Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. This is a slight rarity. We have no planning or building-related matters, and we have a relatively short agenda. I have no other comments at this time. Colleagues? No. Thank you.

I move to adopt the minutes of the August 12, 2026 meeting.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the picture. So which of the trees do they want to remove?

On the right. And so I don't really understand. So the crosswalk they're saying is right at the edge of the garage?

Can you point on the screen? I mean, I know you shouldn't be doing this, but OK. Sure.

Yeah. OK. OK, no, I got you. But it would be on like, I mean, the garage is here, and then the crosswalk would be there?

Oh, that's better. Huh. OK. All right. And where are you? Can you show me in the picture where you're proposing alternatives?

So let's just play this out. If somebody had a wheelchair and they needed to have a curb cut, would the downslope be potentially problematic for someone in a wheelchair if it goes forward as proposed?

I see your point. But what you're saying is if it goes the other direction, the likelihood of having an impediment to somebody in a motorized wheelchair or something like that is not as much because it's flatter.

Thank you, Mr. Clipp, for your presentation and the work you've done to provide us an understanding of this case. Yours is the only brief that we've received. Substantively, we did get a paragraph from Buff, nothing from the department beyond that. My question is in the relief that you're seeking. As I hear you, you've given us, you've discussed some alternative ways of providing the access, and your request is to deny the approval.

OK. crossing of of individuals require in a wheelchair? Does it require a curb cut or can there be a raised crosswalk so that it's consistent with or flat with the sidewalk height?

So I'll ask the city attorney later what our options are, but I'm wondering whether we would be whether whether you feel that you would want us to select an option versus versus saying there's no uh there's no approved permit and the and the city starts all over again yeah i'm not sure that we would be the best arbiters of what

And my last question is, is it your understanding that under the city's definition of hazard tree, that this could be considered a hazard tree because it impedes traffic on wheelchairs?

I think that if I wasn't, I wasn't asking you whether you thought it was hazard tree. I'm wondering because because I'm I'm I'm concerned that we may. Make a decision and never see this matter come before us ever again, right? So I but I wanted to get a census too.

Thank you for coming and laying everything out very clearly. To be clear, it looks like you did a public records request. Yes. During this, did you see any alternatives offered?

Got it. And then also in your expert opinion, if you know it, approximately how long does it take to grow a sycamore to this size?

Hi. Thank you so much for coming to see me. Do you think maybe you could help us out by pointing with the edge of a pencil? I'm having a hard time seeing and following this drawing. So when you say the curb is going here, I don't even see where the house is. And then it says Island Street. And I thought we were at Deharo and Rhode Island. Oh, so that's Rhode Island. So yeah, if you could orient us with your nice map.

Thank you, Mr. Jensen. Just to follow up on your comment that you're here to provide the facts, state the law, set the record straight, that's what we asked for in a brief. Is there a reason why the department did not submit a brief in this matter?

I'm here as the department representative. I'm not asking your own history. I'm asking why the department does not have a brief.

And so the department, you provide some kind of a drawing. It's gone now, but no photographs as to the intersection, no alternative. There's no evidence of any alternatives being demonstrated, correct?

And I'm sorry, this is frustrating. You know this from your personal knowledge or because you looked at the file or were you out there?

But for this tree and this intersection and this case, what is it that you know of yourself? You're the one who is here.

I'm sorry. I'm not asking you about we. You've already distanced yourself from the department and said, you got it Monday, and now you're here. Sorry.

This is part of the process. I know, so that's why we're here. I'm I'm just curious and I'll I'll I'll refer to Vice President Ryan shortly. How does the how does the Department? Who told you to be here? How does that work?

Okay. And from what I can tell in the hearing, are you familiar with the hearing document?

I'm sorry, can you speak up and say that again?

Well, perhaps we should continue this matter because the department, you and your expertise notwithstanding, has not... recognize that this is a proceeding. But my question was whether you are familiar with the Public Works Order 300079 on this matter.

Right. And it describes the Bureau of Urban Forestry's position.

So when I am reading from the order, losing this tree removes canopy and planting space unnecessarily, is that the department's view?

Good evening. Yes. I think what I'm gathering here is that the city has failed to meet its burden of proof. here. And we appreciate you being here this evening. But as required in our procedures, we give an opportunity of notice and to be heard. And in order for our board to make a fair and impartial decision, we need all the information. And we often spend several hours preparing for the hearings. Now, you know Mr. Klepp provided a very robust brief. But just on the facts as they are, I would be, I'm inclined to grant the appeal. because the city failed to meet its burden of proof, or perhaps

I understand that. This is what happens when a department sends a representative. He or she represents the department. There are a lot of people at the department. The department is served, I would say well served, by a deputy city attorney or the city attorney's office. And they're somewhere, but you're here. And as I understand it, we did have interaction with the department, not you, but the department, when the brief was due, whether they were going to send somebody. So now you're here and you get, in effect, maybe the wrong word, but you get our questions and you've responded as well as y

Thank you, Mr. Jensen. I think further to your remarks, I think I was going to ask you about the options A, B, and C that are included in Mr. Clipp's brief. And if we do go down the path of a continuance with re-briefing, I would suggest that you, or whoever the next representative of the department is, address those alternatives and offers reasons why they wouldn't be viable.

I think similarly, I don't know if we're going to ask detailed questions like we normally do because there's just not enough information. I know that earlier you said that you couldn't do it on one side or one of the suggestions was not possible because it's in the driveway. It looks like there's a driveway on both sides. So there's driveway impacts. I'm not familiar with why one driveway is more preferred than the other, but it would be good for us to get a brief or like detailed information about what was considered, why it's not. I think the incline impacts are a big thing. Full transparenc

Well, thank you, Mr. Murphy, and congratulations on your additional assignment. Thanks. You're here representing Buff. Yes. So can you tell me whether Buff's position, as stated in the hearing officer's report, that losing the tree removes canopy and planting space unnecessarily, Also, Buff believes redesign is possible. Shift the ramp, ball belt alternatives. Is that Buff's position now?

So are you aware whether at the public hearing on April the 15th that's memorialized in the Public Works Order where it describes Buff's observations that I just read to you, was Buff represented at that hearing?

And I know here Brian Ong was your representative.

So I appreciate that everyone has to answer to someone else and part of a bureaucracy. I'm just trying to get a sense as to whether Buff feels it was wrong earlier or whether it is simply abiding by the boss.

But when you say it's not a tree-related removal, it's the tree, the same tree is being removed.

PRESIDENT TRISVINIA. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. I realize you've requested a continuance, but you shouldn't assume you're going to get one until we have the vote. This is the opportunity for the department, both in writing and today, to make the case for its position. I just have two questions for you. And you heard Ms. Feldman, Iris, speak. You heard her, the public commenter. Yes. Can you tell us what consultation or communication the department had with the Feldman family, the owners of 699 Rhode Island?

Okay. And the second question I have is, so we just are about to celebrate the 36th anniversary of the ADA. How long has this intersection been without curb cuts?

So are you aware of anything that prompted the start of this action on the curb?

So just so I'm clear, so an independent schedule that came up to. Rhode Island and as they were doing the repaving, they said, oh, we don't have a curb cut here. Is that basically it?

Thank you, Mr. Jensen. So we've had some testimony from the public, from Ms. Feldman, from Ms. Klipp, related to, at least from their perspectives or family members' perspectives, The reluctance to want to cross at that portion of the street, given the grade, given the lack of a stop sign, and I guess with those things combined, the potential for vehicles traveling at higher speeds, not having the visibility required to, you know, contemplate movement or giving the right of way to somebody crossing at that proposed crossing point. I guess without Without getting into the specifics of this loca

Thank you. And just as a follow up, you pointed to the jurisdiction and expertise of the MTA, for example, as maybe being you know, the better kind of area to the agency to focus on with respect to some of these questions. But is there kind of interdepartmental coordination with projects like these to maybe loop in the MTA to consider that question?

And just to recap, In your determination, this site, this intersection, didn't give rise to the need for that interdepartmental, like it's not unusual enough.

The coordination with the MTA with respect to a stop sign, for example. Pardon me. In your determination, this wasn't the type of intersection that would warrant kicking this over to the MTA to consider a stop sign? It's just a standard 90-degree intersection.

I just have one more question. And could you put the map that you brought or the diagram, can you put that back up?

So we've got Rhode Island left to right. 19th. North to South. Where is the intended crosswalk and curb cut?

Are you speaking of the area that's marked DWY?

Okay, so in relation to that point, where is the proposed, where is the tree and where is the proposed cutting of the curb cutting?

OK, so so that. Removal of that tree. will enable a curb cut right to go from where it says 3. Over 2. Down on the diagram towards where the two arrows are correct.

It's a crossroad. It's to cross Rhode Island. Correct.

Okay. I'm trying to just make clear that the reason to have that Cut is to enable people to go or animals to go from where the tree is to the to cross Rhode Island.

You're making, I'm sorry, you're asking a much more complicated, you're answering a much more complicated question than I had. The question I had is, it's to go from the upper level of the diagram where it says tree to go to the lower level of the diagram, which has polka dots, two arrows. In other words, to cross Rhode Island on the left side of the diagram.

People would have to go. Across the street across the street and across the street.

Okay, I'm going to try one more time and then I'll yield to Commissioner Wong. If there were no curb cut where the tree is and if the person is in a wheelchair, how would they get from that point to across Rhode Island to that other area that has dots on it? They simply can't.

Is it impossible to go to the other side of the intersection?

Can you help me clarify? So we've been really focused on where the tree currently is and the pathway that you're showing. Is there existing curb ramps or curb cuts in the opposite side where you're proposing that people would start crossing the street?

OK, so the hatches at the bottom are current?

And forgive me, I'm not familiar with your drawing and why you do cross hatches and not. So it's not clear to me.

So based on this drawing, you guys have already, there's a curb ramp already installed there with the yellow bumps.

And then how about the opposite side of the street? There's also, but it's not drawn. It doesn't have the yellow cross-hatch.

OK. So then this drawing is not fully to scale if it doesn't have the- It's all to scale.

Okay. And then if you know, do you know if the curb ramps on the opposite side go both down Rhode Island and across Rhode Island? They do. So then at some point somebody decided that it was okay to cross the street at Rhode Island there.

Okay. And then part of the reason that it doesn't make sense on the other side is because of the utility pole, and there's no... There's no way around.

How wide would it be on that side? Do you know? Do you know how wide it would be if you're accounting for the utility pole to the person?

I wouldn't trust you, but I don't have the data. I don't have the information.

Thank you all for your presentations. I want to particularly thank Ms. Feldman for bringing the information that she has and obviously wish your mother and your parents physical good health. I was struck by the lack of, among other things, the lack of a consultation that appears to have occurred with your family as the homeowners. And in general, I just find this a very real failure on the part of the department. come up short in so many different aspects of responsibility. Responsibility to this proceeding, to fulfill its responsibilities under our rules, to fulfill its really a reflection on

Thank you, President Trusvigne. I share your sentiments. It's a difficult decision. Thank you to one of the residents of the address to give us your personal perspective. Oh, yes, of course. Sorry. Yes. I was just saying thank you to Ms. Iris for coming today to share with us your story, which is quite impactful. I'm at a crossroads. I'd be curious to hear from my fellow commissioners because I could see myself granting the appeal because I'm swayed that if we say that the city can't remove the tree, they will be forced to find another way to find a curb cut or something that they need to do.

Commissioner Wong. I'm on the same page as you guys. I think as a community-based person, my heart wants to side with the appellants right now because they've had so much time. They've made so many requests. We're kind of their last resort. And when we ask about the reasoning, we're not even getting the answers, right? So I can see why a community group would be so frustrated and unwilling to want a continuance because it's been so long. I also want to thank Ms. Feldman for your public comment, because I think that there's something important, almost a cultural resource and a cultural aspect o

Thank you. Yeah, I feel the same way. I could go either way. I feel like there's a lot more that I would like to learn that I think one would hope would have been included in a proper brief from the department. I also think that the department, whether or not, it sounds like not, whether or not that opportunity was made visible and clear to the representatives before us today, the department as a whole has had ample opportunity. They did not learn about this on Monday. And we've certainly, whether it's city agencies or outside parties, have ruled against parties when they just don't furnish th

So I just want to ask both the city attorney and Ms. Lamar. So if we decide to grant the appeal tonight, exactly what does that do?

I'm sorry. If we grant the appeal, what does that mean? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean under no circumstances can that tree be removed and that they would have to find an alternative? Or that's what I'm asking.

Vice-President, sorry, my yield. Are you asking if the tree is saved or just that the permit, could they not come back with another permit tomorrow, I think is the question.

And I have one more question. Is this a de novo review?

I'm inclined to actually I'll make a motion to grant the appeal.

I support the motion to grant the appeal, and I would say it's on the basis of a failure of the department to substantiate its reasons for the order. I would also observe that I think we would, if we simply had a continuance, I think we would get back a defense of an existing order. Putting aside this permit I think might promote some creative discussions, ideas, and collaboration for something, for some alternatives that have not been found yet. So I would support granting the appeal.

I was just elaborating on Vice President Soroyan's motion. I defer to Vice President Soroyan.

Correct. OK. For the installation of the ramp at the location? No, for removal of the tree. For removal of the tree.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar and colleagues. I just want to briefly open this matter and then have public comment, and then we can deliberate over what's before us. As Ms. Lamar stated, we were apprised of the original file 251211. by a member of the public late last year after a proceeding that we had regarding street-initiated tree removal. We were not made aware of it prior to that time. We reached out to the departments, we reached out to the mayor's office, and we eventually were able to get some meetings where we learned more about this. And there were a number of, the legislation itself is both

Thank you, President Trasvinia. I think it's important that we address this matter. But I did want to ask the city attorney. So as a board and commission that is established in the charter and a part of city governance, What can the board do? What action can we take in regards to a piece of legislation that has a direct impact on our jurisdiction?

So we could take a position in opposition to the legislation?

And in further answer to your question, Vice President Soroyan, I believe we can focus on the legislation. There's two lines on page seven of the legislation regarding the elimination of Board of Appeals review of city-initiated removal of what are described as hazard trees. So we may want to oppose the entirety, but that really is where our interests are the greatest.

So we could have a narrowly scoped position if we so choose. Okay. Yes. Thank you so much.

Commissioner, colleagues, any comment at this point? Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you. Yeah, I just want to echo some of the comments from you, President Transviña. Thank you for seeking to learn more. Thank you for appearing before the land use subcommittee. Thank you also, Julie, or Executive Director Lamar, for representing not just this board, but I think the members of the public who we've heard from on this item and in other channels and in public comment, the public comment that led us to learn about the proposed legislation. And yeah, I think in my mind, the way that I would summarize the landscape. We know that these questions are rare. We rarely get these ty

Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. I want to make sure we have public comment in the right order. So perhaps if we can go to that now and then come back and deliberate.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Wong. I wasn't sure whether you were seeking recognition or not.

I'm not familiar with this process. But I'm happy to also just wait until after public comment.

No, I didn't mean to cut you off. So please go ahead.

I think as folks are talking, I'm thinking about the transparency that Commissioner Lopez is talking about. I think it's very important. But also, as we heard tonight, like, Departments aren't always 100% correct, and they can make mistakes. And part of the purpose of what we do is to shine that light. And if there's nothing to hide, if they've done everything correct, we'll see it. And that piece is a bit of a struggle for me. But I'd also like to hear public comment.

Yeah, just thinking about the timeline as well as folks raised, 15 days is a very short amount of time for us. I looked at our calendar. There are often times where we don't meet for 15 days.

How does that impact our normal calendars? Because sometimes our calendars get pretty packed. Yeah.

I'm worried about that. Within 30 days. I am worried about that process-wise. But I'm also thinking about how important trees are to San Francisco. Actually, when the previous speaker spoke about UCSF, that was my first project at UCSF was the Mount Sutro trees, right? And figure... People who love trees in San Francisco have very different approaches on how to love them. And I think it's important to give everybody that space to share and understand why things are happening. I am concerned, and I appreciate President Transvina for giving the timeline of what happened, because it was before my

Since 2025, we've had four or fewer than that.

We had four since the beginning of 24. Two were withdrawn.

Yeah. So to me, it doesn't feel like it's much of a problem, right? And with my policy background, I do believe that policy is supposed to make impactful change. I don't see the impact, the larger impact of doing this. Like, I feel like it's more negative than positive.

Thank you. Other commissioners? Vice President Soroyan.

Yes, thank you so much, President Drisvinia. And I want to echo the eloquent comments of Commissioner Lopez. I appreciate all the time that you and Ms. Lamar have taken to track the hearing, appear on our behalf. And I think that given our short timeline and that comments would be due to the Board of Supervisors by, what, Friday? If we were to provide comments in the form of a letter due Friday, is that correct?

If we had common or wanted to provide a position, I think it would probably have to be in by Friday.

Well, if we make a decision tonight, I can commit to making sure that whatever decision we make is implemented by the end of the day tomorrow.

What I might posit for thought is to maybe take a narrow scope of opposition to page 7 of the proposed ordinance, specifically that language, because it removes something from our jurisdiction that is really not implemented very frequently or accessed very frequently by members of the public, but that because it feels more like an annoyance or a retribution of some kind. It's not in the best spirit of good governance and transparency, which the city of San Francisco prides itself on. I might have some comments on the 15-day window, but I'm not sure I would oppose that language. Because we get

I would agree that if it takes us to hold an additional hearing to make sure that we meet the timelines, then we should do that in the future. Also, because we have the deadlines for other agencies that this language proposes, I don't begin to be able to speak for the interested parties in the various entertainment, public health, and tree matters. But there is precedent for us to have the shortened timeline. And I think looking at it, I think we can do what we need to do to make sure that due process is protected from our standpoint. So I agree. I would restrict our comments to comments about

That all makes sense to me. So just in terms of putting a plan in motion, should we say that we will ask our president and our executive director to prepare a comment to be delivered ideally prior to the deadline, such that the comment may be included in the materials posted to the public in advance of Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meetings focused on, it looks like it's Section 806, Section A for B. and I think broadly the concerns being the low volume of such matters and then the the interest in continued kind of transparency and opportunity for public input on these questions, which, altho

And extinguishing a fundamental element of due process for the citizens of San Francisco without good reason or cause.

In terms of a motion, then I would make a motion that the board direct the president and executive director to develop comments to the Board of Supervisors copying the relevant executive agencies and departments in opposition to the pending legislation 251-211 as it relates to the elimination of Board of Appeals review of city-initiated removal of trees.

And I would include the mayor's office in that distribution as well.

Yes, that was I intended that my description to include them.

And while it doesn't need, I don't think it needs to be in the motion, the sentiments that each of all of us have expressed would be part of the letter.

OK. Commissioner Wong. Just adding one thing, take it or leave it. But I think having a neutral body to review keeps the departments honest. And that would be part of why we would want to keep the review.

Yes. And it's in opposition to the portion of the legislation regarding elimination of Board of Appeals review.

Thank you. There being no further business before us tonight, we will stand adjourned.