The September 24, 2025, meeting of the San Francisco City Council addressed a contentious issue regarding a permit for a rose trellis that has raised significant concerns among neighboring property owners. The discussion centered on the implications of the trellis's height, structural integrity, and potential fire hazards.

The meeting began with a presentation from the appellant, who detailed a history of disputes related to the permit holder's climbing roses, which have been allowed to grow against the appellant's building. The appellant highlighted that the previous rose-supporting structures had been improperly maintained, leading to damage on their property. Photographic evidence was presented, showing old wires and nails affixed to the siding of the appellant's building, as well as the current trellis, which measures 22 feet high and 20 feet wide.

The appellant argued that the new structure, built without a permit, is not a typical trellis but resembles a fence in scale and permanence. Concerns were raised about the roses growing over the trellis and directly touching the siding, which could lead to further damage. The appellant emphasized that the trellis violates several San Francisco building codes, including height restrictions for fences and the requirement for permits for structures exceeding certain dimensions.

Specific code sections were cited, indicating that the trellis exceeds the allowable height for residential properties and that no engineering plans had been submitted to ensure the structure's safety. The appellant expressed worries about the structural stability of the trellis, particularly under the weight of the climbing roses, and the potential for it to collapse onto their building.

Fire safety was another critical concern, as the trellis is positioned close to the appellant's building, increasing the risk of fire spread during dry seasons. The appellant requested that the permit be denied or, alternatively, that the trellis's height be reduced and its distance from the building increased.

Council President Transvinia posed questions regarding the impact of the trellis on the appellant's property. The appellant reiterated that the trellis allows the roses to damage their building and raised doubts about the structural integrity of the trellis itself.

The meeting concluded with a call for further review of the permit and the issues raised, highlighting the ongoing tensions between property rights and safety regulations in San Francisco. The council's next steps will likely involve a thorough examination of the permit application and the concerns presented by the appellant.