Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants tree removal at 1641 Grove but requires permits, replacement and landscaping
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted an appeal allowing removal of a Brisbane box street tree at 1641 Grove on condition that the property owner first obtain all required building and curb‑cut permits and secure sidewalk‑landscaping approvals, and that the removed tree be replaced with a city‑approved 48‑inch box specimen.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 25 overturned Public Works’ denial of a street‑tree removal at 1641 Grove Street and authorized a tree‑removal permit under specific conditions. The Board’s action followed settlement discussions among the property owner, Bureau of Urban Forestry staff and neighbors and passed by recorded vote.
Chris Buck, urban forester with San Francisco Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry, told the Board the subject was a Brisbane box (Lophostemon confertus) that is relatively healthy but located under high‑ and low‑voltage lines, and that the department had concluded the tree was “wrong tree, wrong place.” Buck said a site visit verified space for a 48‑inch‑box replacement within the public right‑of‑way and recommended conditioning any removal on permits and replacement plantings.
Appellant Brad Susskind and Michelle Peterson, who said they will occupy the property, said the garage and driveway they propose are necessary for accessibility to care for their son, who uses a wheelchair after multiple surgeries. They proposed additional sidewalk landscaping, a permeable driveway and a 48‑inch box replacement tree of a species recommended by the Bureau of Urban Forestry.
Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and Planning staff briefed the Board on enforcement documents and notices of violation connected with the project. DBI staff said permits issued in 2017 were revoked in 2018 and a stop‑work order is in place while geotechnical and structural issues for adjacent properties are addressed. Neighbors testified they had experienced foundation damage and sought assurance that those enforcement issues would be resolved before further construction.
The Board adopted the parties’ settlement terms and granted the appeal, with a motion that the tree‑removal permit not be issued until the applicant obtains “all necessary permits to install a garage and a driveway curb cut,” and that the removed street tree be replaced with a 48‑inch box tree approved by the Bureau of Urban Forestry, located a few feet from the proposed driveway, together with additional sidewalk landscaping under a sidewalk‑landscaping permit administered by the Bureau of Urban Forestry. The motion passed by recorded vote and the permit was authorized with those conditions.
The action leaves unresolved the underlying enforcement matters identified by DBI (notices of violation and a revoked permit) and neighbors who said they sustained foundation damage; DBI indicated those issues remain subject to its enforcement process. The Board’s determination applies only to the tree‑removal permit and the specific conditions described; other building permits remain subject to DBI and Planning review and approval.
The Board added the matter to its records under the settlement terms and moved on to subsequent items.
