To the July 27, 2026 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of this committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmoot.

The committee clerk is John Carroll, and I would also like to thank Jeanette Eganlauf from SFGup TV for staffing us during this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements to make the question?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today.

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me.

Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may email your comments to me at J-O-H-N period, C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The address is one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comments to the members of this committee, and I will also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of September 1st, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance accepting irrevocable offers of public infrastructure associated with the Hunters View Hope SF Project Phase 2, including an offer of improvements for infrastructure located within Catalina Street, Fairfax Avenue, Ingall Street, Innes Avenue, Ironwood Way, and Middle Point Road, and an offer of dedication for real property for portions of Fairfax, Ironwood, and Middlepoint.

Dedicating said public improvements for public use, designating set of public improvements for public street and roadway purposes, accepting said public infrastructure for city maintenance and liability purposes subject to specified limitations.

Establishing official sidewalk widths, grades, and public right of way.

Amending ordinance number 1061 entitled Regulating the Width of Sidewalks to establish official sidewalk widths on Catalina, Fairfax, Ingalls, Innes, Ironwood, and Middlepoint, accepting an offer of dedication for phase two easements, delegating authority to the public works director to accept the phase three public infrastructure, including authority to take all of the phase two actions in the ordinance for phase three as well.

Authorizing the director of property to execute deeds and easement agreements as specified, accepting the public works order uh regarding various actions in regard to the public infrastructure improvements, adopting findings under CEQA and making other appropriate findings.

This item is on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent to the Board of Supervisors for consideration tomorrow, July 28th, 2026.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

We are joined by Jason Liu at Policy Director for Community Development at Hope SF.

Welcome.

Thank you, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Mel Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, and uh member Mahmood.

Thank you for your time today as we talk about the acceptance of new streets at Hope SF Huntersview.

Uh my name is Jason Liu, uh, the Hope SF program manager with Mo C D.

I'm joined by my Mo C D and DPW colleagues as well as the project sponsor, the John Stewart Company, uh here today in Chambers.

Um, as a quick refresher, Hope SF was created by then Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration in response to diminishing federal funding for San Francisco's largest and most neglected public housing sites, namely Alice Griffith, Hunters View, Say Dale, and Petrero.

Hope SF represents a continuing commitment by the city to achieve reparations for the insidious impacts of past and ongoing trauma, systemic and institutional racism, and deep and persistent poverty.

Chronic disinvestment by the city in these sites over many decades resulted in a neighborhood disconnected from the larger city street grid.

To restore basic necessities and public benefits to Hope SF communities, we have come before you today to accept these new streets as part of our continuing commitment to the Huntersview community.

So the item in front of you today, we're seeking your positive recommendation uh for the city to accept the streets under Hunter's view phase two and delegating authority to DPW to accept the streets under Hunter's view phase three upon completion.

Uh the project team and our team at MOCD have had regular meetings with SFMTA to prepare for the upcoming transfer of enforcement responsibility and property management.

Well notified residents of the transfer before this ordinance uh becomes effective.

Uh I should note uh for um for the supervisors here.

Ordinance, the ordinance was amended to strike out the reference to the file number of the trailing easement vacation legislation since the ordinance has not yet been introduced.

So just a note uh for committee members here today as well.

As an overview of the HopeSF Huntersview community, uh the site has welcomed households previously living on site as well as new households into 267 permanently affordable public housing replacement units and 133 new affordable units in addition.

Uh full build out, Huntersview can welcome up to 400 market rate units in addition to those affordable units.

Not only that, but the site welcomes residents with newly built neighborhood serving spaces, including a DPH operated wellness center, a child care center, a commercial kitchen, and a new education center to be operated by Bayview YMCA.

To support all of this, we've made massive investments into the physical infrastructure of the site with new parks, utilities, and roads sidewalks and streetscape improvements to better connect the community to the wider neighborhood.

Considering the size of the site, work was completed over multiple phases.

Phase one was completed in 2013 and saw 107 units of new affordable housing constructed alongside a new park and social services office space and additional market rate parcels.

In 2018, phase two saw 179 units of new affordable housing constructed alongside a new park, child care wellness center, and social services office space and market rate parcels.

Phase two also included numerous infrastructure improvements that you see on screen here, including streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, utility lines, bike infrastructure, and streetscapes.

Most recently, phase three was completed earlier this year with 118 units of affordable housing completed with community serving restaurant retail and an education space built out alongside additional market rate parcels.

We were able to celebrate this milestone in May alongside community members and leaders who made this possible.

These photos on screen are from the recent phase three grand opening celebration, which brought together Mayor Laurie, Mo CD, DPW, the project team, and community residents as well.

And we are happy to uh take any questions, and we thank you so much for your time today.

Okay, I don't see any uh names on the roster with questions or concerns.

Um so uh let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number one.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture and at this time.

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the amendments as presented by staff.

Uh and then uh I will also make a motion that we send this uh item out as amended as a committee report to the full board.

Two motions.

The first to amend the ordinance and then the second to recommend the ordinance as amended as a committee report to those motions offered by the chair on those motions.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmo.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Clerk, uh, please call item number two.

Agenda item number two is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Dr.

Carlotta Texador Del Portillo Way on Bartlett Street between 21st and 22nd streets.

In recognition of Dr.

Carlotta Texador Del Portillo's leadership in establishing the City College of San Francisco's mission campus and her legacy as a longtime civic and educational leader.

This item is also on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent for consideration tomorrow, July 28th, 2026 by the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you very much.

We have Grace Wong here from President Mandelman's office to present on this item.

Um Thank you, Chair Malgar.

Good afternoon, Chair Mulgar, Vice Chair Chan, and Supervisor Malkmoon.

My name is Grace Huang, and I'm here today on behalf of President Mandelman.

The item before you today is a resolution to add the commemorative street name Carlotta Texador Telportio Way to the section of Bartlett Street between 21st and 22nd Street.

This block is home to the City College of San Francisco's Mission Campus, which Dr.

Del Portio helped establish and where she served as Dean for many years.

In addition to helping establish and serving as the Dean of CCSF's mission campus, Dr.

Del Portillo has also broken barriers as a civic leader.

She was the first Latina appointed to the Human Rights Commission, the Civil Rights Commission, and the Fire Commission.

She helped to integrate the San Francisco Fire Department, and she became the first Latina elected citywide to the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education.

Dr.

Del Portillo also helped found influential community organizations, including the Mexican-American Political Association, Latino Democratic Club, and Mission Hiring Hall.

This commemorative street naming is a way to honor Dr.

Del Portillo for her extraordinary service as an educational and civic leader in San Francisco.

I do want to note that our initial resolution proposed the street name Dr.

Carlota Texador Del Portillo Way.

However, SFMTA informed us due that due to the length of the name and available science space, the lettering would need to be reduced in size.

After discussions with our community partners, many of whom are here today, we worked to strike the right balance between readability and the importance of recognizing her full name.

Accordingly, we would like to amend the proposed street name to Carlotta Texadora Del Portillo Way.

Thank you to Dr.

Del Portillo's family, Jonita Owens, Dr.

Cahill, and many members of the community for championing this commemorative street naming and working with our office on this project.

I'd also like to thank Supervisor Fielder's office for their collaboration with us as this will take place in District 9, and Chair Melgar for your co-sponsorship.

I respectfully ask for your support in recommending this ordinance and today's amendments with approval.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um, having been such a uh sort of outsized figure in the community and also shown the way for Latina leadership uh in our city, in our state.

Um, among her many, many accomplishments uh that I've always admired.

Um it is, of course, having produced outstanding human beings uh as her daughters um and uh, you know, they've also produced outstanding human beings.

So I uh I'm just um thrilled that we are able to recognize her in this way, um, in a visible way to the community that she spent so much time and energy improving, guiding, opening uh opportunities for.

So thank you so much for recognizing that.

Um Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga, and I also would like to echo and thank you uh for Popeza and Mandoman for advancing this resolutions.

I would like to express my appreciation for the inspiring years of leadership and services of Dr.

Calota Testo del Potillo.

And I also want to recognize that City College, it's near and dear to my heart.

And Dr.

Testillo del Portillo has left such a lasting legacy on our city's services to the academic and war force needs of working class and also immigrants community.

And I'm very thrilled to support this commemorative street name destination, and also Mr.

Clit with you at my name as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Sorry, my not mine's not working.

So let's go to public comment on this item.

We do, I I want to recognize we have a former president of the school board, uh, Ms.

Juanita Owens here.

So um uh let's go to public comment and hear from folks.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Land Use and Transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number two.

If you have public comment for this item, you may line up to speak along that western wall and first speaker.

I'm honored.

Um I can't tell you how honored I'm I am to be here today.

I'm I'm so touched, as her family knows.

I have to get my composure.

I can't believe it.

I have a few words to say about Carlota, but one in particular is she um changed my life significantly.

Um because of her, I stand here with four degrees from the University of San Francisco and my doctorate.

Um she's always been an advocate and always been a supporter, so I'd like to share some words that I have.

Uh it's truly an honor to stand before you today to celebrate the extraordinary life and legacy of Dr.

Carlota Texador Del Portillo, a woman whose leadership, courage, and unwavering commitment to serve has transformed communities uh lives and strengthened our San Francisco community.

When I think of Carlota, I think about a trailblazer.

Not because she sought recognition, but because she understood that leadership is about opening doors for others, which she has done for me, and ensuring that every person has an opportunity to succeed.

Carlota's journey reflects the very best of public service.

At a time when few Latinas held positions of civic leadership, Colotta was breaking barriers, creating pathways for future generations.

She was appointed by Mayor George Masconi to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, where she brought her deep commitment to fairness, dignity, and equal opportunity to the forefront of city government.

She continued that work when she was appointed by Mayor Feinstein, San Francisco Civil Service Commission in 79.

She served during a pivotal moment in San Francisco's history.

When the city was confronting long standing inequalities in public employment, the Civil Service Commission played Thank you for your comments.

Critical, may I just wrap that up?

Speaker's time is concluded.

We have to give everyone the same amount of time to provide their comments.

Thank you for providing comments.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Gregoria Cejil.

And I have the privilege of serving as the Dean of the City College Mission Center.

I'm honored to speak today in support of commemorating the span of the Barlett Street as Carlota Textidor del Portillo.

Doctora Carlota Texdor del Portillo has been much more than a champion for education.

She has been a mentor and an advocate for the mission district.

From the day I met her, she made it clear that we need to keep the doors of the mission campus open.

Open to the community and to those who come from other countries.

That message continue to guide my leadership today.

She was an instrumental, she was very instrumental in advocating for resources in programs such as the Working Adults Degree Program, partnership with Unified School District.

And she also built partnership such as the collaboration with Mission Hiring Hall with the CAPSA program, connecting students with meaningful career pathways.

Because of her leadership, the mission center has grown to be the second largest at City College of San Francisco after the main campus.

And the programs continue to expand for students and the support.

Doctora de Portillo also changed my life as many others.

She believed in myself way before I believed in myself.

She encouraged me to get my master's degree and bachelor's degree, master's degree, and doctoral degree, and she also encouraged me to pursue leadership roles that I would have never imagined myself.

With her leadership, her mentorship and Dina Jorge Bell, they allow me to grow and be the administrator I am today.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, thank you very much.

My name is Cynthia Pellini.

She founded the Friends of the Mission Campus, where I was happy and still am happy to participate and support.

She started by making sure that high school students coming into the mission campus, many of whom, if not most, were first time in their families, college students, understood the business of going to college, how to study, how to write a paper, how to approach a deadline, how to seek counseling, how to use resources.

She was so she is so fierce, determined, and practical.

After we established some programs to help the high school kids, her next plan of attack was scholarships for kids who are already, young people who are already in at the mission campus.

We have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, supported hundreds of students at the mission campus.

I'm so sorry.

And uh this work is ongoing.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for comments.

To have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

I'm Mary Hernandez, and I'm a founding partner of the law firm of Garcia Hernandez Sony.

I've had I have the privilege of serving with Dr.

Del Portillo on the Friends of the Mission Campus Board and had the privilege of serving with her on the San Francisco School Board, where I was also a school board president in uh 2000.

Dr.

Del Portillo's resume is impressive as a pioneer and a trailblazer, but those of us who knew her well know that her greatest accomplishment is not in any title that she has held.

It is in the thousands of lives that she quietly changed.

She spent a lifetime believing in students, as you have heard before they believed in themselves.

As dean, she tirelessly championed equitable access to educational opportunities for those who needed it most.

And as a former school board member, she knew that to improve children's lives, you need to empower their parents.

So for working moms, she was a hero.

Recognizing the barriers they faced, she ensured that career certification programs needed to improve their families' economic futures, were actually offered at times they could realistically uh attend in the evenings and on weekends, and just as importantly, she made certain that child care was available, removing every obstacle she probab possibly could so that they had the opportunity to succeed.

Her commitment transformed lives, strengthening families, creating opportunities that reach far beyond the classroom.

This commemorative street naming, however, is not simply about honoring one remarkable woman.

It is about recognizing the generations of Latinas who have built institutions, strengthened neighborhoods, transformed lives, often without receiving the public recognition they deserved.

It is especially fitting that Carlota Texidor del Portillo is poised to become the first Latina from San Francisco to receive a commemorative street naming in our city's history.

This recognition is all overdue, and I cannot think of anyone more deserving.

I respectfully ask for your support of the resolution.

Thank you so much for your comments.

To the next speaker, please.

Today it's indeed an honor to come before you to make these comments in support of the proposal that a street in San Francisco be named after the honorable leader and friend Carlota El Portillo.

My name is Josepadia.

I'm the retired executive director of California Rural Legal Assistance, where I spent my career advocating for educational opportunity, civil rights, and dignity for underserved communities throughout California, in particular farm workers.

Over the years I've had the privilege of working alongside many extraordinary community leaders, but very few have matched the vision, the persistence and generosity of Dr.

Carlota Nelportillo.

Those of us who have spent our lives working for educational equity know that lasting change is never accomplished by one lawsuit, one election, one program.

It's accomplished by people who build institutions that continues serving communities long after they themselves have stepped aside.

That is exactly what Carlotta has done.

She helped create a people have said helped create and build Mission Campus into a place where generations of students, many of them first generation college students, immigrants, working parents, English learners, could pursue opportunity and transform their lives.

She understood education as one of the most powerful civil rights tools that our society possesses.

Her leadership extended well beyond the college.

Whether serving on the Board of Education, helping establish Mission Hiring Hall, advancing literacy, or mentoring community leaders.

Carlotta was always focused on opening doors for others.

She was as selfless as one can be and humble in everything she has done.

So today we have the opportunity to make sure future generations ask who was Dr.

Carlotta El Portillo every time they see this street sign, and they will discover someone who devoided devoted her life to making San Francisco more inclusive, more just, and more equitable and hopeful for others.

Thank you for your own.

I urge you to adopt this resolution, naming the one avenue Carlotta del Portillo.

Thank you very much for your time.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm John Cresvinia.

I'm an Engelside native, uh homeowner in in uh district eleven, neighbor of District 7.

Uh and I have had uh I've known Dr.

Carlotta Del Portillo for over half a century.

I think actually since the late 1960s when her when with her work at this at the uh school district on on uh on desegregation.

Not only have I known her, I have respected her, I've admired her.

Her contributions not only to the school district and to the community college, but throughout San Francisco.

So I am an enthusiastic supporter of this honor for for her.

We proudly call ourselves a sanctuary city.

Education is the greatest sanctuary for the future of San Francisco and our young people.

Carlotta Del Porto has been the guardian of newcomers throughout her career and her lifetime over these years.

So I it's a very appropriate honor uh by our city uh to name the street for her, and I encourage your adoption of this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh thank you to all the community members who came out to support this um momentous resolution.

Uh and again, thank you to President Mandelman's office for submitting it to us.

Uh I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments as presented by uh President Mandelman's office.

Um, and then uh to send the motion as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Two motions offered by the chair.

The first to amend the resolution and the second that the resolution be recommended as amended as a committee report on those motions, Vice Chair Chen.

Aye.

Chen I, Member Machmood, Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Let's go to item number three, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number three is a resolution of intention to initiate an undergrounding process for homestead street between 24th and 25th streets, making findings that undergrounding at the location is a general benefit to the public.

This item is the third item on our agenda that may also be sent as a committee report for consideration tomorrow that's on the board agenda for July 28th, 2026.

Okay, we're joined by uh Reneal Badjoy with uh President Mendelman's office.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chair and Member Mahmood.

Um thank you for having me today.

This item is a little novel, so I'm gonna do my best to provide a thorough explanation about the context, uh the history as well as what this resolution is doing here today, so I ask that you bear with me.

Um so San Francisco, as you may already be aware, has been undergrounding utility lines for decades under a program that was called Rule 20A.

Um this was established by the California Public Utilities Commission in 1967.

Under that program, PGE accumulated ratepayer-funded credits on the city's behalf, which we could then draw down to pay for converting overhead wires to undergrounding to underground on qualifying streets.

The program funded real improvements across the city for quite some time.

The problem is that we, San Francisco, use those credits pretty aggressively.

And by the time the CPUC conducted a comprehensive review of the program, San Francisco had not only exhausted our credit balance, but borrowed 14 years into the future.

So by the CPUC's own accounting, we were in significant work credit debt.

The CPUC issued a ruling in 2021 ordering that no new Rule 20A credits would be allocated to any community after December of 2022.

That decision effectively closed the door on the existing utility undergrounding program that San Francisco had historically relied on.

We cannot earn new credits and we have no new balance to draw from.

So that's sort of the context behind Rule 20A.

What we are doing here today is different.

It's Rule 20B.

Rule 20B is different in that it instead of relying on ratepayer funded credits that no longer exist, rule 20B allows property owners to fund undergrounding directly, with PGE contributing what it would have cost to build the equivalent overhead infrastructure instead.

The city's role is to provide the legislative framework that makes the project possible and to establish the financing mechanism and assessment district that would allow the residents to spread their costs over time instead of paying a lump sum up front.

That's precisely what this resolution initiates as the first step in a very long process that will ultimately return to the board as well as the residents in the future.

So that's sort of the uh context behind Rule 20B for this project specifically.

Um it was initiated when uh members of the community, uh Homestead Street one block in Noe Valley, approached our office in late March.

PGE uh they they had been informed that PGE had planned to put in new overhead utilities and for safety concerns uh they uh asked that those utilities be undergrounded instead.

So in conversation with them, DPW and the city attorney's office, um, sort of exploring Rule 20B, which to our knowledge uh mind DPW as well as the city attorneys has not been done in San Francisco at all.

Uh we've sort of been trying to figure out this process and see how we can assist these residents and especially assist them as it comes as as it uh comes to you know sort of talking to PGE and trying to figure that process out.

Um PGE has not been the most responsive thus far, and that's part of what we're hoping to do uh with this resolution.

So on May 7th, the uh uh members of the community submitted a petition uh to DPW with over 60 percent of the affected property owners um agreeing with uh the decision to proceed on an initial basis with undergrounding.

Um and on July 22nd, uh just about uh a little under a week ago, um a hearing was conducted by DPW, duly noticed, of course, uh, with a strong majority in support of undergrounding, and uh DPW forwarded a recommendation um of undergrounding, uh, which I believe is part of the file.

So uh this resolution, as I mentioned, is the initial phase in what is a quite long uh quote quite long process.

Um what this is, as I mentioned, it is one uh getting San Francisco on the record saying that we are supportive, um, you know, in accordance with DPW's findings of uh undergrounding on Homestead Street, uh and two, it's also uh our hope in in conjunction with you know direct engagement from our office.

Our hope is that this will affect greater communication uh between PGE and the members of the community um to provide some of those materials that will make proceeding with this project feasible.

Um to provide a preview of what uh will happen in the future, uh pending you know the continuance uh of this project.

Um after this, uh the uh residents have to obtain an engineering report um which will sort of uh provide an estimate of the costs it would take to underground.

Um and then based on that, in conversation with uh PGE, all the affected utilities uh as well as the city, um, we will begin to look at legislation, a resolution to create the actual assessment district.

Um and the assessment district itself will also have a public hearing and it will also have ballots associated with it, similar to the formation or renewal of CBD as we saw last uh last week's board.

So to be very clear, this resolution is just the initial step in a very long process, um, and we are not asking the board to decide on you know any cost allocations or any you know work being uh constructed today.

That will all come later, uh pending uh further investigation of the costs um and further conversations with the members of the community, many of whom I understand are here today.

So uh with all that said, thank you for bearing with me, and I stand by for any questions.

Thank you so much, uh Mr.

Bajoy.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments.

I just have to say uh with great admiration uh that this is very creative, and uh I am just passive popcorn.

I'm like really looking forward to seeing you know what this community can do and doing it this way.

It's um you know great strategy and creativity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clark.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Land Use and Transportation will not hear public comment related to agenda item number three.

If you have public comment for this item, you may come forward to the lectern at this time.

And if you're waiting for your opportunity to speak, you can line up to speak along that western wall.

It looks like we're going to need the projector.

I'll start your time.

My name's Ernie Baffle, supervisors.

Thank you for taking this up.

Homestead Street's just one block law.

But we can make a breakthrough for the city and county of San Francisco.

Have you guys ever worked with Bill Sanders before before he retired a couple years ago?

Well, he was the deputy city attorney who knew all about Rule 20.

Um it has taken it's been a challenge for the new city attorney to come up to speed on this because it's never been done in San Francisco.

Bill says tool, even though assessment districts were legislated for undergrounding in 1966, they've never been adopted in San Francisco.

If you're looking for a place where you can get guidance where it's already been done, Newport Newport Beach has a hundred and twenty-five times done these undergrounding districts.

And so they they have a consultant that has done it many times, an engineering firm called NV5 that we spoke with this morning.

They understand the whole drill.

If you're looking for somebody who's in San Francisco's position, Palm Springs is a better place to go because this year was the last year was the first time Palm Springs ever did an assessment district.

So if you're looking for guidance from other legislative bodies, Newport Beach and Palm Springs are on the top of my list.

You also have people in Berkeley, uh, Richmond, and I believe down in San Mateo that have done assessment districts in the past.

Uh I'm uh joined here by three other residents of Homestead Street.

I can answer any questions you want because I've given this a very deep dive.

Do you have any further comments?

No, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Josh Clip.

I'll just keep this really brief.

I'm not actually here for this matter, but I was struck by the image uh shown on the overhead by the previous commenter.

And uh there's the main line kind of going around the middle of the street, and then it looked like there were blue lines branching off to the individual homes.

And it looked like there were blue lines going through just about every single tree route on that street.

Um so I hope that as we begin this long and creative process that we're also considering the preservation of our green infrastructure as well as improving our gray infrastructure to make sure that we're doing everything that this city needs to be safe and resilient all at once.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any further commenters for agenda item number three?

Hi.

Excuse me.

Yeah, Catherine Howard, I'm also here for the next tree item, but I was struck with this.

I believe I've seen streets with power uh undergrounded, and there's no thought of where you're going to plant trees, and it's totally left out.

This has to be part of the plan now.

It cannot be part of the plan later.

Once you have utilities running under the street in the sidewalk, it's prohibitively very expensive to move them.

So I hope that you will ask that tree placement be considered.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number three related to uh intention to initiate undergrounding process for homestead street between 24th and 25th?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um colleagues, I would like to make a motion that we send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Offered by the chair that this resolution be recommended to the Board of Supervisors as a committee report.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I manager there are three eyes.

Okay.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Uh let's go to item number four, please.

Agenda item number four is an ordinance amending the public works code to allow development projects to satisfy street tree planting requirements through payment of an in lieu fee or providing alternative landscaping.

Exempt excess accessory dwelling units from street tree planting requirements.

Eliminate appeals to the Board of Supervisors, excuse me, eliminate appeals to the Board of Appeals and the Director of the Department of Public Works for hazardous tree removals undertaken by city departments and commissions.

Amending the administrative code to specify a separate account within the adopt a tree fund to receive in LU fees for street tree requirements, amending the planning code to update street tree applicability requirements, amending the business and tax regulations code to prescribe time frames for the hearing and decision on appeals of certain street tree removals to the Board of Appeals, affirming the planning department's secret determination and making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1, as well as findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section 302.

Thank you.

We have uh Ian Schneider here from uh DPW.

Um and David Moore.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, Member Mahmood, Clerk of the Board.

My name is Ian Schneider with Public Works Government Affairs.

I'm joined today by David Moore, Superintendent of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry.

We are here today to discuss an ordinance updating San Francisco's street tree standards, appeal processes, and the adopt a tree fund.

This legislation represents a collaborative effort among public works planning, the mayor's office, and the board of supervisors.

Our goal is to balance expanding our urban canopy with streamlining public safety and permitting.

Thank you.

As Ian said, my name is David Moore.

I'm the superintendent of the Bureau of Urban Forestry.

A little background and context.

Our Bureau consists of about 150 employees.

We keep the streets green with trees, landscapes, and also manage the sidewalks beneath them.

Within the Arboreth shop, there's the inspection shop, and many of the uh subject matter today has to do with inspections and uh policy related to trees.

In regards to street trees, we maintain about 125,000 street trees citywide.

We plant uh about 2,000 per year with our partners, um including Friends of the Urban Forest and other nonprofits.

Here's a picture uh from July 11th when we had one city day.

Many people came out, including city staffers such as this uh city staffer and her two children to come out and plant trees.

It's a family-friendly event, and we have our neighborhood beautification days once a month.

Um the next one's coming up in August, which will be at our street tree nursery in the SOMA.

So we do like to do a lot of work with the community, um, and we have many different community projects, including landscaping, uh, because there's many different parts of the public right-of-way that are undeveloped and brighten up people's day when they see plants and trees in them.

So we foster a lot of um street park adoptions as well, which um you'll notice as you drive or walk through the city.

Our cement shop is the only cement shop for San Francisco, so we also take on client work for other partner agencies to help them with their transportation uh platforms like for the SFMTA.

Um here is a list of those things that I just summarized.

And here's a graph of where we've received grant funding, mostly for tree planting as well as workforce development and uh tree watering and the development of the street tree nursery, which constitutes over 12 million dollars of grant funding over the past few years.

When we apply for a grant, it usually comes from a state or federal source.

Uh otherwise we do get some from through Prop L in San Francisco.

But when we apply from the federal or state government, they usually have parameters for where that grant funding would be eligible to spend based off of equity criteria.

Um the color coding in this map shows where our projects over the past few years have been located from the federal government and California.

Um serve uh everyone in San Francisco.

Um, it also puts us in a difficult situation where we have grant funding specifically for certain neighborhoods, but we don't always get grant funding for other neighborhoods.

So we have to be creative on how we achieve those goals, and we work with our partners in order to do that.

This might be part of some people's equities questions later.

We can always come back to this, but I just wanted to share it as a visual for now.

And I'm gonna pass the microphone back to my colleague I think.

Thank you, David.

Uh the ordinance before us today touches on three core areas, each aligned with our broader permit SF streamlining efforts.

First, we are modernizing development requirements.

Smaller projects will have the option to pay an in-LU fee for mandated tree plantings, while larger projects will be required to plant trees on site, spaced every 20 feet unless physically infeasible.

Second, we are improving the tree removal appeals process by introducing statutory deadlines for Board of Appeals decisions and eliminating additional appeals for hazardous trees.

I'll turn now to the in-LU fee provisions, which balance our tree canopy goals with the realities of housing and commercial development.

Under the city's Better Streets Plan, large projects, generally over 50,000 square feet, will still be required to plant street trees as part of their scope of work.

Thank you, Chair Melgar, for your attention to detail on the importance of large developments contributing to our city's tree canopy.

For smaller projects, the ordinance gives applicants a choice.

Plant the required street trees on site or pay an inlou fee into our adopted tree fund.

These funds must be spent on the planting and watering of new street trees.

Accessory dwelling units, better known as ADUs, are exempted from tree planting requirements consistent with state code.

Finally, and this is an important operational change.

Project sponsors will now receive formal notice of their street tree obligations much earlier in the timeline at the planning approval stage rather than at the end of the process.

This gives applicants time to plan and budget accordingly.

It also reduces late-stage delays for both applicants and development staff.

We'll now discuss tree city-initiated tree removals on public property that are standard and non-hazardous.

For these, we are preserving full transparency and full access to the Board of Appeals.

What the ordinance adds is a legislated statutory timeline, so appeals can't stall a project indefinitely.

Under this legislation, an appeal filed with the Board of Appeals must be scheduled for a hearing within 15 days of filing.

It must be formally acted upon within 30 days.

This preserves the public's right to weigh in while giving both applicants and the department a predictable timeline to work with.

Now on the topic of hazard trees.

Trees designated as immediate hazards require prompt action to safeguard people and property.

After inspection, these trees are posted on site for a mandatory 15-day public notice period and listed on our tree removal webpage.

The initial version of this ordinance eliminated all appeal avenues for hazardous tree removals.

However, an amendment that we understand Supervisor Mahmoud will propose today strikes a critical balance.

It restores public appeal rights at the department level through a public works director's hearing while eliminating secondary, potentially prolonged appeals to the Board of Appeals.

We'd also like to take a closer look at how the department defines a hazard tree.

To ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary removals, the ordinance clearly defines a hazardous tree as one posing an imminent hazard to safety or property with specific conditions being met.

Those include a high likelihood of tree failure due to death, disease, or infestation, severe obstruction of the public right of way or infrastructure, direct interference with pedestrians or vehicles, such that pruning or other mitigating activities cannot abate the significant risk presented.

To put our operations into perspective, in 2026, Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry has posted 37 hazardous trees for removal, along with 37 emergency removals following storm or structural failures.

The remaining 191 removal postings come from sidewalk repairs that require destabilizing root pruning, young trees in severe decline, trees projected to be high-risk hazards within a year, and permit-related removals.

We want to walk through one case that illustrates the challenges we faced with the current appeals process for hazard trees.

Along Grove and Hyde Streets, outside the San Francisco Main Library, not too far away from here.

We had a row of mature ficus trees with a documented condition called reverse taper, a well-known structural defect that signals imminent root failure.

In 2019, Public Works attempted an initial removal, but the attempt was withdrawn following protests.

In May 2021, one of these FICAS collapsed directly onto a public works truck depicted here.

Thankfully, no one was injured.

The Bureau of Urban Forestry initiated formal removal proceedings for a second time.

That decision was appealed at a director's hearing and then appealed again to the Board of Appeals.

During what became an extended seven-month process, a second tree on Hyde Street failed while the appeals was in motion.

In December 2021, the Board of Appeals ultimately authorized removal of only eight of the 17 trees.

In September 2023, one of the towering trees the Board denied for removal fell onto Grove Street.

This is a real life example in which protracted appeals left dangerous trees standing in a high pedestrian corridor, which created an avoidable public safety hazard.

When a mature street tree with severe structural defects fails, it blocks active traffic lanes, disrupts transit, and most concerning, creates severe life safety risks.

The legislation before you directly addresses this by giving public works the regulatory tools to act decisively on high-risk trees before structural collapse occurs.

The amendment that will be proposed today would ensure that there is a path for contesting trees that may have incorrectly been marked as hazard trees while providing a faster process that mitigates the risk of tree failures as appeals await resolution.

Here is a final summary table showing how the proposed committee amendments refined the original ordinance.

The in LU fee updates allow smaller projects to have feat flexibility while mandating tree planting associated with larger projects.

Binding statutory deadlines associated with the appeals process for city-initiated tree removals will promote efficiency by preventing indefinite delays while still ensuring due process.

A streamlined hazard tree appeal process will reduce high-risk situations from arising and allow our department to maintain a safe and inviting public right of way.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and colleagues.

I believe it is a great step to making building the types of projects envisioned in the family zoning plan a little bit easier, while also generating more funds for tree planting and watering citywide.

I also want to thank public works and the mayor's office for working collaboratively on this legislation.

Today I have one amendment to offer, and it comes directly from what I've heard from constituents in my district.

Earlier this year, residents in the lower Haight and DeBos Triangle learned that seven mature FICAS trees on Waller Street have been slated for emergency removal as public safety hazards.

Hundreds of residents contacted my office, and more than 800 people signed a petition condemning the removal.

My office then worked with public works to secure a secondary review by the acting urban forester, which resulted in four of the seven trees being preserved.

The remaining three moved forward with removal.

This amendment that I'll be proposing today restores that one step.

I raised that because of what it showed.

A second look by a qualified forester prompted by the public changed the outcome for four mature trees and didn't hold up the three that needed to come down.

That review happened because my office asked for it, not because the code required it.

This amendment today revises the findings at Section 2F, page four, lines 20 through 23 to read, quote.

To that end, this ordinance retains the ability for a member of the public to appeal the hazardous tree removal to the director of public works, but eliminates a further appeal to the Board of Appeals.

The existing language, end quote.

The existing language would be struck.

Conforming amendments would revise Section 806A4B so that the department's decision is appealable to the director under subsection A3A, would the director's decision final and non-appealable.

Make a corresponding carve out in section 806A3C and strike the reference to the Director of Public Works from the ordinance's title.

Hazard removal still move quickly.

No appeal to the Board of Appeals, no hear, no rehearing, no delay in taking down a tree that poses a real danger to the public and our workers.

What it preserves is a chance to catch an error before a mature tree comes down.

My community asked for a say in this process, and this amendment keeps them at one.

Thank you, colleagues, and I asked for moving that amendment forward later this afternoon.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

Um I know that San Franciscans uh cared deeply about our trees.

We also known that our city ranks poorly relatively to other major American cities with regards to our tree canopies.

I know that tree has been a large volumes of feedback from members of the public regarding this legislation.

Rightfully so, the public it's asking for and deserves a certain level of public engagement and accountability.

And the department is seeking changes that enable it to store our urban tree canopy as transparently and efficiently as possible.

The legislation has evolved it significantly since introduction because of the changes made by the department and amendments offered by my colleagues, including Supervisors Malga, Matmu, and Dorsey.

With that, I actually have several questions that I would like to ask the department.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chen.

Um a tree that is identified as a hazard tree by our uh is assessed by our Arbor staff, they post the tree with the physical posting on the tree itself, and that is added to our tree removal webpage.

Members of the public have a 15-day period to file an appeal.

Which is uh contacting the department generally through email.

The appeal is scheduled at a director's hearing with a neutral hearing officer.

The department presents its findings, and the appellant presents their case, and the hearing officer provides a recommendation to the director within 10 days.

Each of those steps is posted on our website for the agenda and the final findings by our director through public works order.

And both appellants and individuals who sign on to the appeal are informed over email as well.

Great, thank you.

Um my second question is I also would like to better understand which kinds of latch projects would no longer be subject to the tree the fee out process.

All the large projects trigger by the better streets plan requirements.

If not, which ones are not subject to that.

Thank you for the question.

I'm going to defer the answer to my colleague in planning.

Thank you.

Hi.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Chelm Chair Melgar.

I'm Liz Wadi, uh director of current planning and director of Permit SF.

Um the trigger for the uh better streets plan, these large projects, um, there are four lot size uh variables where certain sizes of lots can trigger uh better streets and the project that sits on those large lots also has to be a large um project.

So I'll read through those.

It's four and four respectively with the lot and the size of the project.

So on the lot size, the lot must be more than a half acre in total area, or be more than 50,000 square feet uh of new construction, or be at least 150 feet of uh lot frontage, or take up the entire lot frontage of a full city block between two streets.

So if the the lot contains one of those four conditions, and the scope of work is either new construction of 10 dwelling units, new construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial use, uh, an addition of 20% to an existing building on that lot, or a change of use of 10,000 square feet of a PDR, like an industrial project to a non-industrial project.

So it's in those circumstances that the project would not be eligible to fee out.

Great.

Thank you.

Um this is another question to DPW.

I I know in my own very own district, there has been significant discuss discussion regarding the tree removals at Quacker Park, some of which have been identified as hazard trees.

Can you clarify how this legislation would impact the implementation of tree removal and the public oversight of that process?

Thank you, Vice Chair Chen.

Um Crocker Amazon Park is, I believe, Wreck and Park property.

This legislation will not impact Wreck and Park regulations.

It's intended only for street trees and trees under public works jurisdiction.

Got it.

Thank you.

Um and also one last question about DPW.

Uh, would this legislation result in DPW departmental cost savings?

And if so, uh those cost savings reallocated towards street tree maintenance and operations.

Thank you for the question.

Um the uh legislation could result in some cost savings primarily for project budgets.

Um if a capital project can reach a decision uh more quickly, it can save money in cost escalation down the line.

Uh generally that money is not reallocated, it goes back to the project.

Um however, there are kind of cost savings built in in the background.

Got it.

Thank you.

Um I had just one question, Mr.

Schneider, for you.

So uh we just approved or just you know recently approved the family zoning plan for the city, which uh upzones uh most of the west side and north of the city, uh which has primarily been zoned for single family homes and by definition not priority equity communities.

Um and so if we allow smaller projects uh to uh fee out um and invest most of our tree planting money in equity communities, how do we ensure that there is an adequate uh you know tree canopy in the future in those communities that we just upzoned?

I'm gonna go back to my map.

Just as a nice visual.

I think when you're talking about geography, it helps to see a map.

Um we cannot predict whether or not people will fee out or not.

But in the scenario where people are choosing the NLU fee over the planting the tree in front of their property.

That would put the funds, as my colleague has said, directly into a place that has to be used for street tree planting.

Because a lot of our um funding that we have millions of dollars dedicated for funding in very specific areas and equity, it actually helps putting that money in funds so that it could while we want to focus on equity and you could vote you could define it in different ways.

You could say the the this uh the eastern half or the south southeastern part of the city could be defined by a different equity metric.

It does help staff to have some discretion in where trees are planted.

So we do intentionally come to every district to plant trees every year, and we do foster uh partnerships in every district.

If if uh there is an increase in in loo fees that can be used for tree planting, it gives our staff the opportunity to batch the work.

So instead of co-project managing a single or two tree plantings in front of one house, if they could plant a hundred trees, and we understand that there is uh community by and some of our community members who partner with us to help us find places for trees because they're um they're advocates and they also play a role in helping steward trees is like we want to plant trees in areas where there is demand for them, and our ear is always open for if there is community demand to plant trees.

And I would hate to think that any neighborhood would be neglected, as we are only at planting about 15 to 2,000, 1,500 to 2,000 trees a year, but our urban forest plan is to plant every available space over the next 20 years, which would require us to increase our tree planting to four to five thousand trees a year.

Um we are ramping up for that, and I think that once we can start delivering the higher volume of trees, people will feel more assured that their neighborhood will not be missing the trees.

Because it is in our adopted plan that we will plant all of the available street tree planting locations.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I don't see anyone else on the roster, Mr.

Clerk, so let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We're now here public comment related to agenda item number four.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm indicating on your right hand side of the room.

And if we have anyone who's ready to come forward for public comment and be the first one at the lecture and please do so.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Chris Desby.

I uh first became interested in this issue when I found out that 200 trees were going to be chopped down, will be chopped down three blocks from me from where I live.

And since then I've been studying trees, their role in the neighborhoods, in the environment at large, and found that they are the easiest way to combat climate change, which is something the city is supposed to be interested in, but they are often the silent victims of projects around the city.

There's always a good excuse to chop down a tree or several trees in a row.

Um, despite the city's uh climate goals, um, trees are the first thing on the shopping block every time.

And the only recourse we have are these appeals.

Um the hazard trees that have been mentioned, I've found through my research are often neglected trees, either they're not watered properly or something like that.

Um I feel that a monetary payoff and in lieu fee by a developer will not guarantee that any tree will be replaced.

A fee now may not cover something in the future, it depends on the soil, depends on the placement, and there are lots of factors that I think a fee doesn't really cover.

So I think removing the single public recourse we have just removes our small attempts uh of recourse against this ordinance or whatever it is, and it will affect our climate and our neighborhoods for decades to come.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Josh Clip.

I'm the vice chair of the former Urban Forestry Council and the co-founder of Mission Verde.

San Francisco has the smallest tree canopy of any major city in the United States, and we are failing the tree-related goals of our 2014 urban forest and 2021 climate action plans.

Public works currently has roughly four and a half million dollars in inLU fees.

That's around 2,000 trees that the city already owes us from those fees alone.

If this passes, that fund will grow, but our canopy may not, because if in LU fees really meant a new tree, then that fund would be empty.

Regarding hazard trees, if public works has monitored the trees at the library for all the problems they just stated that they were aware of, they could have legally removed them on an emergency basis at any time.

More importantly, the amendments would bless the department's self-policing on an issue it has been shown to abuse, which I am putting under the screen here right now.

Just last month, while this proposed legislation was pending, the acting urban forester asked his subordinate to break the law, basically to lie, and designate a decently healthy tree on Polk Street as a hazard solely because it was convenient for the applicant.

And finally, the department's presentation doesn't really bother explaining why the Draconian timeframe should apply to all other tree removal permits, not just city permits.

More than 80% of appeals are for construction.

Last year there was one tree appeal.

This isn't about the inconvenience of appeals, this is about the inconvenience of dissent.

We spend months on construction permits, but if you want to save a tree, move fast because the city claims without citing to any real evidence that it can't afford the time.

Speaking of time, please ask the department how many years it takes to replant an empty tree well.

I've shared with your staff examples of my personal remarkable tree appeal results.

The Board of Supervisors from this very chamber gave me an certificate of honor for my work.

If these amendments go through, please expect the community to stop trying.

I'll leave you with a quote from a retired public works employee who presided as a hearing officer over dozens of tree removals.

She says, We live in a world right now where our rights are disappearing one by one.

At a time when local participation is more important than ever, we should be expanding community, not community input, not taking it away.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for coming.

Next speaker, please.

But I'm here today because I believe in trees.

Trees are not abstract concepts, they are real living things that help us breathe better, lift our spirits, and house wildlife that are essential to our existence.

Humans need trees.

If we green light every single removal, we are only hurting ourselves, and I know you all care about the environment.

Supervisor Mahmoud, I was at a launch event for community streets, um, where you spoke about your support for environmental concerns.

Supervisor Melgar, I stood on the steps of this very building with you when you've spoken about our climate action plan.

Supervisor Chen, I have read your comments about climate resilience and environmental justice, and I appreciate your questions that you had today.

The appeals process for tree removals is a last thread communities cling to when it comes to our say in climate action and preserving our urban canopy.

People are noticing the trees are disappearing from San Francisco.

This amendment revisions goes against everything San Francisco government says it stands for.

Just last week, residents of Kansas Street were throwing themselves in front of trees because Caltrans was removing them after the community had explicitly said that they had an agreement wanting the trees over a cement sound wall.

I listened to DPW urban canopy employees at the appeals hearing say that they could not guarantee the replacement of any removed tree.

And I think that's something that we should all think about.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Crabtree.

I'm a resident of D4.

I'm also a writer and independent journalist and editor of the Westside Observer, but I'm here today just as a D4 resident that wants to talk about trees.

I'm a volunteer with Friends of Sunset Boulevard.

Much of my volunteerism is to tend and maintain trees on Sunset Boulevard itself.

Exposing the tree flares, which greatly greatly improves their health.

In fact, the four public works arborists who came and trained us told us told me that uh clearing the tree flares could add five to ten years to the life of a tree.

Now I've cleared to the flares, not cleared off the planet.

Cleared uh over a hundred Sunset Boulevard trees this month.

That's hardly impressive, though, because by my estimate, there are 1,800 trees on Sunset Boulevard.

So I've got some work to do.

But that's 500 tree years that we've added to the canopy just this month.

And all this work makes me question why when residents are working so hard to save trees and beautify our streets and green spaces.

Are we being quite so cavalier about removing street trees?

About how they are replaced, and if they are replaced.

And perhaps as important as anything, restricting the voices of residents who want to speak out for the street trees they are they cared the most about.

I hope you will continue to consider these concerns.

Continue to consider, I know you have these concerns in your deliberations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is David Wolfe.

I'm a San Francisco resident for more than 35 years.

And I Sorry.

Can you hear me now?

Great, thank you.

David Wolf is my name.

I'm a resident of San Francisco for 35 years.

And I have a lot of gratitude to be able to address you this afternoon.

I will say that I have emailed each of you the full length of my comments because it's for sure I'm not going to be able to do this in two minutes when I thought it was three.

The proposed code changes represent a profound shift away from recent city commitments to growing our tree canopy and to ensuring the right of communities to engage our government when we disagree with its intentions.

Well, I'm relieved to see the changes offered by Supervisor Mahmoud to version two.

The ordinance will still negatively impact our cities already below average tree canopy and equally important will significantly narrow the right of communities to appeal questionable renewable orders of street trees.

Adequate time for community members to appeal tree removal order is essential to the life of our tree canopy and the place of citizen engagement in our public life.

It turns out a hazard tree assessment isn't necessarily a slam dunk.

I learned this in 2019 to 2020 when our mission community engaged an independent certified arborist to review Buff's order to remove a staggering 78 trees along 24th Street.

The independent arbor's tree by tree assessment of the health and safety of these trees differed dramatically from Buffs.

As a result, we were able to negotiate a tree care settlement which allowed us to save 40 plus trees from being cut down that Buff had deemed to be unfit or hazardous.

The takeaway from this is that a full period is essential for communities to respond to tree removal notices so that the determination of a hazard can be fully vetted.

Additionally, the right of communities to bring a tree removal appeal to the Board of Appeals is equally important.

If the only avenue of appeal is to the director of public works, feel essentially at a dead end.

It is my experience.

Thank you for your comments.

We have to move on to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

John Chosvini.

I'm president of the Board of Appeals.

I'm hearing public comment.

Uh we've had some challenges with the official process.

The lyncher the legislation was introduced.

We were not included.

We heard about it from a member of the public.

So we reached out to the department involved.

We had an agreement.

We're we're we're reasonable.

We we we've reduced some of the time uh for appeals, gotten rid of a rehearing.

We think we can provide due process in the time frame that's in within here.

But we did not agree to the second piece about taking away our jurisdiction.

And the Board of Appeals has been around since 1932.

Occasionally departments come and try to, because they're frustrated with us or because they lose a case, then they come back and say, Oh, let's get rid of the Board of Appeals.

Happened on happened with the taxis a while a while back.

But here, the the the independent outside review of of hazardous tree cases is critically important to the public.

There's no real this there's no need to distinguish between hazardous trees and the and the other trees, uh, in part because hazardous doesn't necessarily mean dangerous.

There is already provision, though the city already has the authority and the power separately to remove dangerous trees of imminent harm.

So this does the taking away the appeal takes away the voice of the people to be heard in in uh with an independent uh uh forum uh to make decisions.

We've had one case in the last four instance 2024.

And we're not a real, we're not a burden on the on the department.

If we were a burden in general, they would also probably take away the jurisdiction that we have over over non-city trees.

Uh oftentimes government is criticized for not living under the rules that prov it requires for everybody else.

This unfortunately is an example where the city is trying to take away our jurisdiction from its requests, but not but not from others.

So we are reasonable and we have we have support we support the the reduction of time, but do not support the uh the elimination of our jurisdiction.

Thank you for your hands.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Marie Sorensen.

I'm with Caesave Quattro Latino Cultural District, and I'm a resident of D9.

Please don't make it easy for the city to cut down trees, say deem a hazard.

That's what almost happened to 24th Street.

But thanks to people coming together to challenge the city, the trees were not all hazardous.

The city thought it would be easier and cheaper to take them all out.

Their claim of hazardous was a lie.

For this reason, we can't give a blank check to clear cut our neighborhoods.

The public has a right to challenge any tree removal.

Since when have we become a caretaker society?

Don't take away our voices.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Good afternoon again, supervisors.

Catherine Howard, I am a landscape architect.

I ask you to reject this legislation.

It is deeply falled and it flawed, and it will force projects to not plant trees.

As a landscape architect, I've worked on plans for all sizes of building projects.

Standard architectural drawings lay out both infrastructure and landscape, water lines, sewer lines, underground electrical connections must be located away from tree wells and other planting areas.

But this legislation, even if amended, allows a project to fee out a planting trees.

That means they also do not have to plan for infrastructure placement.

If you're thinking, oh, trees can be planted in the future, please think again.

It is very costly to retroactively open a sidewalk and to move utility lines.

Basically, it's not going to happen.

If you approve no tree now, that's no tree ever.

In fact, the pros proposed amendment that quote large projects subject to better street plan requirements would not be able to fee out unless planting is not possible, which is extremely vague language.

What does that mean?

Could mean that builders could intentionally locate utilities in tree wills just to say, oh, it's impossible to plant.

Look at those pipes.

In my experience, developers are willing to file rules as long as there is a level playing field.

But if feeing out tree planting is financially beneficial for one project, all the developers are going to have to fee out in order to compete.

Basically, by letting them fee their way out, we are paving the way literally for a majority of projects that will never have trees.

And finally, when did trees become so undesirable that we are now encouraging people to find ways to not plant them?

When did providing habitat, clean air, and a green city for families and children become so burdensome that we are legislating its lost?

Just because someone introduced this doesn't mean you have to pass it.

Please, please reject this.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lance Carnes.

I'm a president of District 3.

Um I would like you to uh reject this proposal to combine hazard trees and regular removals.

Um there's also an emergency removal, which almost never comes up.

Um the and uh it's sort of you somehow have a c cavalier attitude about taking out trees.

Um I don't know if you know the history of San Francisco proper, you know, seven by seven miles here.

Um when the Spanish came through here in 1700s on their way to discovering the San Francisco Bay, there were probably a dozen trees in San Francisco, a couple near Mountain Lake and a couple near Mission Bay.

Now of course, if you think about surrounding counties like the peninsula, East Bay, Marin, there are a lot of trees, redwoods, buckeyes, everything.

So for some reason we got ripped off on getting trees naturally growing here.

So uh I was surprised to see uh Supervisor Wong's name is a sponsor of this thing.

He lives in District 4, which is right on the ocean.

And it's it's really incredibly difficult to grow a tree in District 4.

Um any any tree still living in District 4 is uh is a miracle.

We should we should bow down to it.

Um I I think the uh I think you know we need to take a more serious attitude about our trees as infrastructure that really can't be just discarded here and there.

And um the city code currently has room removal, regular removal, hazard removal, and then emergency removal, which is almost never used.

Um I think we should keep the current.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Carol Brownson.

I've lived in San Francisco um for many years, and the last five years I get around the city on my little travel scoot.

So I'd like to tell you something about my point of view of the streets and these trees.

So say I'm I'm sitting outside a cafe in one of those nice little places, and there's no trees.

Well, there's an umbrella over, so there's there's shade.

Uh but what I see is a big wall of a building, a sidewalk, the street, the sidewalk, a big wall.

And it's noisy, it's not really very nice.

Oh, sorry.

Um thank you.

Um so not only is there no shade uh with no trees planted there, there's none of that drainage below the tree.

The only drainage is down at the corner.

Now, this really gets to be a problem uh obviously when it rains a lot.

Uh it's a problem before that because a lot of people walk their dogs, and they really need to mark their territory.

Now, that drainage.

So we get a lot of water, and we don't have the groundwater absorbing that water.

It's all running off.

And so, first of all, we get flooded streets, and then a lot of debris and water flows into the bay.

Ask Bay Keeper about that.

It's an organization that really knows what the city dumps in the bay.

And uh so if we're not gonna have all of that open ground that absorbs water, can we at least have bioswales like in front of City Hall on Van S?

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Uh good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Paul Wormer.

Um several different topics.

The first one I will make very quickly.

The notification process that public works describes absolutely follows the legal requirements, and it does not communicate to the community in a timely manner or an effective manner.

If it's posted on the tree, I may walk by there once every two weeks.

I don't know about it.

Uh it would be great if as part of the notification process they were required to have a way people could sign up for their neighborhood and a way that neighborhood associations automatically got notice of the tree removal.

So people could respond in a timely manner to their proposals.

That does not exist now.

That's the first point.

The second point is the inlu fee.

They have the street tree and lu free calculation matrix, and that calculates the dollar cost to plant a tree.

And that's what they charge for the inlu.

This ignores the non-financial, non-direct monetized benefits of the tree.

It ignores the other tangible benefits.

Uh the shading, um, the bird life, uh, the way people respond to greenery and trees in a way that impacts mental health, uh, emotional states, and that's well documented.

And as you start taking away stiti here and street the treat there on a development, you create new deserts.

That is a problem.

Finally, I would trust the hazard tree discussion more if the definition of a hazard tree number two did not include obstructs or damages a street or sidewalk.

Every single sidewalk in the city, block in the sidewalk city has trees damaging sidewalks.

And do those therefore justify cutting down.

And again, if it's the department that decides to do it, how good is an internal revenue?

Thank you for the question.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

And if we have anyone else from whom we have not yet already heard for public comment for agenda item number four, if you wish to speak, you can line up to speak behind the next speaker.

My name is Sean Auckland.

I first stepped into this building after noticing how few trees we have, so I founded Fairtrees.org.

I urge you to reject this and join the over 1,000 San Franciscans that are in your file opposing this developer fee out option.

They are not here today, but they've written in over the last six months.

We are strongly pro-housing.

We envision a dense green San Francisco that's tall, but planting a street tree is not the barrier to building housing.

Otherwise, Yimby would be here supporting this.

The real barrier is the city's sluggish approval process to help developers speed up the permits, don't sell off our urban canopy even more.

Even with these amendments, this just means more pavement.

As you heard, if developers fee out, they will route water and electrical lines without regard for trees.

Retroactively moving utilities to plant a tree is financially impossible.

We can't even plant in the spots where we don't have those.

And as we know, public works does not even use the existing fees they have.

We see this firsthand in SOMA, my neighborhood, which suffers from a critically low 2.7% canopy cover.

We were told much of 10th Street is unplantable today because power lines claim the underground space.

If you do not mandate tree infrastructure at the outset, the site becomes unplantable forever.

So this is just another piece of legislation that makes SOMA worse, not better.

The recent amendment says large sites must still plant, but the square footage threshold is massive.

Most of the trees we have in SOMA are far below that and were planted by developers.

This will create a race to the bottom where developers just write a check to stay competitive.

And you can see here today how DPW has abused the hazard designation with screenshots.

Last month, it also removes the appeals board oversight from a department that has shown they need that oversight.

We need sweeping tree reform in San Francisco.

I've researched it for a year.

This is not it.

Over 1,000 residents have asked you, don't let developers buy their way out of a load livable environment.

Please reject this file.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, speakers.

Department of Board of Supervisors.

And I encourage you to uh vote against this ordinance supported by Mayor Lear Lurie and Supervisor Wong, because it weakens our existing environmental protections by allowing development to to buy out of the requirement to replace and plant trees.

It also diminishes and mutes the public voice by giving full fiat to the DPW to determine what's hazardous and to police it.

As the Board of Appeals has stated, what's wrong with the you know democratic process that exists?

Checks and balances is supposed to be what democracy is about.

To, you know, when you don't allow the public to weigh in on the beloved street trees and allow them to be declared hazardous and allow don't allow anyone to weigh in on that.

That's not democracy.

You know, we are the our elected supervisors are supposed to be the stewards of our environment as well as us as citizens.

But we have no if we have no say in that process, it you know, we'd you take away our voice.

So I ask you to vote against this.

The trees that we have, they they give us shade, they cool the environment, they provide uh uh life for our birds and our pollinators, and they bring beauty to all of us.

This is something that's worth protecting and worth uh ensuring that the public has a voice in.

Please vote against this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four?

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um I see Madison Tam here from at Supervisor Dorsey's office, who uh is not a member of this committee, but wanted uh to weigh in on this.

Thank you, Chair.

On behalf of Supervisor Dorsey, I'm here to propose a minor amendment to this legislation.

San Francisco's tree canopy, as Supervisor Chen mentioned, is among the lowest of any major U.S.

city, and SOMA in particular has a very low tree canopy coverage, and it's also designated as an environmental justice community.

Constituent-led research has documented hundreds of empty tree wells that remain unaddressed.

Earlier this year, the supervisor sent a letter of inquiry to public works asking how equity frameworks are applied to funding and tree planting.

As this ordinance provides a new revenue stream for the adopt a tree fund, this amendment ensures that the findings reflect the city's priority to direct that funding toward neighborhoods like SOMA that have a poor tree canopy.

This amendment adds a sentence to Section 2C of the findings following the existing discussion of the NLU fee mechanism.

It states that quote, in expending funds for planting and maintenance, the department intends to prioritize environmental justice communities identified in the general plans environmental justice framework and to improve tree canopy coverage across those neighborhoods.

This amendment is not legally substantive, and uh as was mentioned in the previous questions before public comment, it would preserve the department discretion that um that Supervisor Melgar asked about in regards to how we ensure that uh other neighborhoods, not just equity neighborhoods also have uh fair tree planting and canopy coverage.

This is in addition to the findings, not an operative code change, it doesn't alter the fee structure, waiver process, or any other provisions.

It simply documents legislative intent that can help uh guide the department's priorities and expenditures going forward.

So we respectfully ask the committee to adopt this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Tam.

Um, Supervisor Chen.

I would like to make a motion to adopt um the department's to adopt the amendments as three into the record to the record by Madison Tem on behalf of Supervisor Dorsey.

Um I'm just gonna uh provide a few comments before we uh vote on the motion if that's okay, Supervisor Chen.

Um so I uh think that you know, as a district seven supervisor, uh we the sort of trees and sidewalks are probably the number one issue that we deal with.

We are the largest district geographically, so it kind of makes sense, you know, that we have a lot of those uh complaints.

Um I will say that uh usually district seven is is a district that has a lot of trees.

Um we have a lot of open spaces, some of the trees are under DPW jurisdiction, some are under Reg Park.

Um I think that having been through these conversations for the last six years, I would say that most of them were trying to get to convince DPW that a tree was dangerous and presents a hazard to the public, um, not the other way around.

So, you know, I do think that um we need uh more capacity in the Department of Forestry.

We do need more folks uh you know looking at these issues.

Um a lot of the public comment that we have gotten in my office, uh both in writing and today, during public comment, thank you to all community members who came.

Um seem to uh uh think that if we allow people to fee out, that then those trees will never be planted.

And um that has not been my experience with the Department of Forestry and the staff uh at DPW.

In fact, I think they do a pretty outstanding job of uh organizing tree plantings and leveraging other resources besides uh the cities to uh make those uh you know plantings happen, and they go to great lengths to organize neighbors to be able to water the trees that first year while they're setting roots and taking care of them and do a lot of uh public education uh to make sure that those things happen.

So, you know, I I do want to make sure that I you know said that on the record because I do appreciate um the men and women who work at the Department of Forestry and DPW and the work that they do in adding to our tree canopy.

That being said, I also think there is a lot of work that we need to do in terms of public education.

Because on the other hand, I have often, often um heard from residents of the city who resisted having trees in front of their houses, not new developers, not people who were, you know, had a project, but people who resented having a tree in front of their door because they could no longer use the sidewalk to park in, which is illegal by the way, but people do it all over.

So um I do think that there is a great need, um, and I'm not this is not part of this legislation, but I would encourage you now that we have a new staff in the leadership, uh, that there is a connection between um pub public education on climate change, the role of trees and preventing flooding, all of those things.

The you know, temperature goes down, um, so that people perhaps more readily can take responsibility for our tree canopy.

Um, I lastly, I will be supporting this legislation.

I want to thank my colleagues who worked on amendments uh to make it better, and I do want to thank the mayor's office in particular because um, you know, this has been an evolution of a legislation since it was first proposed, and it has been made uh much better, you know, because of the collective efforts of all the supervisors.

you know temperature goes down um so that people perhaps more readily can take responsibility for our tree canopy um i lastly i will be supporting this legislation i want to thank my colleagues who worked on amendments uh to make it better and i do want to thank the mayor's office in particular because um you know this has been an evolution of a legislation since it was first proposed and it has been made uh much better um you know because of the collective efforts of all the supervisors um okay um did you want to weigh in supervisor i actually have more questions yeah go ahead supervisor thank you thank you um thank you chairmelgar uh again i i have one last question to dpw um that was prompted by the comment can you clarify how many appealed to this kind of decision and make uh actually make it to the board appealed good afternoon my name is julie lamar I'm executive director for the board of appeals and we're just puzzled because there's really not a problem here so few of city initiated orders get appealed to the board so we just were and we're kind of baffled by why it was even included in the legislation I mean just looking back to 2024 we had four appeals of city initiated orders two of those appeals were withdrawn so in effect we've had two appeals since 2024 and one of them is pending and so we're just kind of surprised that DPW is fighting to have to remove that and we just would like to add to that this creates an inconsistent adjudication process so this only applies to city initiated orders not to orders issued initiated by private parties like contractors if a contractor says oh I want a tree removed um even if it's they believe it's a hazard it's it's it's uh it's inconsistent they could go it can be appealed to the board of appeals so it doesn't make sense if they're if they were concerned about time or hazard and as people also pointed out the code already has uh an emergency provision we are of course public works does I I feel they have a lot of challenges but if there's an emergency and that tree needs to be removed they can do so without the appeal process.

So I do think the Board of Appeals is beneficial in that it does spotlight an area like we had on 24th Street like we had in Hayes and in Supervisor Mahmood's district and it it kind of forces the departments and the constituents to talk and and work out what a solution and I I think that's really beneficial and part of the democratic process.

Sorry that was a long answer but I do I do I do feel like it's really not a problem we're not you know slowing things up for the department given the very extremely low volume of appeals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything further I now that I have a question about city initiative appeals and contractors in uh initiated appeals.

So there's two so can we speak a little bit about you know the the differences between city initiated appeals and contractors private contractors initiated appeals.

So contractor initiated appeals they could do go and go to the board of appeal correct a private party if if it's a if it's an order that was um initiated by a private party if a contractor wants to remove or a homeowner wants to remove a significant tree that's within 10 feet of the sidewalk so that process can go through even the tree isn't not hazard yes in initi and just a initiation yes tree removals can be tree removals can be appealed this legislation is proposing a stream uh shorter time frame uh for regular tree uh uh removal appeals for that are related to city initiated orders so that is also a a bit confusing but we're trying to work with the departments and compromise so we uh agreed that we could uh successfully complete hearings within you know 30 days kind of mirroring the entertainment commission timeline uh but that's actually different than other tree removal orders if they weren't city initiated then they would we be have a longer process and so the also the major difference is hazard removals um of that were city initiated can only be appealed now to the director so yeah just inconsistent yeah thank you for clarifying it it's a true removal versus hazard tree removal right but for the hazard tree removal the there is no appeal right to the board of appeals under the proposed legislation and just as I said before it's not really a problem why are you trying to fix something that's not our problem we've had two cases and you know in years so we don't feel like it's detrimental to uh the Department of Public Works.

Why are you trying to fix something that's not our problem?

We've had two cases in, you know, in years.

So we don't feel like it's detrimental to uh the Department of Public Works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much at supervisor.

Did you want to weigh in on that, Mr.

Schneider?

No.

Yeah.

So it goes both ways, right?

There's been two appeals, but so while you're fixing a problem at the same time, it's is it really a big issue if it's been a question?

To appeal since 2024.

There have been a few additional going back further, and I demonstrated the one example of of uh a relatively recent uh prolonged appeal process in the presentation earlier.

As an example.

All right, thank you.

Um I don't see anyone else on the roster with uh questions or comments.

Um there's a motion uh on the floor from Supervisor Chen to uh take amendments uh into this legislation.

On the motion offered by Vice Chair Chen to accept the amendments proposed by Supervisor Dorsey.

On that motion, Vice Chair Chen?

Chen I.

Member Machmood?

Aye.

Mahmoud I.

Chair Melgar?

Aye.

Melgar, Madam Chair, there are three eyes on those amendments.

Um did you have amendments, Supervisor Dorsey?

Okay, go ahead.

Um I'd like to move uh a motion to move the amendments I read into the record uh before public comment as well.

On the motions uh to amend accepting the amendments from Supervisor Mahmoud, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair, there excuse me, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Um I would like to make a motion that we uh recommend the amended legislation amended uh as per Supervisor Chen and Supervisor Mahmood out of committee uh with a positive recommendation to the full board.

On the motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors as amended, Vice Chair Chen.

Aye.

Chen I, Member Machmood.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh okay, thank you, everyone.

Um let's go on to item number five, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number five is an ordinance amending the landmark designation for landmark number 307, the Turk and Taylor Streets intersection together with defined portions of 101 Taylor Street, known as the site of the Comptons cafeteria riot under Article 10 of the Planning Code to include the entire building at 101 to 121 Taylor and to expand the period of significance.

The ordinance also affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes other findings.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh Supervisor Mahmoud, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, we'd hope this item would be ready to advance at this point.

Unfortunately, there's still some work that we have to do with the city attorney's office and advocates to better reflect the community's desire to see a more thorough landmarking on the space.

Because of that, I will ask you, Chair, to vote to continue the item to the call of the chair.

Okay.

Um the um Supervisor Mahmoud has uh requested that we continue to call our chair.

So I will uh we have to hear public comment on this first, and then I will move that we do that.

So let's go to public comment, please.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number five, landmark designation for the site of the Comptons cafeteria riot.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern.

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair.

On the motion offered by Chair Melgar that this ordinance be continued to the call of the chair, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes once again.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, are there any other items our agenda today?

There is no further business.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.