Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal over rear-yard redwoods, upholds site permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied Anamar’s appeal of a site permit for a two‑story rear addition at 66320 First Avenue, finding the permit was properly issued after planning and DBI review; neighbors’ arborist concerns were disputed by the permit holders’ arborist and departments cited the building code’s limits and recommended mitigation measures.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 20 denied an appeal that sought to overturn a site permit for a rear-yard addition at 66320 First Avenue, concluding the permit was properly issued and that the record supported DBI and planning staff conclusions.
Appellant Anne Marr said her experts concluded the project’s excavation would permanently damage at least 25% of the redwoods’ roots and could render the trees hazardous, citing prior local tree failures and the city’s urban forestry code. "Experts determine at least 25% of our trees' roots will be excavated, damaged, and lost permanently," Marr said during testimony.
The permit holders presented an arborist report by Ellen Shea (included in their filing) concluding the trees would tolerate some feeder-root loss if protected and managed: the permit holder told the board the arborist concluded "the organism is healthy and maternal to survive some feeder root loss with proper care," and said they plan to follow the report’s protective measures (fencing, watering, limited construction within the root protection zone).
Corey Teague (Planning Department) explained the planning code provides limited controls for private rear-yard trees unless a tree is within 10 feet of the right of way or landmarked; planning staff said the planning commission previously reviewed the matter and did not impose additional conditions. Joe Duffy (Department of Building Inspection) said the building code requires that no roots remain in a foundation and that inspections would enforce that code requirement.
After discussion, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it had been properly issued; the motion carried with recorded ayes and the permit stands. The board’s decision does not prevent future permit revisions or civil remedies if on-site work later violates building-code requirements.
