Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals sides with homeowner, requires two smaller replacement trees on Diamond Heights
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted an appeal over the removal of two cypress street trees at 5407 Diamond Heights Boulevard and amended the Public Works order to require replacement with two smaller trees selected by the Bureau of Urban Forestry. The decision follows testimony about safety, maintenance costs and neighborhood planting constraints.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 5 granted an appeal over a Public Works tree‑removal order affecting two cypress trees at 5407 Diamond Heights Boulevard and conditioned its decision on replanting with two smaller trees chosen by the Bureau of Urban Forestry.
Homeowner Tom Johnson told the board the trees have been part of his building for decades and argued the trees are healthy and had been effectively pruned to avoid safety concerns. Representatives of the homeowners association and the Bureau of Urban Forestry countered that the trees are the “wrong tree in the wrong place,” citing the narrow public right‑of‑way, repeated maintenance costs and guidance in the city’s Street Tree SF policy.
Chris Buck of Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry showed site photos and cited guidance in the department’s director’s order that generally disallows planting trees in tree basins directly adjacent to building facades. Buck said that although the trees are not unusually large compared with many street trees, their proximity to the building and constrained sidewalk space make long‑term management and replacement impractical.
Commissioners questioned staff and the parties about prior pruning, the 30 percent pruning guideline, species alternatives and whether replacement planting could preserve canopy while avoiding future sidewalk and structural conflicts. Buck proposed options such as Hollywood juniper or hawthorn as potential ornamental replacements.
Vice President Daryl Honda moved to grant the appeal and amend the Public Works order, conditioning the action on replacement with two trees selected at the discretion of the Bureau of Urban Forestry on the basis that the existing trees are inappropriate for the location. The board approved the motion 5–0.
The order leaves specifics of species and planting details to Public Works, and commissioners urged the parties to work with the Bureau to identify a low‑maintenance, small‑stature species acceptable to both homeowners and the HOA.
