Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landmark Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals grants appeal over fence permit, conditions protection of landmark manzanita
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted Rose Hilson's appeal and conditioned a fence-permit at 112 Commonwealth Ave on a revised footing/fence plan and an approved tree-protection plan signed by the Bureau of Urban Forestry and DBI. The vote was 4-0.
Vice President Anne Lazarus and the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4-0 on Jan. 15, 2020 to grant an appeal filed by Rose Hilson challenging a building permit for an 8-foot fence at 112 Commonwealth Avenue, and to require a revised permit and a tree protection plan approved by the Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI).
Hilson, who said she is the "protector of a landmark manzanita tree," told the board the permit (permit number 201911066606) issued on Nov. 6, 2019 lacked the required preapproval steps under Public Works Code Article 16 and did not show the landmark tree on applicant drawings. She said city procedures require the zoning administrator and Public Works to identify landmark trees and to impose measures that protect roots, trunk and branches before a permit that could harm a landmark is issued.
The permit holder, George Hume, and his representatives said they had worked with Hilson and with arborists, produced two tree-protection plans (one by the contractor and one by arborist Roy Liggett) and had coordinated with BUF and DBI during prior landscaping and fence work. DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy told the board the permit had been reviewed and issued properly and that the proposed fence work could be done without excavation by using existing footings and welded brackets while an arborist monitored work.
Planning Department staff acknowledged gaps in process for flagging adjacent landmark trees and said planning and DBI would improve GIS and routing steps so landmark trees are identified earlier in the permit workflow. Chris Buck of the Bureau of Urban Forestry said landmark trees carry the highest protections and that BUF had been involved previously in outreach and inspections at the site.
After questioning whether the required director-approved tree protection plan had been obtained before issuance, commissioners debated remedies. The board elected not to revoke the permit outright; instead it granted Hilson's appeal subject to explicit conditions. The motion, made by Commissioner Rachel Tanner and adopted unanimously, requires the permit to be revised to show the exact footing and fence locations and to include a tree protection plan approved by DBI and BUF before work may proceed.
The board noted that its action ensures interagency review and a documented, enforceable protection plan for the landmark tree and directs staff to improve interagency routing for future permits involving adjacent landmark trees.
The board's decision was recorded on the Jan. 15, 2020 minutes as a 4-0 vote in favor of the appellant and will be reflected in DBI permit records and BUF sign-off requirements.
