Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals Denies Appeal of Street‑tree Removal, Upholds Public Works Order for 451220 Third Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a Public Works order allowing removal of an unhealthy street tree at 451220 Third Street to enable a proposed 13‑unit housing project and required replacement with three street trees; the vote was 3–0 (one recusal).
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal to block removal of a street tree at 451220 Third Street, upholding Public Works Order No. 204945 by a 3–0 vote with President Darrell Honda recused from that matter. The order authorizes removal of a declining New Zealand Christmas tree on the public right of way and conditions the permit on replacement plantings.
Appellants argued the tree provides canopy and wildlife habitat and disputed the city’s assessment; appellant Michal Hebden Koczkowski presented site videos and said neighbors had cared for the canopy for years. The permit holder and city arborists presented certified arborist and ecological reports concluding the tree is unhealthy (less than 30% foliage, structural problems, and heavy dead wood) and that removal is warranted. Patrick Cobenas, an ecologist for the permit holder, said surveys found no nesting birds or evidence of badger habitat and recommended pre‑construction nesting‑bird surveys if work occurs during bird‑nesting season.
Bureau of Urban Forestry staff explained the inspector determined the tree is in decline, suppressed under adjacent canopy and choked by ivy; the bureau conditioned removal on planting three replacement street trees and indicated planting and inspection would be required before final sign‑off on the related building work. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the narrow scope of the appeals hearing — whether the tree met the code criteria for removal — and not the broader merits of the housing project.
Commissioner Swig said he was “very, very comfortable” relying on the Bureau of Urban Forestry’s recommendation and the replacement requirement, while Commissioner Chang moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. The motion carried 3–0.
The permit is tied to a pending planning approval for a 13‑unit affordable housing project; the board and parties noted that planning approvals and building permits proceed through separate processes. The Bureau of Urban Forestry indicated that building job‑card finalization typically requires demonstration the replacement trees are planted, but a board member clarified that that condition arises from separate DBI‑BUF practice and is not itself an order from the Board of Appeals.
