Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal 3718 Mission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies request to remove two ficus trees at 3718 Mission Street, upholds Public Works order
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to deny Appeal No. 21-061 and uphold Order 204946, rejecting a property owner’s request to remove two ficus street trees at 3718 Mission Street after Public Works argued the trees are healthy and city crews previously repaired the sidewalk.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 20 upheld an order from the Bureau of Urban Forestry and denied an appeal seeking removal of two ficus street trees at 3718 Mission Street.
The appellant’s representative argued the trees had caused repeated sidewalk uplift and sewer problems at the ground-floor business and said repair receipts he submitted totaled “about $4,000.” The appellant asked the board to overturn the Bureau’s June 2020 denial of a tree-removal permit and to allow removal and replacement adjacent to the property.
Steve Keller, acting urban forester with San Francisco Public Works, told the board the applicant first applied for a removal permit in March 2020 and that the bureau denied the permit in June 2020 on the basis that the trees are healthy and provide needed canopy in an area with limited tree coverage. Keller said Public Works had pruned the trees in October 2019 and performed a sidewalk repair recorded on July 6, 2020, and he displayed photos and internal records showing pruning and a follow-up repair.
Keller also explained the bureau’s technical position on sewer lines and roots: aging or leaky sewer laterals typically develop cracks that attract fine roots, which can then exacerbate damage, but roots are seldom the primary causal factor. Keller said the bureau believed the immediate sewer issue reported by the appellant had been resolved without major excavation, and that if a sewer lateral truly required full replacement in a location that conflicted with the root zone, removal of a tree could be necessary.
The appellant disputed the bureau’s account, saying the sewer problem had not been fully resolved and that the repairs and photographs he supplied (taken in June 2021, he said) showed ongoing uplift that interfered with a business door and posed trip hazards. He asked for more time to produce camera-line or contractor documentation of sewer work.
Commissioners asked whether the building’s sewer lateral had been inspected with a camera and whether the lateral had previously been replaced; the appellant said he would need to locate those records. Board members also noted that since July 2017 Public Works assumed maintenance responsibility for sidewalk trees and for trip-hazard liability caused by tree roots, and that the bureau’s removals are generally limited to unhealthy trees or instances where sewer replacement cannot be completed without undermining a tree’s root system.
After discussion about precedent and the bureau’s steward role for the urban canopy, a motion was made to deny the appeal on the basis that the order was properly issued. President Daryl Honda moved to deny and uphold Order 204946; the motion carried with five Aye votes (Vice President Rick Swig, Commissioners Anne Lazarus, Jose Lopez and Tina Chang and President Honda), denying Appeal No. 21-061.
The board concluded by offering the appellant the opportunity to follow up with staff on procedural questions and site-specific remedies; the hearing then adjourned.
