Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Street Trees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues disputed Dorado Terrace street‑tree removal to Jan. 9 after ownership questions

San Francisco Board of Appeals · November 7, 2018
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals continued Paul Lansey’s appeal of a Public Works order to remove two street trees at 317 Dorado Terrace to Jan. 9 after questions about current ownership and whether Public Works can legally pursue the previously fined (but now former) owner.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 7 continued consideration of a Public Works order allowing removal of two red ironbark eucalyptus adjacent to 317 Dorado Terrace to Jan. 9 so the department can verify ownership and potential enforcement options.

Chris Buck of the Bureau of Urban Forestry told the board he had negotiated with appellant Paul Lansey and property interests and identified a potential planting site and candidate replacement species, but that the narrow planting strip adjacent to the building made replanting difficult. Lydia Chan, who said she represented the previous owners (Danny and Stella Chan), objected to replacement at the building face because of narrow sidewalks, potential moisture damage to walls and lack of an ongoing maintenance commitment by the prior owners.

Board members questioned whether the city was negotiating with the right party after staff said the property had sold in May 2017. Vice President Svigg/Zwick moved to continue the matter to Jan. 9 so Public Works could confirm current ownership and advise on whether it could legally issue permits to the proper party or must pursue removal itself. The motion carried.

Public Works said the trees had not yet been removed and that staff would research whether permitting or city‑initiated removal was required, and would report back at the continued hearing.