Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals permits Trinity Place to remove six Market Street trees, requires 36-inch replacements and three-year maintenance
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-0 to grant Trinity Place's appeal allowing the removal of six street trees on Market Street, conditioned on planting replacement trees in 36-inch boxes of species set by the Better Market Street plan and maintaining them until established or for three years.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 19 granted an appeal by Trinity Properties to remove six street trees in front of Trinity Place at 1169 Market Street, concluding replacement with larger specimens would improve long-term canopy health.
Tom Tunney, attorney for Trinity Properties, told the board the project now seeks removal of three remaining marginal trees at the Phase 4 Market Street entrance and offered to plant nine new trees elsewhere or pay an in-lieu fee. "Trinity seeks to replace the trees with 36-inch boxes instead of the normal 24 inches," Tunney said, adding the developer has a track record of planting and maintaining trees on and near the project.
Scott Wheeler, a board-certified master arborist retained by Trinity, said the existing trees show long-term decline and that a uniform grove of healthy replacements would better serve canopy continuity. "These last three trees are only going to continue to decline," Wheeler testified, arguing replacement species better suited to the microclimate would increase survival and long-term canopy benefits.
Chris Buck, urban forester with San Francisco Public Works' Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUFF), described staff's earlier decision to approve removal of seven trees while denying removal for six others, and said re-inspection led BUFF to concede that three of those previously denied trees had worsened and could be removed. Buck emphasized, however, that several trees remain in fair condition and BUFF acted to protect mature stock where feasible. Buck also noted replacement species for Market Street are specified under the Better Market Street plan and said BUFF could not, for example, accommodate some species proposed by the applicant.
Public commenters pressed for careful protection of remaining trees and questioned earlier construction-related damage to trunks near the site. One commenter said pictures from the previous hearing showed trees strapped to barricades and bark abrasion, urging enforcement if protections had lapsed.
After questioning, Commissioner Tina Chang moved to grant the appeal on the condition that the order be revised to allow removal of tree numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, that each replaced tree be planted in 36-inch boxes of species specified by the Better Market Street plan, and that the appellant maintain replacements until established or for three years, whichever comes first. The motion carried 3-0 (Commissioners Lazarus and Vice President Swigg joined Chang). The motion also included a recommendation encouraging the appellant to follow its previously stated 3-to-1 replacement commitment where practicable.
The board's order limits itself to the permit at issue and does not change citywide BUFF policy or standards. BUFF staff told the board they will continue to monitor protections and species compliance during installation and establishment.
