Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees Urban Forest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Conditions Westside Courts Tree Removals; Orders Larger Replacement Trees for Monument Plantings
Summary
The Board of Appeals approved the developer's remediation/permit plan at Westside Courts but granted appellants' request for stronger replacement trees, requiring four monument trees to be 24-inch box stock and otherwise allowing on-site soil mitigation tied to lead-contaminated soils.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 17 weighed a contentious appeal over removal of "significant" trees at the Westside Courts public-housing redevelopment. Neighbors and tree advocates urged the board to save mature trees; the developer and public-health consultants said the site contains lead-impacted soils and the approved mitigation — which includes on-site retention and berming of contaminated soil — would damage tree roots and make retention infeasible.
Appellant Steve Williams told the board the trees were given "no consideration" in early site planning and argued the project had not followed the public-works tree-protection processes. "These trees were a complete afterthought," he said. Lisa Grady of the developer (Related California) and environmental consultant Tom Graff explained the due-diligence testing showed lead-impacted soils across the site and that the developer secured Department of Public Health approval for a site-mitigation plan that either off-hauls or retains soil on-site; retained on-site containment was far less expensive. Grady noted the project budget is roughly $40 million and that on-site retention avoided multi‑million dollar off-haul costs.
Chris Buck, San Francisco's urban forester, testified the trees targeted for removal have structural problems (historic topping cuts, decay and evidence of stem failures) and that "the trees are in very poor structural condition" and were "not salvageable" under the proposed mitigation. Buck recommended replacement plantings and said where removals occur the city should require larger replacement stock near the affected frontages.
Neighbors described the trees as neighborhood landmarks and criticized the lack of early public notice for key mitigation details (berming and on-site retention). The board balanced preservation concerns, the public-housing project budget, public-health constraints and urban-forestry advice. After discussion the board voted 4-0 to grant the appeal on terms: it allowed the mitigation plan to proceed but required upsized replacements for four 'monument' trees (condition that those trees be 24-inch box rather than 15-inch stock) and confirmed replacement requirements and monitoring with DPW.
What happens next: the developer will proceed with the approved soil-mitigation scheme under DPH approval and DPW oversight; the permit will include a condition that key replacement trees be planted in larger caliper boxes and monitored by Urban Forestry.
