Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies rehearing on 95 Nordhoff tree relocation after experts disagree on transplant outcomes
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request over moving a large redwood at 95 Nordhoff, after neighbors presented photos and a UC Berkeley researcher raised concerns about post‑transplant decline while project proponents and Public Works said available evidence did not meet the rehearing standard.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 14 denied a rehearing request over the proposed relocation of a protected redwood at 95 Nordhoff, concluding appellants did not present new information sufficient to reopen their case.
Appellants Judith Ticke and Steven Gantz argued that photos and site visits to two previously transplanted redwoods — one at UC Berkeley and one at Cotati — show canopy thinning, dead branches and a white residue on trunks that a UC Berkeley researcher told them was unusual and could indicate weakened defenses following transplanting. Ticke said that evidence, if known earlier, might have affected last month’s hearing outcome and the tree mover’s demonstrated experience in dense urban settings.
Tom Tunney, counsel for the permit holder, and David Cox of Environmental Design disputed the claim that the examples demonstrated systemic transplant failure. Cox said his firm moves trees nationwide, including in dense urban settings, and showed recent photos he said demonstrated tree recovery. The permit holder’s counsel and the Department of Public Works’ urban forestry superintendent, Carla Short, told the board that DPW staff had inspected the referenced trees and that canopy differences could reflect photo angles, drought stress or irrigation issues rather than transplant‑related mortality. Short said relocated trees require supplemental irrigation for several years and that the department did not see signs indicating the Cotati or Berkeley trees were in irreversible decline.
Board members debated whether the new materials raised facts that could not have been produced earlier. Multiple speakers urged caution given the tree’s size and neighborhood value; others said the standard for rehearing is high. Vice President Frank Fung and a majority of commissioners found the new submissions did not meet the board’s narrow rehearing threshold and voted to deny the request 4–1, with Commissioner Rick Swig dissenting.
The decision affirmed the earlier permit outcome and leaves the proposed relocation plan in place; DPW said it would continue to monitor the condition of transplanted trees.
