response due? Her response would be due October 8. So do we want to say that the Bureau of Urban Forestry needs to respond with the information by October 1? And then she has a week to respond?

Yeah. Yes. That seems appropriate.

OK. And I'll email everyone tomorrow with this information.

I thank you.

On that motion, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

President Shezvinia? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 4-0, and the matter is continued. Thank you. I will email everyone tomorrow. We are now moving on to item number five. This is appeal number 26-026, Ali Chen.

We have a request for a five-minute break.

OK. Thank you for your patience. We're taking a five-minute break.

SFGov TV San Francisco Government Television Thank you.

OK, WELCOME BACK TO THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS. WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER 5. THIS IS APPEAL NUMBER 26-026, ALI CHEN VERSUS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. SUBJECT PROPERTY 1261-1263 3rd AVENUE. APPEALING THE ISSUANCE ON APRIL 7, 2026 TO ALI CHEN OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PENALTY DECISION. The three-story building of the subject property is currently authorized for a two-family dwelling use with garage and a sleeping room on the ground floor, one dwelling unit on the second floor, and a second dwelling unit on the third floor. The zoning administrator issued a notice of violation for the following planning code violations. One, work without a permit. Two, unauthorized dwelling unit. the violations pertain to the conversion of the sleeping room behind the garage on the ground floor into an unauthorized dwelling unit with an independent and direct access and its own kitchen amenities and full bathroom without benefit of a building permit and authorization from the planning department this is record number 2021-011-425 um this was originally on an earlier many earlier calendars his his BEEN CONTINUED AND RESCHEDULED NUMEROUS TIMES FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND ALSO AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER, COMMISSIONER WONG HAS A DISCLOSURE.

YES. I'M DISCLOSING FOR THE RECORD THAT I SERVE ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMUNITY EQUITY ADVISORY COUNCIL WHICH ADVISES THE DEPARTMENT STAFF ON STRATEGIES TO ENGAGE DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. THAT WORK HAS NOT INVOLVED THE APPELLANT OR THE PERMIT HOLDER IN THIS MATTER. I DO NOT ACCEPT ANY HONORARIUM OR PAYMENT FOR MY SERVICE ON THIS COUNCIL. I do not believe that sitting on the council will impact my ability to be fair and impartial in this matter.

Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the appellant or the appellant's son, I believe. They are joining us via Zoom. Welcome. You have seven minutes to address the board.

Good evening, President and Commissioners. My name is Chris Chen. I'm appearing on behalf of my mother, Ali, the appellant. My mother had hoped to appear and speak for herself tonight, but unfortunately, she's unable to attend, so I'm speaking on her behalf. First of all, my mother would like to thank the board for granting the continuance of the previous hearing. At that hearing, one of the matters that was raised was whether there might be a benefit or protection available to her because she had voluntarily entered the city's legalization program. However, since then, she has looked further into the issue. She understands that the planning does not consider her previous voluntary participation in the legalization program to provide an exemption under Planning Code Section 317. With the enforcement deadline approaching, she did not want substantial penalties to begin accruing while this matter remains unresolved. Therefore, in order to comply with the city requirements, she has instructed her architect, Samuel Kwong, to submit a legalization abatement permit application. And this application was submitted to the city on August 28th, 2026. So she is now proceeding with the legalization process, and she'll be working with her architect, the planning department, and DBI to resolve the notice of violation. She just, my mother appreciates the additional time that the board previously gave her and the opportunity to provide this update to you all tonight. And thank you very much for your consideration.

Okay, thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department.

Vice President Cerrone is recognized for a question.

Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. D. It'll just take a second. So if the appellant has filed for an application to comply with the notice of violation, does that make the appeal moot?

Well, I think in the past she has applied but didn't follow through. I think we should hear from the planning department first. Understood. OK.

Good evening, President Trasvinia, Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. As was mentioned, for this property, it's currently zoned RH2. It's a three-story building, two units above. There is an unauthorized dwelling unit on the ground floor behind the garage. Originally, this came to the city's attention because the property owner did kind of voluntarily submit a building permit application in 2016 to legalize the unit. However, that process did not move forward to completion. That resulted ultimately in the planning department opening an enforcement case in 2020. And over the next basically five years, kind of working with the property owner during COVID, et cetera, being as reasonable as we could be on this issue. But ultimately the permit was canceled in August of 2025 due to lack of any activity or movement to move it forward and actually legalize the unit. As you heard, there's never really been an argument from the property owner that there was not an unauthorized unit. I think the sticking points have always been around the options available to them to either legalize or remove the unit. And in this case, again, once that permit was canceled due to the lack of any activity, the notice of violation was needed to move this forward. Just for reference, to remove the unauthorized dwelling unit, it would require a conditional use authorization. This one does not qualify for any of the exemptions from that process. And I can confirm that a new legalization permit was submitted. Again, like the one from 2016, the requirement will be for that to actually go all the way through the review process, be issued, and have that completed and legally establish that unit to address it. In terms of penalties, should the appeal be denied, and the NOV move forward, our general practice is penalties are something we use to bring about abatement. So when property owners are actively working to abate a violation, we do not generally assess those penalties. And so I think we've been very reasonable with this property owner in the past. I don't see any reason why we won't continue to be reasonable in the future. And as long as they continue to move forward and diligently pursue the permit that's been filed to legalize this unauthorized dwelling unit, then they very likely would not incur any penalties. The only thing that would be subject to is kind of time and materials for the enforcement itself. So with that information, I am happy to hear that the property owner is ready to move forward and try to address this issue through legalization of the unit. But based on that information, I would respectfully request that the appeal be denied. But I'm available for any questions you may have.

President Trasvino?

Thank you, Mr. Teague, for providing that context and further information. Can you... I'm looking at the Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision, where it just says at the bottom of page 5, the responsible party shall abate the violation as follows. And Mr. Chen has described that they intend to legalize the UDU, and they've taken the first step of applying for the approval, correct? Correct. What else do they need to do in order to be in compliance?

Essentially, they have to see that through all the way to the point where the permit is issued and inspected and completed. And at that point, the unit is legal for occupancy. And depending on what provision of the planning code they're using to legalize it, depending on what work might be necessary for the unit to be compliant under the building code and the fire code, That process may be different for each case. But essentially, getting the permit is getting the permit to do the work. Then you have to do the work and have that finalized.

So it would be obtaining planning approval and then obtaining the building permit.

And then, again, completing any work under that permit to the point where DBI would inspect it and complete the permit so that then they could issue the CFC, the Certificate of Final Completion, and then at that point it is a legal unit for occupancy. So then...

It's three things, at least. Obtain the planning approval, obtain the building permit, and obtain the CFC. Correct. What else do they need to do? That would complete the abatement. What about the conditional use?

The conditional use is only required if they propose to remove the unit instead of legalizing it.

So you're clear with me. I'm hearing you. I hope Mr. Chen and Ms. Chen are hearing you that what they need to do, obtain the Obtain the permit, obtain the planning approval, which they've applied for, right? Obtain the building permit, do the work, and obtain the CFC.

Correct.

And from your standpoint and your expertise, what's a reasonable time for that to give them to make that happen?

I would have to look at the details of the unit layout and see if there's any particular work or any kind of, I don't want to say complications, but nuances that need to be worked through in terms of which legalization program they're trying to go through. But generally speaking, barring any kind of challenges that need to be worked through, the planning approval can happen in the matter of a couple of weeks. I can't speak specifically for DBI, but I would say generally for these types of projects, assuming not too much physical work is required, similar timelines, these permits can move pretty quickly. It's usually a matter of weeks, maybe one to two months, not a matter of, like, many months.

If Ms. Chen did not obtain the CFC in 12 months, would you consider that just all things being legal? Would you consider that legitimate progress going forward?

We look at all of those on a case-by-case basis, because different projects have different build-out timelines, or they may have things come up that are legitimate in terms of the delays for having it finalized. So, can't really speak to that hypothetically, only to say that, again, we monitor these projects, we make sure they're diligently pursue them. If we see a large gap of time within activity, we're going to follow up, we're going to try to understand, and then we're going to give new clear timelines and expectations, and then there's a you know, kind of a clear metric if a certain thing is not done within a certain timeline, then penalties will be assessed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We will now hear, is there, is DBI?

Can I jump in with him?

Commissioner Lopez wants to be recognized for a question.

Thank you, Mr. Teague. Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, the enforcement deadline, would that be then 30 days after today, or when is that?

No, when we issue a notice of violation, basically there's a 30-day period where it can be appealed. So everything is kind of delayed for 30 days, even if there is no appeal, right? So we wait that long time. After that time, obviously if there's no appeal, then the NOV holds. And after that time... the zoning administrator would have the authority to start assessing daily penalties on day 31. That's what that would do. The point I was making is our standard practice is we don't automatically just start assessing penalties. We work with people. And as long as they are genuinely working to evade the violation, We don't assess any penalties. But what we do is stay in communication. And if for some reason a couple months go by and they're not doing anything or not doing enough, then we clearly communicate with them. This is what needs to happen. It's not happening. You need to take this action or that action within a certain time frame, maybe another two weeks, a month. And if you do not do that, then we will begin to assess daily penalties. That's the process we use with penalties and projects on a kind of case-by-case basis.

And so what's the enforcement deadline in this situation since they have appealed?

Well, in this situation, we haven't worked through that with them yet because, again, them filing this permit is a very new thing. We would work through that with them after this was finalized.

OK. And just to make sure I understand what you presented correctly, so during that, I guess, post-Day 31 enforcement time frame. The administrative penalties would essentially at the department's discretion be paused as long as they're maintaining their progress on the project and any fees Aside from those administrative penalties would be time and material, which would apply either way. But otherwise, as long as they continue to make progress, the administrative penalties would not be assessed.

Correct. We have many violations that never have any penalties assessed because they work diligently to abate the violation. Got it. Thank you.

Vice President Soroyan.

Thank you. So in the notice of NOV penalty decision, enforcement fee says $5,476 and some change. So that's what you mean?

That is the time and materials. So the planning code requires that essentially the staff time that is necessary to abate a violation, that is a cost recovery model. So that's what we charge folks for the enforcement process for the time and materials necessary to abate the violation. That's kind of the standard. The daily penalty is what we would have the discretion to assess if we felt that's needed to kind of compel them to take action to evade the violation. That would be separate and above and beyond, and that's up to $1,000 a day.

I see that. So the $5,000 and change would be owed, but then what you're saying is if they continue the process, there won't be up to $1,000 a day penalty. Correct. OK, thank you.

Sure.

OK, thank you. No further questions? Does the board have any questions for DBI? Given this is primarily a planning department issue, but if you have any questions related to the permits

I'm not sure whether DBI has said anything yet. So I don't have a question based on.

Yeah. I don't believe DBI has a presentation for this matter since the violation relates to a planning code violation. But if he did thank you for attending tonight, he's available if you have any questions about the permit process or anything building code related.

Just if...

dbi could tell us did is there anything left beyond what uh mr teague has stated good evening commissioners um no i would just uh mirror what corey said about like the permit timeline um these permits come in it's housing so we have like a 30-day timeline to you know begin the review and you know issue issue comments if there's any comments on the plans So I agree, it'd probably take two, three months probably to get through the whole permitting process.

To get to the permit process before the work is done, or?

Yeah, to where they get their approved plans to then proceed with the work.

Right. Would you have an estimate as to how long the entire process would take before the CFC is issued?

Well, it sounds like the unit's already there, so it's a matter of inspectors going out and you know, looking at it. And it depends upon how much work they might have to do to correct any code violations or anything that was built incorrectly to the code. You know, once the plans are done, if they have to do some construction work, I can't imagine it taking more than a couple of months to complete the work.

Not true.

You know, so yeah, they should easily be able to get it done within a year.

Thank you.

OK, thank you for the questions. We're now moving on to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to provide public comment on this matter? I don't see anyone. So we're going to move on to the rebuttal portion. Mr. Chen, you have three minutes to address the board if you have anything further.

I have nothing further. Thank you.

OK, anything further from the planning department or DBI?

No? Commissioner Wong has a question.

Yeah, I have a question for Mr. Chen. I know that you have an architect ready to go. Do you also have a general contractor to actually do the work?

I'm not aware at this time, no.

Okay, so the timeline would then, for our understanding, the timeline would be likely longer as you look for a contractor to do the work before that final approval could happen, correct?

I believe it depends on the scope of the work as well.

Yes. Okay, thank you.

And I I have a question for you, Mr Chen. Did you? Did you hear my exchange with Mr Teague about the things that need to be done? In terms of the planning approval. Obtaining the building permit and the CFC. Yes, we're we're pretty aware that's how the process works and and and that those are your responsibilities in order to complete the process successfully.

Yes. That's something that my mother thoroughly investigated in order to kind of move forward with this. So she's well aware of what needs to be done.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. I don't believe there's anything further from the department. So Commissioner, is this matter submitted?

Thank you. It's taken a while to get to this point. And I'm a little bit surprised but appropriately reminded by the department that there's not much actual work to be done, but there's important work to be done. And those are the three things that we have enumerated. We could go One we could go one of two ways. We could. Decide what's the reasonable amount of time for the work to be done and continue this matter until that time. And and. And at during which there would not be any penalties imposed because it's a continued matter. And ideally, everyone comes back and it's done with approval of the city. Or we could decide tonight. And we have the explanation from the department as to what the Chens need to do. We have a confirmation that the Chens understand what they need to do. And a general ballpark estimate is that it's not It's not extraordinarily complicated. The issue then becomes who gets to decide about what's adequate progress, what is good faith, and whether any penalties can be imposed. Given the long history of this matter and given the understanding and the patience of the department, I'm fully confident in Mr. Teague's presentation, both in terms of the substance and in terms of the approach that the department is taking. And I'm perfectly willing to let them decide, based upon what they've told us, as to whether penalties are going to be appropriate in this case down the line. So my inclination would be for us to decide tonight and to deny the appeal because of the work that has already been, the progress that has been made. Vice President Soroyan.

I concur. The first notice of violation was in 2022. So I believe that the appellant has had the benefit of patience for four years. And I think, you know, at this point in time, it seems long enough to understand what their rights are, what they're responsible for doing. And I don't see any particular grounds to grant the appeal. I think they've exhausted their ability to appeal. And we've listened. We thank Mr. Chen for appearing. And I would be inclined to grant a motion, sorry, to approve a motion to deny the appeal.

I want to concur in your statement. I did leave out the option of granting the appeal when I was enumerating the two options. Yes, there is the third option of granting the appeal. I was talking about granting a continuance or denying the appeal. But you're correct. We could grant the appeal. I agree with you that there's not a basis to do that.

I'll make a motion to deny the appeal.

Okay, and on what basis? The standard review is error or abuse of discretion, so you might, I suggest the zoning administrator did not error or abuse of discretion?

Yes. Okay, so on that motion, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye. President Chesvena? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries four to zero, and the appeal is denied, and that concludes the hearing.

There being no further business, we are adjourned at 718.

Thank you.