Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

OK, good evening, and welcome to the August 26, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvinia will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Scroian, Commissioner Jose Lopez, and Commissioner Lily Wong. Commissioner Robin Abad-Okubio 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 Charlie Murphy, Assistant Superintendent for Trees at San Francisco Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry, And we also expect Kevin Jensen, ADA expert with the Department of Public Works. 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 these 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 SFGov TV, 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, 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 915-7057-8320. 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 one 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. 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 in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their 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. Item number one is general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who'd 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 that is not on tonight's agenda? OK, I don't see anyone in the room or on Zoom, so we will move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

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.

Okay. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any. So we're going to move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the August 12, 2026 meeting.

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

OK. Is there any public comment on that item? I don't see any. So on that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Vice President Soroyan?

Aye.

Commissioner Wong? Aye. That motion carries 4 to 0, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item number four. This is appeal number 26-033, Joshua Cliff versus San Francisco Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry, subject property 699 Rhode Island Street. Appealing the issuance on June 5, 2026 of a public works order. Approval for the city to remove a sycamore tree that is healthy and in fair condition. Removal is necessary so that an ADA compliant curb ramp can be built. Replacement will be relocated elsewhere on the block or added to deferred replacement report if a replacement location is not found within 120 days. This is order number 300079, and we'll hear from the appellant first. Welcome, Mr. Clipp. You have seven minutes. Overhead, please. SFGov TV, overhead, please.

Overhead. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Josh Klipp. I'm the former vice chair of the Urban Forestry Council, the co-founder of Mission Verde, and a 16-year volunteer planting leader with Friends of the Urban Forest. I'm going to begin my presentation tonight with a quote from a personal hero, the now late Dolly Parton, who said that storms make trees grow deeper roots. I've appealed the proposed removal of a tree at 19th and Rhode Island. The reason the tree allegedly needs to be removed is for the installation of a curb ramp. A curb ramp is that dip in the curb at street corners usually covered in bright yellow truncated domes that assist people with visual and mobility disabilities to navigate between the sidewalk and the street. The gist of my appeal is not in opposition to the curb ramp. For over 20 years, I've worked in disability access. I spent 16 years as an attorney with the federal government specializing in the ADA. During that time, I got tired of trial after trial that seemed to solve nothing, so I left to start my own disability access firm to more proactively support equal access for anybody in any space. I became a certified access specialist, or a CASP, through California's Division of the State Architects so that I could better advise my clients on accessibility in built environments. So to be super clear, my problem is not with the installation of an accessible curb ramp. My problem is where the city proposes to place it, right through the middle of a healthy sycamore tree perched at the top of a steep incline across a notoriously fast intersection with no stop sign. Prior to this hearing, I submitted a 12-page brief. The brief was based on records provided to me by Public Works. My brief outlined in detail communications between the project team and the Bureau of Urban Forestry regarding this proposed tree removal, including the number of times the Bureau of Urban Forestry asked for alternative designs that might save the tree and the project team's repeated failure to respond. I outlined the applicable legal requirements and guidance when installing ADA upgrades following alteration to a public right-of-way, including the U.S. Access Board's call for alternative designs and alterations when there are existing site constraints, for example, an existing mature tree. I detailed the applicable public right-of-way accessibility guidelines, or PRO-WAG, which talks about design options in uncontrolled crosswalks, like this one. And finally, I proposed three alternatives. And I didn't just make these up. I've lived a few blocks away from this intersection for nearly 20 years. That's how I know it's a faster way up and down the hill than the adjacent Kansas and De Jaro streets. And even though I walk this intersection regularly, I brought a fellow expert and CASP with me to review it. I told him I'd withdraw this appeal if he agreed with the city's conclusion, which he did not. In fact, he saw the proposed location and said it was the dumbest possible spot for a curb ramp at this intersection. All this to say, I submitted a detailed, thoughtful, and resourced 12-page brief setting all of this out to you. I did my work. And in response, the Department of Public Works submitted a single paragraph which says, in essence, well, we don't like taking out mature trees, but in this case, we just have to trust the experts. That's it. no actual reference to the expert work on which it relied. And so the Bureau of Urban Forestry, the last measure of protection of our city's street tree canopy, apparently threw up its hands and said, well, if you say so. This is particularly confounding when you realize that the project team originally wanted to remove not one, but two trees in front of 699 Rhode Island. The project team initially claimed that the second tree needed to be removed for work performed by a contractor. The only problem was the contractor had already done the work, and the tree was fine. If I were the Bureau of Urban Forestry, this would make me wonder if the project team was actually concerned about tree preservation. And maybe the project team's tree removal request deserved a little more scrutiny. And, boss, failure to do that isn't just a disservice to our ecosystem and the people with disabilities. It's a grave disservice to the family that lives at 699 Rhode Island. I have in front of you here a picture of their home, and I want you to consider for one moment the impacts it would have been for the family who lives there to come home one day and find their sycamore tree gone, or worse yet, both of those trees. Can you imagine this? Not just the emotional wreckage of it, but the unabated exposure to sun and rain, the loss of windbreak and shade, the quieting of birdsong, and the increased roar of traffic. Wouldn't we think for at least a minimum, the Bureau of Urban Forestry would ask a few more questions if for no other reason than the sake of the family at that home. Unfortunately, the only records we have where the city addresses the people at 699 Rhode Island is where they noted that the resident got upset when he learned of this proposed removal. So the city wanted to make sure that when they cut down this tree, the police will be there. That's how the city treated the family at 699 Rhode Island. In closing, I've laid out three alternatives for crosswalks in my brief, which I'll just very quickly go over. One, a curb ramp across from the bus stop, which is safer and closer. Two, a raised crosswalk favored by SFMTA, abating the need to disturb the tree, allowing the city to control the cross slope of the crosswalk and creating a de facto speed bump at this intersection. Or number three, what's referred to as a return curb design, which would allow this tree to remain in place. There is no evidence in the record that the city explored these before issuing the tree removal permit or after they issued it. They certainly didn't address it in their one paragraph submission to this board. And these alternatives aren't just my ideas, but also supported by my friend and CASP, Xiao Chen, an expert who has a degree in architecture from UC Berkeley and who I've had the privilege to work with on ADA Title II self-evaluation and transition plans since 2018. In conclusion, I started this presentation with a Dolly quote, and I'll end it with another, one that I believe best describes the essence of the city's efforts here. to meet the bare minimum accessibility requirements while simultaneously managing to cut down a healthy, mature tree. As Dolly said, it costs a lot of money to look this cheap. For all the reasons stated tonight and in my brief, I respectfully request that this appeal be granted and that the permit to remove a healthy, mature tree in front of 699 Rhode Island be denied. Thank you.

Thank you. We do have a question from Vice President Soroyan.

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

It would be, in this picture, would be the one on the right. That's the Sycamore.

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

It's just to the north of it.

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

So right here is the sycamore.

The less mature tree.

OK. Yeah. And then the curb ramp would go basically right where the trunk of this tree is, and it crosses over. It's east-west. Crosswalk?

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?

Can you move it up? Yeah, the crosswalk would be just to the north of the garage.

If you could move the picture up, because it's blocked by the banner.

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

Yeah, I can try. If you go south, over here is, so 19th runs into Deharo this way, OK? It comes in this way. And so I'm proposing that it go on this side, my finger there.

Yeah, I got you.

Actually, so the reason that actually Xiao was the one that proposed that, because there's a bus stop on this side, the other side. And so what that would mean is that the bus would drop them off on the west side of Daharo. And in theory, you could even wait for them to cross in front of the bus, which would stop traffic. And then once you get over to the other side of Deharo, there's a long flat area. It's driveway and in between driveway, but it's flat. As opposed to you cross here, you're basically at the top of a... And that's why he said it was dumb, is because you just go right down.

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?

Yeah. That's what I'm saying is that once you get to the top of that curb ramp, it's like there's your landing pad and then down. It's right there. I mean, even the flares on the side of the curb ramp kind of I don't know how it's going to happen.

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.

Yeah, exactly. So if it's on the south side of that intersection, so if your T intersection is like this and it's on the south side, and the street comes down like that, right now it's proposed right here where it goes like that. I'm saying you could put it here where it goes like this, and then it's flat right here. And it's right across the street from the bus stop. If you get off at the bus stop, if you're going to try to cross, you can't just cross. You have to go cross, cross. So it's an additional burden on people with disabilities.

OK. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. President Chesina?

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.

Yeah. Now, I agree that the curb ramp needs to go in. So what I would presume would happen is that if this appeal were granted and the permit denied, there would need to be a new effort to put in a curb ramp in a place that is also compliant and that does not remove that tree.

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?

The city has raised crosswalks in various parts of the city. I showed you a picture of that, and I included in my brief a link where MTA has lots of pictures and examples of where it does that. And so yeah, the reason I proposed that is that it would essentially be flush with the curb, so there would be no need to go up or down. And because you wouldn't need to go up or down, not only do you then not disturb the tree roots, but you also create kind of a de facto speed bump at this intersection that's known to have pretty fast traffic, especially since they won't be getting a stop sign.

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

of picking one. But I think, basically, the second option would be probably the permissive.

CHRISTINA PAXSON- President Trezegna, the permanent forest just for the tree removal, not the installation of the crosswalk. Or the ramp, I mean. Excuse me. Not the installation of the ramp.

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?

Well, I do not think that at present it constitutes a hazard tree.

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.

If it were to be deemed a hazard at this point, I think it would be because the city created the conditions for it to be a hazard by cutting into its roots. But it is not at this time.

Commissioner Wong.

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?

No.

Okay. Making sure.

Well, I should be clear, no records were provided to me that showed any alternatives had been 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?

At least 20 years.

OK, helpful. Thank you.

OK, thank you. No further questions. We will now hear from Public Works. Welcome. You have seven minutes. Thank you. Laptop, please. Did you want your presentation? OK. It's on the screen now. Thank you.

KEVIN JENSON, Good evening. My name is Kevin Jensen. I'm the disability access coordinator with Public Works. I've held that position for 21 years. Prior to that, I was, for seven years, the ADA coordinator and architect for the Port of San Francisco. I've been involved in the development of federal, state, and local accessibility regulations, working with the Division of State Architect, including the creation of the CASP program, as Mr. Klipp mentioned. I will point out that the purpose of the CASP program is solely created to give business owners some relief under the California Civil Code that automatically started liquidated damages based on a lawsuit for access noncompliance. And so if someone gets a CASP-certified report they get a 90-day stay on that. And the CASP person is only empowered to provide analysis of existing facilities and any noncompliance in existing facilities, period. And their training and exams cover very little when it comes to the public right-of-way. My experience goes into tens of thousands of curb ramps that we've designed and built throughout the city over the last 30 years. Back then, when we started out, we had maybe 500 across the whole city. We've developed standards that are specific to San Francisco based on all of our experience on how to get curb impacts to fit into a city of the variety and age that we have, the wide variety of conditions that we come against. Very, very rarely do we ever find the need to remove a tree. Our director, Carla Short, used to be our urban forester and head of urban forestry. She approved an order removing this tree, which is extremely rare. She was convinced that we had made the case that this tree must go because there are no other alternatives. We provided information about that and testified to that under the director's hearing that Mr. Klipp was part of. Just to say that we haven't looked at alternatives or presented anything about that is simply not true. We have looked at them. This drawing illustrates that for us it's just manifestly evident that it's not possible. You see on the crosswalk on the left, the subject curb ramp is on the upper left corner. It's only partially within the extent of the crosswalk. The crosswalk extents are, in this case, defined by the California Vehicle Code as an unmarked crosswalk. And the definition of that is the prolongation of the sidewalk at the intersecting street across the top of the T in this case. So that's what I've drawn here, these red lines.

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.

We're at a T intersection. The intersection is 19th Street and Rhode Island. Rhode Island is running east, west, left, right in this view. And 19th is coming in from the bottom of the drawing. And you're coming downhill on 19th to the intersection. If you're coming in from the right, you're coming downhill on Rhode Island. And as you're exiting the intersection on the left, going from right to left, you're going downhill. So there's a crest of a a break over from the sloping part of the street to where the intersection is tabled, flattened out, which is ideal for us because it gives us flat crosswalks where we can put in proper curb ramps. It's interesting that a city that was graded hundreds of years ago got that right. The law, federal, state, and local accessibility laws, require under Title II of the ADA that when we are providing accessibility, especially in existing conditions, we are required to comply with the adopted guidelines and standards to the maximum extent technically feasible. There's nothing in those guidelines that say a tree must be saved. However, our standards do say that, and we bend over backwards, and we've proven this time and time again, and our standards of curb ramps show techniques that we've adopted that are effective in saving trees and still get the curb ramp in. In this case, because of the unique conditions at this specific location, there are no functional alternatives. If we put a bulb out there, we end up with a curb ramp and a landing with the tree right and still in the middle of the ramp. It won't work and we can't move it left or right because in this case, we're dropping off downhill far too much cross slope and it's outside the boundary of the crosswalk. To the right, there's a driveway. So we're really just totally boxed in here. So the only technically feasible solution that we can find is to remove this tree, unfortunately, which, again, is very, very rare. But we're stuck at the horns of a dilemma. The curb ramp has to go in under federal and state and local regulations. But the tree, unfortunately, has to go for that to happen. And it has happened across the city, but a handful of times. It's very rare. But this is unfortunately one of them. We've looked at all the alternatives out there. The idea of putting in a raised crosswalk here will not fly with our traffic engineers because we're at the crest of a hill. That just makes that worse. In terms of pedestrian safety, crossing at the crest of a slope like that is the safest place to do it, not the most dangerous. So the slope of the streets, the slope of the intersection, The view angle of drivers approaching the sidewalk and the view connection between pedestrians and drivers is optimal at this location. anywhere else, setting it back, for example, even if we could set it back to the crosswalk on the right, is certainly suboptimal because as a driver crests that slope and breaks over onto the intersection, they're already halfway into the intersection and the reaction time between a driver and a pedestrian is very small. Whereas if the pedestrian is crossing on that crest, if the driver's coming in from downhill or from uphill, the pedestrian is clearly visible from a great distance. So by far the safest location and best location. This is a principle that we've used throughout the city for years. So I'm here to set the record straight, tell you what the facts are, what the law is, and how we design things, and how we have for decades. And it's withstood scrutiny for compliance with the ADA under numerous lawsuits that we've been able to successfully defend the city because we can show that we follow the law. We have good practices. In fact, we have best practices. of our curb ramp standards and the way we do things are looked at by other jurisdictions. And they have emulated what we do because they like what they see.

OK. Thank you. We do have a question from President Chesvena.

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?

Unfortunately, I was made aware that I needed to be here only Monday, so I didn't have enough time to, it was already too late to submit the information to put into a brief. And I only pulled together some of these files just this morning. So unfortunately, I was behind the eight ball on that. And that was out of my control. I wasn't aware of this meeting until Monday morning.

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.

The email I got from our Bureau of Urban Forestry was that they felt that they didn't have the expertise to testify here today and punted it to me, but I found out about that only Monday, unfortunately. So that's where there was a miscommunication or a poorly timed communication within our department. So I apologize for that, but it was... out of my control. Had I been aware of this earlier, I would have easily and gladly provided a full brief. I'd still be happy to provide any documents that you like.

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?

For us, there's no need for it because we can just A quick evaluation tells us that there's no room. A bull bout is six feet long at the most. The curb ramp itself is eight to nine feet long and we need a four foot landing behind that. There's not enough length for it and we can't move to the left or to the right because we've got a driveway and the hill dropping down off to the left. The tree is exactly in the only location that a curb ramp is feasible. That's why we're, again, very rarely need to remove this tree. There is no feasible option.

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?

From reviewing and designing tens of thousands of Kerberos.

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 know the facts on the ground there and the geometry and the math that we're up against. And you know that because you've been there? I've been there. We've got photos. We've got drawings. I've got all the information I need.

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.

That was just an honest explanation of why you didn't get a brief. And and the information that I need. To evaluate this I have. We have surveys. We've got drawings. We did full design drawings on this. This would have been built months ago, but for the delay from all these hearings.

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?

I was requested by a representative of our Bureau of Urban Forestry.

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

Vaguely, but the package of information, I'm familiar with providing information for hearings. And again, I'm happy to provide those documents still if you're interested in seeing them.

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

If you would like a package of information from Public Works, I'm happy to provide that.

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.

Yes, the one that our director signed that approves the removal of the tree.

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

The Bureau of Urban Forestry is agreeing with Carla Short that it needs to be removed, and that's why they asked me to be here to provide testimony about the reasons why. Because they don't design curb ramps, the Bureau of Engineering does.

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

Is that the Bureau's view? They've changed their views on that since Carla has approved the removal of it. That's why they asked me to be here also, because they acknowledged that they didn't have all the information when they wrote that.

And how do we know this?

Because I'm telling you honestly, because I just swore an oath to tell you the truth. But I can provide more backup if you need it.

Thank you. Vice President Soroya.

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 continue the hearing. Now, this may be our last bite at the apple if this legislation passes. And maybe that's why they want to pass the legislation, because they don't like this board of appeals interfering with city matters. But it seems to me we have rules in place. You have a high burden. I was a city employee. And you are required to have findings make notes, go do a site visit, have a site plan. You provided us with zero. And I didn't even hear that you called our executive director to ask the president to make an exception here because of the late notice. That didn't even happen. So I'm so disappointed. Anyway, I would say we grant the appeal or we continue the matter. I don't think we need to belabor this any further.

I do want to just say, in defense of Kevin Jensen, in fairness, he was really pulled into the process late. He wasn't the point person. Al Bowie is the representative for DPW, who I've been corresponding with. And he really dropped the ball, not Kevin Jensen. I mean, Kevin could have reached out to me as well.

However, I understand. Thank you.

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 you can. I'm going to ask Vice President Soroyan to withhold on her desire to either continue or deny until we go through this process of hearing from the public, if there's anyone hearing rebuttals. And for now, I see Commissioner Lopez seeking recognition. But I spoke. If you have a desire, I want to give you an opportunity to answer, so it's not just me speaking.

I do apologize on behalf of our department for not being prepared today and I understand your frustration. I've served on boards myself. I would share the same frustration. Please give us a continuance so we can get a chance to get our act together and provide a proper package for your consideration well in advance of the meeting so you can have all the facts. Because it's important for you to have facts. What you've been presented by Mr. Clip is inaccurate and in some cases just wrong. And we would be happy to prove that with a package that's more complete.

Commissioner Lopez.

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.

Yes.

We'd be happy to do that.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong?

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 transparency, I had to use a wheelchair in high school. That scares me when I see where you guys are going to put in a curb ramp because even an ADA ramp is kind of scary sometimes if you like loosen a grip or something and you start sliding down, right, let alone a full block of nonstop going down the hills of Patrol Hill. And then the last piece, I would just say, I would really request that the Au Bui actually attends because their name is all over the brief and is evidently who we engaged with. I recognize it's not fair for you to be kind of the shield or the punching bag, as it were. You just happen to be here to represent your department. But since their names are all over this, I feel like there's a lot of missing information and timeline information that they can provide that just wasn't provided in a brief from the department.

Understood. I hear you. And we can address all those, certainly in a new submittal, but answer all those questions and concerns.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. Now, would Buff like to address the board? Mr. Murphy?

Hello, my name is Charles Murphy. I am the assistant superintendent for BUFF. I've been on the job for just over three months, and I have taken over an additional role of the urban forestry manager as of a week and a half ago. And so I became aware of this hearing on, I believe, the previous Monday. and that a brief was needed. And so as I read through the appealant's brief, I realized very much so that it was very detailed in the specifications that are not tree related. It's more tied to the recommendations tied to the curb. So our effort was to attempt to get the folks that had put together the original hearing to present to you all and put together a brief that could kind of answer the questions that were kind of proposed by the appealant. Unfortunately, that did not happen. And I'm thankful that Kevin could be here because, again, I am a tree person. I am not a engineer or any sort of ADA specialist. And so I did craft the statement for Buff of just following suit of our department's decision to approve the appeal originally for the department to put in the curb ramp, as Buff's original stance was to protect the tree. Again, we're tree people. We're not curb engineers. Per the hearing and our department's decision to approve that original appeal, we are just following suit with our department and believe that this is the best scenario for the department based off of the experts like Kevin and his team. But I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. President Trezeguina?

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?

No. So the way that this happened was the division within the department that was putting together the project for the curb ramp put together the design, and then requested a permit for removal from the department. The department looks at plans, again, very loosely, as we are not engineers, and then looks at the health of the tree, and then determines whether or not we believe that the tree should be protected. So we denied the permit initially, and that is our stance of, like, we believe, but again, we are not engineers, we are tree people, so we see a healthy, mature tree, we believe there are other options. Then that decision was appealed, where they presented their case. And then the decision from the department was that there were no other options and that we should be moving forward with the removal of the tree. So our original stance before going through the initial hearing process is what you just read. After the decision was made by our director to sign off on that appeal, we follow suit. As it was mentioned earlier, Director Short was the urban forestry manager previously, so she is very much in the corner of forestry and trees in general. So her believing and understanding from the hearing that that is the way that we should move forward is how Buff believes that we should move forward.

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?

Yes, at that hearing, actually, Buff was presenting the case to the hearing officer, essentially as a defendant.

And I know here Brian Ong was your representative.

Correct, yes. I was technically not with the department at the time, but yes, I have read the brief, and yes.

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.

Sure. As tree people, we have a very keen sense of what I would say most people do not have in terms of, I always kind of get laughed at because I am always looking up for tree issues and things like that. I don't know what I don't know. And so when we go out and inspect a tree, we're looking at plans, and we believe something can get moved left or right. We don't know if that's plausible. But we think, hey, let's have a deeper conversation about this. I don't know. We have some sort of belief that maybe something happened. We are not the experts there. So when the experts come to the table in a hearing and say, hey, that's not possible. This is why we have to move forward, I'm not one to protest. If you came out and told me, hey, that healthy tree needs to get removed because I think it's this, this, and this, I would stand my ground. But that's not what this is. This is somebody with an expertise saying, hey, this is not a tree-related removal. This is a project-related removal. the folks that are in charge of the project are the project experts. So that's kind of, especially when it comes to ADA compliance, and so that's why we have it.

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

Sure. So when I mean a tree-related removal, we remove lots of trees because of risk and death and different bad structure and things like that. That is a tree-related removal. Project-related removals are just removals where a new building is getting put up or an ADU is being put in or an ADU ramp. So things that we push back on and say, hey, this is a healthy tree. Can we work around it? And then when we can, fantastic. When we can't, we kind of have to understand there are a plethora of priorities for the city, like making the city safe and accessible to everyone is obviously a high priority. It's a federal mandate. And so when somebody with that expertise comes and we have these combative priorities, we have to work together and figure out what the best case in moving forward is for the city.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We're now moving on to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide public comment for this item? Please come up. And if you could fill out a speaker card after you're done speaking. I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Hi. My name's Marie Sorensen, and I'm part of Mission Verde. We started a fight because DPW and Carla Short and Fuff wanted to tear all the trees down on 24th Street. They love trees, right? Anyway, we fought them. We hired an arborist, and we were able to stop a lot of trees from being torn down. And then the city came through and trimmed them. So there's your, I love trees, FUF, and DPW loves to take trees down. And it's so easy to take a tree down. I was looking at this intersection. And where they want to put the ramp is on the other side. The bus stop is here. Across the street, there's another bus stop. But over here is the ramp. That doesn't make any sense. The ramp should be by the bus stop. And if people are driving too fast, well, DPW, put stop signs up. I'm sure people have been saying that for years. I don't understand why. Well, I do. DPW is lazy. This was easy. Let's tear a tree down and put a ramp up. It's really ridiculous. We have a very small tree canopy in this city, and we have lost so many trees. We need to save the trees we have. Because we have a tree fund, but it's not being used. It's probably another slush fund. But we need to have more trees, and we need to save the trees we have. It's a beautiful tree. It's not sick. It's nothing. It should be saved. And DPW needs to go back to their own drawing board and figure out another way to put this in and not dig into what they think they know. And let's come up with a new plan. It's not hard. So thank you. OK, thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening. My name is Mary Klipp. I'm actually Josh's mom, but he didn't far fall from the tree. I belong to our parish environmental group. I've been a long-time environmentalist myself. I'm also disabled. I guess I have a bit of an interest in all aspects of this particular problem, but the problem in general of the tree canopy in San Francisco. I was wondering, just in general, it seemed to me that Josh and his coworker presented three options. Would it have been that difficult for someone from any of those departments to have taken a five-minute drive-by? and posed any one of those options in order to present it right here and say, you know, this won't work for this reason, ABC. The other thing, have things like flashing lights at the crossing stop been considered, where you actually push the button and the lights flash. so that you are aware that there will be a pedestrian crossing ahead of time. Such one is on streets in my neighborhood off the Twin Peaks. The speed bumps along Rhode Island, I don't know that there are any. It's beautifully paved right now, and I'm sure that that's been a part of the issue of the speeding that goes on with it. But anyway... In general, I feel like, as a citizen and as an observer, I feel that removing living trees is much more exciting. It's sexy. It gets the attention. Rather than trimming old trees that could use it, or even taking down trees, And there sure seems to be no amount of money that we can't spend to take them down, but no amount of money to put them in and to take care of them. For our children, for our grandchildren, for the city, we need to do it. We need to get serious about this. It's already so late.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Thank you, commissioners, for your thoughtful consideration of this issue. My name's Iris Feldman. I'm here on behalf of my father, Dan Feldman, and my mother, Emily Robertson, who live at 699. They also own 699A, which is the property that has the driveway that this would be adjacent to. Well, they have both driveways that this would be adjacent to. My mother is very sick, and they could not be here due to a medical emergency. I grew up at 699 Rhode Island. My grandparents built the house in the 1950s, as it was the only place that a mixed-race couple could build in the city at the time. I'm the third generation to live there. When I was really young, we moved there to live with my grandmother as she aged. And as part of the new chapter of our family, my parents wanted to plant a tree. My mother is a soil scientist and had advocated for native plants for decades. She was determined to plant a native at a time when the city rules were very unfriendly to it, but she wanted to do it to support the ecosystem in that area. The tree was planted in 2000. I remember standing by it as it was planted with my mother and grandmother. It was so skinny and small, and the wind would push it over all the time. We helped it grow as it fought to live and finally grew into what you see today. It does not get pushed by the wind. It blocks the wind. And it has become this incredible ecosystem for hummingbirds and hawks and pollinators and squirrels, things that don't live in the ficus that's next to it that you see because it's a native plant. So it's different, and it's on a different, it's like deeper in the sun. And I feel like I have grown up by this tree. You asked earlier how long it takes to grow. My life is how long it takes to grow. And it has fulfilled that promise of making the ecosystem stronger. So for its effects on humans, it's protected the houses there from the sun and rain. It's made them be livable temperatures, saving energy. It soaks up runoff waters when it rains, so there's not a river running down the street like there are on so many hills in the city. And it's given our family and our neighbors privacy. This whole process has unfortunately felt incredibly disrespectful and confounding for our family. I think you've experienced a piece of what we've experienced today. We only found out that there was talk of tree removal because my dad happened to go outside and see someone from the tree inspector there. He told my dad that they were trying to remove the ficus that was next to the sycamore, but that the inspector disagreed and would recommend against it. He gave my dad contact information. My dad tried to contact the city, phone and email, never received a response. Only learned that the project was continuing when contractors appeared and painted on the sidewalk. Contractors gave him contact information again. My dad calls, emails, no response, completely unanswered. Both of my parents are disabled. They understand what it is to try and move around this intersection with a disability. I also lived there for 18 years. The proposed location of the ramp would never be my or their choice of where to cross that street, because it's just too dangerous. It's on a blind downward crest. And the cars come down that street at 40, 50 miles an hour. And it's right on the grade change. And I would imagine it's quite challenging for a wheelchair user.

OK, thank you. Thank you. Your time's up. Oh, sorry. Thank you. If you could please fill out a speaker card. Thank you. Okay, we're moving on to rebuttal. We will now hear from the appellant. Mr. Clipp, you have three minutes.

Just want to thank Iris for being here and talking about what this means to her family. Just to remind the board, this hearing is not the cause for delay. From the day the city ID'd this tree for removal to the day it gave itself a permit was 792 days. Over two years they took. With regard to Mr. Murphy's testimony, he essentially affirmed that the project team submitted nothing in writing showing that alternatives were considered, even though they requested that from the project several times. Those requests went ignored, and Buff decided, I guess, that their word was enough. So what happens when it's underground infrastructure or construction impacts or supposedly for a contractor like that second tree? Does Buff just say, well, we only know about tree health, so I guess whatever you say? Additionally, I note Mr. Jensen is not a CASP, and respectfully, the basis for creating the CASP program might have been true when that program was started a couple decades ago, but it certainly does not accurately summarize what a CASP does today, and this should not play any role in undermining an expert opinion. It's worth noting that in the department's presentation, there was no reference to PRO-WAG, and certainly not PRO-WAG's expectation that documented alternatives be thoroughly explored in alterations to the public right of way when there are existing constraints like trees. It's right there on the US Access Board's website. Mr. Jensen had every opportunity to put in writing that those alternatives were considered and no documents were provided showing he did so. It's not even clear whether he made a site visit or simply relied on the site drawings. There's a claim that raised crosswalks sounded like would essentially make it worse for cars. But raising a crosswalk also raises the profile of the pedestrian. That's the point of a raised crosswalk. And here we're talking about pedestrians who are either walking very slowly or who are crossing in a seated position. Why wouldn't you want to raise the visibility of a pedestrian crossing at the crest of a hill in a seated position? This feature is not only safer for people with disabilities, but it also slows down the traffic at an otherwise uncontrolled intersection. Additionally, I didn't talk about ball vaults in my brief, but neither of the other alternative curb ramp proposed locations were discussed or even apparently considered. And just as a procedural matter, I personally would not agree to a continuance. I realize it's not my call, but I would point out that I have been accused tonight and on many other occasions as being the reason that these tree removals were supposedly dragged out. The amendments you're about to consider have jokingly been referred to as the Josh Clipp amendments. But anyhow, the Department of Public Works has now had nearly three years to create this documentation. And if that documentation existed, they could have simply submitted it. So respectfully, a continuance seems like giving the city a grace that it is very clearly not willing to extend to myself or to the public. Thank you.

Thank you. So President Trezegna, I don't see any hands raised on Zoom, but usually I make a statement, which I didn't do tonight. Can we just confirm that there's no public comment on Zoom?

Yes, go ahead.

Okay. Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to make public comment? Yes, there is one hand raised, if you wouldn't mind.

Let's have that.

Thank you. Please go ahead. Nayan, Tara, Jane.

Hi there. I just want to echo everything that Josh has said. It takes a ridiculous amount of time for a tree to grow. I live in the Potrero Hill neighborhood. I don't live on the block, but I walk around it. Just having these trees present in our neighborhood makes the neighborhood so much more pleasant, cooler, shadier. And a tree like that just takes decades and decades to grow. So I think, you know, it might be the case that there's no other option. But if there's any option at all, I think we should... take the effort to explore any type of creative solution we can and really like extinguish every lost thing before we decide that the tree must be removed. And whoever's responsibility that is, I think they really need to show proof that they've done that.

That's all OK. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to provide public comment on zoom? I don't see anyone, so we're going to move back to the rebuttal portion. Mr Jensen, do you have anything further to add? You have three minutes in rebuttal.

I've heard all the comments, and they can certainly be addressed in a proper package. Like I said before, I've served on boards myself. I get it. I would have the same feeling if I were in your shoes. But we can provide a full package that makes it very clear why we've had to make this decision, the tough decision that we've had to make, and give that to you so you can really get the facts. hear it more thoroughly and more directly from us as to why that we have considered the alternatives, all alternatives, and we have no possible alternative that works. But we can do our best to illustrate that and prove it to you. I have a bunch of files on a thumb drive I brought with me today, but that's not going to do you a lot of good right now. But we've got the bulk of what we need for that response already done. So I would ask for a continuance so that we can give you all the facts so you can make a proper decision.

Thank you. President Trisvinia.

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?

I don't know. I wasn't part of the project design team. I can't respond to that.

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?

Well, we have some there. We're just missing a proper curb ramp at this location. And as we go through and do alterations within the intersection, typically it's a repaving job or somebody trenching through a crosswalk. That's the triggering element that requires us to evaluate, do we have curb ramps at all? Or if there are older ones, do they meet an old standard? Or do they have some issues that need to be upgraded? Because the law has changed over time. So we just systematically go through there. There's two avenues under Title II of the ADA that require us to build curb ramps typically. One is when we have an alteration in the right of way, which could be a utility company, could be a paving project, you name it. That triggers curb ramps. We also have under the ADA program access funding for curb ramp only work. And so under the priorities stipulated by Title II of the ADA, anything close to a government facility, transportation related, places of commerce or possible employment, and then everything else. So we have a matrix of all this in our curb ramp transition plan, which is required by the ADA, that prioritizes those monies based on those federal criteria. So we have curb ramp only projects that we can strategically use to fill in gaps that we find that aren't being addressed by the normal flow of alteration projects.

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

A public works project we're altering through the crosswalk repaving project. And so when we're doing repaving projects, a part of our paving package is the curb ramp work that's triggered by that paving project, and that was the case here. It's a project called VL67, prosaic name.

I'm sorry, can you speak up a little?

Various locations, 67 curb ramp design package. It was a specific project that this was related to.

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?

Right, but when we see that there's deficiencies in the curb ramps either missing altogether, or they don't meet current codes, or maybe they're damaged because of street trees as a common source of damage to the sidewalks and to curb ramps, unfortunately. But in an effort to maximize tree canopy, we'll build curb ramps closer to trees than we would normally like to, knowing that we're going to have to maintain them and replace them more frequently because of the damage from the tree. But we do that because we want to save the tree.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez.

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 location, if you're not prepared to do that, I guess I'm curious, more generally speaking, how would variables like the grade, the lack of a stop sign, the purpose, I would assume part of the purpose for this type of curb ramp, would be to address the needs of individuals in wheelchairs that may have a lower profile of visibility than folks who are standing upright. How do those variables typically figure into the site selection?

Little to none, honestly. The requirement is that if you have a crosswalk, you put in curb ramps. There are three legal crosswalks there now. They're all unmarked. So there have been, since those streets were constructed, three crosswalks. They exist. They're legal crossings. There's nothing about them that precludes us from putting in curb ramps. There's nothing about them that precludes people with disabilities from using them, but for the lack of a curb ramp. So the law requires us to put curb ramps in. traffic calming, traffic issues, or an MTA issue, traffic engineering, but I have to say there's nothing particularly unique about this intersection. There's many, many intersections across San Francisco that are similar, if not worse, in terms of grade change, but it's not a factor. The nice thing about this is that at least the crosswalks are tabled. when we have parts of San Francisco that were graded where the crosswalks are crazy cross slopes, those are far more challenging. But still, we do our best to put in curb ramps. But there are some cases where the topography is so extreme, we can't put in a reasonable curb ramp. And so topography is a legitimate reason for us to not do that. But we have to look at the overall impact of the accessibility of the pedestrian network when we make those kind of decisions. What are the alternatives, right? What other intersections of Dubai Can we get reasonable crossings that are reasonably accessible? So there's a judgment involved in that in an existing city.

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?

If there's something unusual about it and we feel the need, there's nothing unusual about it. There really wasn't a need to do it. But we certainly do that. We get into some intersections, the geometries of which are very odd and it takes a very careful combination of solutions because they can bring to bear, perhaps we have to do flashing beacons for pedestrian crossings or some signage that makes the crossing more noticeable to drivers. In some cases they put in convex mirrors. A variety of things, traffic calming measures that might be mid-block speed humps. They have a variety of traffic calming measures that can deal with speeds, but we can't change the vertical curvature of this intersection. It's impossible, right? We're stuck with it. So we do the best we can, but it's not a limitation for accessibility. People will go where they want to go and how they can go, just like anybody else. Our job is to comply with accessibility standards to get the curb ramps in there, make the sidewalk smooth and proper cross slope and wide enough and enough vertical clearance. So if someone has the ability to travel down that sidewalk and they have a disability, they can do so. If they have a proper power chair in this case, that would be probably very important. There are power chairs that are capable of certain things, and we know what they are. We survey what the current state of the art is for power chairs. And even though it's not required by the legislation, the regs, but in terms of the guidelines, the overarching standard of the ADA, it's not a code. It's a civil rights legislation. At the end of the day, we're judged under Title II of the ADA as, are we providing program access? Can people with disabilities use it? That's how we're judged. And so we know people have power chairs and that they're capable of a certain slope. We'll design to those slopes, even though it's not mandatory under the guidelines. But we know that's how people function. So we do do that.

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.

It's not a place that we would even dream of putting in a raised crossing because of the breakover. It's already pretty extreme. And putting that in there would just make it worse. From a traffic standpoint, it'd be scraping cars.

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.

There's nothing particularly interesting about it from a traffic intervention standpoint. But MTA is the ultimate judge of that, of course. They would get involved. They would have done so already, I would think, if there was a particular concern here based on the fact that this is not a unique intersection at all in San Francisco. I can't see that it would have risen to the top of such a concern compared to other locations. Thank you.

OK, thank you.

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

It's here on the screen here.

Laptop, please. Thank you.

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

Well, the three crosswalks I've marked in red here, that's the extent of the crosswalks as defined in the California Vehicle Code for unmarked crossings. It's the prolongation of the sidewalks across the intersection, across the roadway. So that shows here why the subject curb ramp at the upper left corner of the drawing were hemmed in by the existing driveway on the right, and then there's a vertical curve of the roadway and the limit of the crosswalk immediately to the left. So we are just totally hemmed in left to right. The curb ramp has to be at that spot only. And that's exactly where the tree was. And it's interesting to know that the tree was planted in 2000.

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

Yeah, DWI is the driveway, is an abbreviation for driveway.

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?

The existing tree is essentially right in the middle of the curb ramp where it's shown. It's not illustrated there, but that's, it's physical. Can you tell me where it is? Yeah, if you look closely, this labeled tree there. In the middle there's a I think it's the rectangular patch crosshatch that right right at the middle of the ramp and upper left that hatch pattern at the bottom end of the curb ramp next to the curb is the detectable warnings. The yellow bumps. So the so the tree is in the middle of that.

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.

Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm following where you're where you're pointing.

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

So the extent of the crosswalks that we have to make the curb rent fit into is those two red lines that are going across Rhode Island. When you see that the driveway curb cut extends into the crosswalk alignment, that is part of our difficulty.

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.

That other corner from the sidewalk to cross the curb, hence the name curb cut or curb ramp. In this case, curb cutters driveways. So it gets you from the sidewalk level at the correct slope, not more than a 1 to 12 slope, from the sidewalk level down to the gutter level, and then therefore at street level, then across the crosswalk at street level. So it's a change in level from the street up to the side.

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.

Yeah, the idea is that the accessible route would be from the top of the curb ramp which is at sidewalk level down the length of that curb ramp down to the street level at the face of curb cutter and then fence down the drawing between those two red lines to the curb ramp that's at the opposite end of of the street of the crossing at the street corner at the bottom left of the drawing okay right okay and and and if you didn't have that

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

There's no, there's no accessible route for someone who has the need for a curb ramp. That's the problem. We have to have curb ramps to make the crosswalk the crossing accessible. If there's no curb ramp, the crossing is not accessible. In driveway, curb cuts are are a different animal. They're not curb ramps and they're. They're not wholly contained within the crosswalk either.

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.

There's no accessible route. We need a curb ramp there for them to have an accessible route from the sidewalk to the crosswalk. Curb ramp is the only way to do that.

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

There's another crosswalk there, but we can't get a curb ramp in there. It's even more constrained. You'll see on the drawing here there's another another driveway adjacent house and a utility pole, PG&E utility pole that's not going anywhere. There's not enough room to get a curb ramp in there at all. It's even worse than this one. So the only place that we can get from. That's called the bottom edge, the south side of Rhode Island. And for this purpose, to get across Rhode Island from the south to the north, the only crossing at this intersection that we can get a curb ramp is this one spot where that tree exactly happens to be. Which I would point out, if it was planted after the ADA was passed in the year 2000, planting it there in a crosswalk alignment is a violation of accessibility requirements. In the first place, treaters tree should never have been planted there. It was planted before the ADA was effective in 1991. It would be a different story perhaps, but it would still have to go.

Commissioner Wong.

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?

We have constructed two new curb ramps. They're already built today. You see on the lower left of the drawing, there's two curb ramps there. So we have...

OK, so the hatches at the bottom are current?

You see the street corner at the bottom left of the drawing where there's two curb ramps right next to each other at a 90 degree angle. Those are two new compliant curb ramps that were built as part of this paving project.

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.

The hatching in this case on the ramp indicates the detectable warnings, the yellow bumps. The other hatching indicates whether there's a certain, what kind of paving is going in there and if we have to do repair of the street base or not.

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

On the bottom? At the corner where there's two curb ramps on the lower left corner, those are already constructed, yes.

And then how about the opposite side of the street?

There's curb ramps over there, too.

There's also, but it's not drawn. It doesn't have the yellow cross-hatch.

I believe those were existing. They were there before the paving job, I believe.

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

It's focusing on the work that was in the scope of work for the paving project, which was these three curb ramps only.

So it's just not shown on this map?

Well, it's not fully because it's not part of the scope of work for the paving project. Because those existing curb ramps were found to be fine. We don't have to worry about them. So they're not in the contract documents that you see here.

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.

They do. So then at some point somebody decided that it was okay to cross the street at Rhode Island there.

At some point, yes. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils, but honestly, the curb ramp that's going across Rhode Island on that side should be removed probably. It doesn't have to be, but it would be best practice.

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.

Yeah, there's the driveway curb cut and the utility pole, and there's not nearly enough room to get a curb ramp in there. Our standards allow us to go down to the federal minimum, which is only three feet wide. State is four feet. So we'll squeeze it down to a three-foot wide ramp if we can fit it. That won't even fit here.

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 don't have the number in my head, but we know it won't fit.

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

We can put that in the package that we could submit a proper full package to you. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Is there anything further from Buff? Mr. Murphy? Anything further? Okay. Commissioners, this matter is submitted.

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 the protection of trees and urban forestry. Yes, Buff is part of the department, but we hear the department representative saying there's nothing remarkable. about this intersection from a traffic standpoint. Well, it's remarkable about a tree standpoint. And trees are part of your department. And I don't hear anything from the department that reflects its role or responsibility on the tree canopies. This is not, to me, a question of, well, it's a question of requiring us to struggle to get information to try to find out whether procedurally the department did what it should have done, which is to look at options, consult with the public. And then substantively, what the different ramifications are of various alternative routes. The appellant has provided three alternatives. Maybe there are more. There are plenty of intersections where it says you can't cross. I can think of 19th and Winston going from Sonestown to the Merced Library. You can't cross. It's blocked off. If you want to go from Stonestown to the Merced Library, you have to go across Winston, across 19th, and back again across Winston. But that's done because it's done for safety. If, as I understand the department representative, the other corner is you can't put a cut out there either, well, there are – We we need more substantiation of of that and there are other options. We have the options in downtown intersections where you can cross from one side to cross in an X fashion. So I am I am. Obviously not pleased by the department's presentation. The individuals who came before us tonight did their best under very difficult circumstances. I asked the Buff representative, what was Buff's position? It could be either one. It could be Buff took a position and it realized that its experts were wrong and to have a new position. Or it could be Bureaucratically, Buff had a position, but it was overruled in the bureaucracy by somebody else. That doesn't change their position. That just means their position didn't carry the weight of the department. As I read the department's order, The department representative came before the hearing officer and stated the substantive reasons about retaining the tree. And I have not heard that disputed at all. So as I approach it, trying to find out some way in which we can resolve this tonight, I think it's a risk. We have to be very important with ADA access. I was a member of the US Access Board during the Obama administration. I know these are important. and often difficult issues. I don't think we are ready to make decisions on that. I want to hear first from Vice President Soroyan about her view on this. I could see us I could see us granting the appeal and saying to the department, you can do what you want, use your expertise, et cetera, just not going to remove that tree. You have the non-tree options left for this intersection. Or I could also see us saying, we really want to give the department one more chance to be responsive, not just to us, but to the public and to the law, to give us the information that we need. So I'll yield to Vice President Soroyan, who earlier had some thoughts on this, and perhaps that can guide us forward.

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. On the other hand, giving them additional time, which does not seem warranted here, given that it's been 700 and some odd days that this has been proposed. Unfortunately, it continues to be slightly embarrassing for the department. And again, to our representative, I'm sorry that you're the brunt of all of our frustration. But nonetheless, it doesn't dissuade me from having the same level of concern. So I'd be curious if either of my fellow commissioners wishes to share, and then maybe we can make a motion.

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 of this tree that I wouldn't have heard if you didn't share it tonight. And I think that that's important, like why people plant trees. There's more of a story than simply a canopy or access or other things that I think the city looks at, but perhaps hasn't considered in this situation. And I'm going to be honest, I keep looking at the Google map and trying to figure out is this really the case that there's absolutely no other space? And I see that there is a whole vehicle parked, right, like perpendicularly right at the space that's been suggested. I don't know the data to figure out how much space it is, but given that there's, like I had asked, there's curb cuts in other spaces, there's access in other spaces intending for people to cross on the other intersection, it feels like at some point somebody thought that making that crossing on the other side is feasible and is possible. And In my heart, I'm leaning towards granting the appeal. But I can also see us doing a continuance.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez.

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 the materials that would allow us to fine for them otherwise. And so I don't have any heartburn about granting the appeal on that basis. But I I also think that we would probably benefit from additional information You know from other aspects or other areas on this this you know this street that are outside of just that the the the the view that we were able to get the bird's-eye view that we were able to get that mr. Jensen shared with us I think that would be something that I'd be curious about But yeah, I think as Commissioner Wong suggested, a slight preference for granting the appeal based on what we have before us. But I also would not stand in the way of a continuance. And then I also just want to echo the well wishes that President Trasvina sent towards Ms. Feldman's parents. And thank you for being here. And I also just want to say it was really heartwarming to see Ms. Klipp here and seeing the mother-son duo working together on this. So thank you for being here as well. But yeah, those are my thoughts.

Vice President Soroyan.

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?

What's your question?

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.

Yeah, the tree can't be removed.

That's correct. The tree would not have the permit to be removed.

And also, Mr. Minardi, yeah?

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.

Usually there's a one-year bar under the code.

There's typically a one-year bar. I would have to confirm whether it applies, I think, to most permits. I don't know for certain whether it applies to this permit or not.

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

That's correct. Yep.

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.

OK. So is that your motion? Yes. OK. President Trasvina's motion.

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

OK. And what is the basis for the motion?

The city failed to meet its burden.

The city failed to provide sufficient justification?

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

Okay. On that motion.

And a lack of alternatives.

Okay. On that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. President Trasvinia? Aye. Commissioner Wong?

Aye.

So that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is granted. Thank you. We are now moving on to item number five. This is a special item, discussion of possible action. The board will review proposed legislation, file number 251211, which would eliminate appeals to the Board of Appeals for hazardous tree removals undertaken by city departments and commissions. The legislation would also require that the board act on appeals of city-initiated tree removals within 30 days after the filing of such an appeal and not entertain a request for a rehearing. The proposed ordinance has other items as well, not within this description. The board may take a position on the proposed legislation and or authorize a letter to be sent on its behalf to the board of supervisors, the mayor, or applicable departments, setting forth the board's recommendations and positions on the proposed legislation. Note, the board reviewed an earlier version of this legislation at its hearing on January 14, 2026. At that time, no action was taken by the board. President Shasvinia?

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 tree related and appeals related. The issue of, and we have not really focused on the tree policy aspect. In my view, our role, our stake in this has to do with the appeals process. That has been part of the city charter since 1932. And from time to time, agencies attempt to be excluded from the independent public review that the charter affords the public through the Board of Appeals jurisdiction. Ironically, efforts by departments to remove themselves from our jurisdiction have often been associated with decisions that have been made that were adverse to the interests of those departments. And that is something that is, I think, of concern. It should be of concern to all individuals in San Francisco. The ability to get out from public oversight, from out from public scrutiny, to get out from public review, just based upon the ability to, because they can do it. We did have some fruitful meetings, Executive Director Lamar and I, with representatives of different agencies in this building and beyond. And at one point, we thought we had an understanding about restricting the purview and jurisdiction of the board. And we consented to some of the changes that the legislation proposed and contemplated on the basis that we felt that we could do the work of and be faithful to the charter. and protect the due process rights of all individuals with some limits in terms of timing and appeals. And we agreed at that time that having jurisdictional limits that are similar to what we have with the Entertainment Commission and other city bodies would not impinge upon the rights of individuals in this city. And at that time, we expected to see new language on the legislation. We did not. And we did hear, I heard from a member of the public, that the legislation was coming back. And certainly it was, and it had language in there that we had not. agreed to. We've had subsequent meetings with various individuals and representatives. And I testified before the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors earlier, I think last month. And Ms. Lamar was given her expertise, was able to provide the supervisors on the committee further information about our appeals. Separately, I should say that the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals has been under exhaustive review by the commission's streamlining task force on city commissions since last year. That work is related to us only because it's looking at all commissions and there's going to be something on the ballot with its findings. But in no time. During the review by the Commission Streamlining Task Force, did anybody question the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals? In fact, they recommended adding cases to our jurisdiction. So it was a surprise to learn of these changes externally from members of the public. So we are now at this point. The latest version of the legislation that has been approved by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors, restricts our ability to hear cases related to city-initiated street tree removals. It's not been clear to us what the burden is, what time or what burden or cost or difficulties we add to the process or what is added when the public has the opportunity and the ability to come before this board to have those decisions reviewed. Significantly, it's only city-initiated street tree removals, not private-initiated removals. And there are many times when people say, well, the government cannot live under the rules it requires of everyone else. This appears to be an example of that, because the city seems that a department seeks to remove itself from our jurisdiction for whatever burden, from whatever burdens that we impose, but leaves the public to tangle it themselves. And as we see just from tonight's hearing, the lack of regard, again, not just for the board, but for the underlying rights of members of the public is something that would increase if the Board of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over the street tree removals that would be taken away by the legislation. Finally, I just want to add that part of the issue relates to the department's position, as best as we understand and has been represented to us, is that it's needed because of the importance of being able to remove hazard trees. And when you hear that, it makes a lot of sense. It's only when you think of the common definition or common understanding of a hazard tree, you think it's going to fall and it's going to hurt people. It's imminent. That's not what hazard tree means. In fact, there's a separate provision of the law that for those kinds of trees with imminent danger, those trees don't come to us for obvious reasons. But for hazard trees, hazard trees could be a branch of a tree that obstructs pedestrian traffic or obstructs vision. It is a broad definition of hazard tree. And that definition would not be subject to an appeal either. So that's what's at stake with this legislation, and I think it's of significant concern to the ability of individuals, organizations, neighbors, residents, homeowners, and advocates to not have an independent review. We rarely get these cases. But I think it's important to establish, in my own view, two things. One is that that substantive avenue is there for the people. And second, to the extent that it is caused by feeling that, well, we lost in front of the board, now we want to get out from under the board, that, I think, undermines public confidence. So those are my thoughts. I will yield to Vice President Soroyan.

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?

Thank you. Well, you can do as proposed or as potentially contemplated under this item, which is to take a position on it and on the legislation and then communicate that position to the board, the mayor, the applicable departments via letter, that sort of thing.

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

Correct.

Thank you.

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 types of matters. And we know that this is not a public safety issue, because the public safety prong within the code is existing. It will not be changed by this legislation. And so that's really not at issue. It sounds to me that it's difficult to reach a conclusion other than the sense that uh someone within the city does not want to you know come air out their positions and and look members of the public in the eye look us in the eye you know look other interested parties in the eye and state their positions and have those positions scrutinized. And that does not spell good government to me. That is, I feel like, if anything, within the broader kind of national context that we find ourselves in, I feel like we should be models for more transparency, more deliberation, more process and not less. And so It strains me to think of how this would even land on the priority list for the board, for the board of supervisors. I feel like there's so many challenges that our cities face. I don't think that the barriers to removing trees at a breakneck pace should figure into those top priorities. And I take no issue and won't comment on the other aspects of the legislation outside of the Board of Appeals questions. It just seems very odd to me that how this has even reached this stage and how this is a priority. And I just wanted to, I guess, share those sentiments. I do hope that we can share our view and outside of this present conversation that we're having. And it just feels like something that members of the public should know about more broadly. I think San Franciscans should know what its government is focused on. And this just doesn't seem like the type of effort that deserves a lot of energy and attention from this building.

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.

Commissioner Wong wants to speak.

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.

OK, so we're going to move to public comment. And who in the room would like to provide public comment? Please come up. Thank you.

Hi, my name's Marie Sorensen. I hope to hell you guys get to keep the trees. It's a small issue, but it's a really tricky issue. Right now, the city's trying to take away the ability to protest from 30 days to 15 days, which makes it really hard to build a case to save a tree. And as I have personally experienced, a hazard tree can be a tree they just don't like because like the trees on 24th Street. They just wanted to take them down. And they said, oh, they're all hazardous. And so that's when Kaie, Josh, we built Mission Verde to fight, hiring an independent arborist who said, no, they're not all damaged. So this is why we need to keep this separate and keep it with you, who really is an independent voice for us, who we can bring this to, and not to other departments that have personal agendas. So while trees, I know. You don't see that many tree issues. Trees are very, very dear to us. And we really want to hold on to as many trees as possible. And I just want to make one comment on the Rhode Island property, saying they were going to plant a tree somewhere else. that likely would take years to get planted somewhere else. So anyway, I hope that it stays with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Thank you, commissioners. When I first heard about file 251-211, I kind of thought I was being pranked. Get rid of tree removal appeals under the fig leaf excuse of government efficiency. As I mentioned in the previous matter, the department took 792 days to give itself a permit. So forgive me if I don't understand how the one to two tree appeals a year is a crushing economic weight that the city cannot bear. When it comes to trees, San Francisco is a failure. We have the smallest tree canopy of any major city in the United States. And we have failed the goals of the urban forest plan and every climate action plan regarding trees. And since 2017, as a city, we have not net gained a single street tree. In fact, we have lost hundreds. And we have certainly not created any tree protection policies as called for in the climate action plans. But apparently, the city's priority now is to clamp down on appeals that offer any oversight and do it in contravention to the promises of the city charter. So let's talk about a couple example appeals and the burdens they placed on the city. In 2022, the Bureau of Urban Forestry gave UCSF a permit to remove 28 large trees in order for the hospital to renovate and expand its facilities. I appealed that because Buff didn't apply its own law requiring UCSF to pay appraisal fees for the value of those trees. After months of fighting me, Buff eventually capitulated and collected those legally required fees from UCSF, which was in total nearly a quarter of a million dollars for tree planting. So there's an example of a burdensome appeal. Or in 2019, when Buff sought to remove every single tree on 24th Street between Mission and Potrero, and it was only through the appeals process that we reduced that number of trees for removal from 78 to 33. And most importantly, as Marie mentioned, we volunteered. We volunteered to water the newly planted trees, which freed up money to plant three times as many trees throughout the cultural district. That is Mission Verde. We became a model for other communities. We have partnered with the ARC to provide job training for adults with disabilities. And we've received an award from the Board of Supervisors for that, for all of the above. And none of that happens on a wildly compressed appeal period. It doesn't, if there's a right to appeal at all. Tree appeals may be an inconvenience to the city, but they have also been incredibly productive. We've not only saved trees, but we've rebuilt public trust and a sense of shared purpose. But now the city is essentially saying either be quiet or make it quick. And imagine just a year from now if all the remaining trees along 24th are deemed hazards. This kind of legislation is quite literally the opposite of what our world needs right now. I agree. I do not understand why the city has chosen to prioritize this over all of the other pressing issues that need to be addressed. I would gladly forward to the board a copy of the letters that I have sent to supervisors with proposed amendments. My only ask is that if you are to write a letter, please do it soon because this is scheduled for a vote before the board on Tuesday. Thank you.

OK, thank you. Next speaker. Is there any other speakers on this matter? OK, I don't see anyone on Zoom. OK, thank you. So commissioners?

I'll start with Commissioner Wong.

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.

Well, for clarity, it's shortening the timeline from a 15-day appeal window to 10 days. And the matter must be decided basically or scheduled within 30 days, whereas now it's 60 days.

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

I mean, we would have to have a shortened briefing time frame as well. And hopefully, we have a calendar, a hearing available.

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 time on this board. So getting that context is helpful. I am concerned about the work that you've done to engage with the legislators and the lack of edits or changes. I think that that's pretty disrespectful. And it seems like a small thing. I don't know how many tree cases we normally get. This was my first one. But throughout the year, do we know what that average is?

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

We've only had two since the beginning of 2024. City initiated tree removals?

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?

They would probably take it, I don't know when they post the materials. I'm assuming Friday is when they post the agenda. So ideally.

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 so few requests, I think that we might be able to handle If a tree removal came before us, we might be able to, and maybe let's say it's one or two a year, we might be able to work it out into our schedule, knowing in advance what those expedited timelines might be. perhaps we save our power or our position for a more narrow topic. Those are my thoughts.

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 the elimination of our review on the city initiator removal. Commissioner Lopez.

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, although rare, do elicit strongly held views from the public.

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

That sounds good to me.

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 I'm assuming I'm here to assist you. We can draft it. But this would be a letter from President Trasvinia on behalf of the board of appeals. OK.

Yes.

Thank you.

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.

Thank you. Noted.

If that makes sense.

We will incorporate those views.

OK, so who's making that motion? OK, so a motion from President Trasvina to draft a letter with the assistance of the executive director for the board of supervisors and relevant departments for all the reasons previously stated so that the letter is ready to be submitted on Friday, I believe. Pardon?

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

Currently on page 7.

So it would be authorizing the president to work with the executive director to draft that letter. Correct. Yeah.

Right.

Okay. So on that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Vice President Soroyan? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 4-0.

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

Thank you.