Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Board of Appeals denies rehearing request over 1001 Potrero tree removals
Summary
The Board of Appeals declined a rehearing request on an order allowing tree removals at UCSF’s 1001 Potrero Avenue site, finding the appellant did not present new material evidence; the board also rejected an asserted conflict of interest by President Anne Lazarus.
President Anne Lazarus and the four-member San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 4–0 vote declined a rehearing request tied to an earlier Urban Forestry order covering tree removals at 1001 Potrero Avenue. Appellant Christopher Seguin had argued the project failed to notify neighbors and concealed changes in project plans that resulted in the loss of a grove of city trees.
Seguin, who identified himself as the appellant, told the board that occupants of opposite block faces were not notified by U.S. mail and that documentation showed the project had 100% plans in October and filed an EIR addendum in November, but failed to disclose a change in building position that he said led to tree removals and other impacts. "This project has a multitude of problems that need to be resolved before you can approve this permit," Seguin said during his remarks.
The board heard responses from the permit holder’s counsel and city staff. Charles Olson, representing the Regents of the University of California, said the rehearing standard had not been met and that the appellant "has failed to carry his burden in showing that new or different material facts or circumstances have arisen since the last hearing." Chris Buck, Urban Forester with Public Works, said the exhibits cited by the appellant did not contain new information and confirmed that in-lieu fees and tree-planting requirements apply.
Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi addressed a separate allegation that Board President Anne Lazarus had a conflict of interest. "We looked into the question ... and determined that she does not have a conflict under section 10 90 of the government code," Russi said, adding that Lazarus had worked for a separate legal entity from UCSF.
Commissioners said the bar for rehearing is high and that CEQA-related challenges to the EIR are not matters for the Board of Appeals. Vice President Darrell Honda moved to deny the rehearing request on the basis that there was no manifest injustice and no new material that could not have been presented at the earlier hearing; the motion carried 4–0.
The matter was submitted and the board moved on to the next item on the agenda.
