Board of Appeals continues Panoramic tree dispute after debate over 60‑inch requirement

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 14 continued an appeal over a tree‑replacement condition for the Panoramic student housing project at 1321 Mission St., sending the question back for interagency coordination and additional study.

Developer Patrick Kennedy and project representatives told the board they could not fit the five 60‑inch box trees the Board had required when it approved the removal of the site’s prior trees. "It is physically impossible for us to put in 60 inches box trees in this location," Kennedy said, describing large utility boxes and a two‑foot curb strip required for ADA access that they say leave insufficient planting room.

Urban Forester Chris Buck said the department views the planting requirement as central and offered alternatives, including enforcing the original condition or assessing an in‑lieu fee for the smaller trees: "Planting those 60 inches box trees is the center of your universe when you're playing out that sidewalk in the public right of way," Buck said. He estimated the purchase-and‑installation cost at about $5,000 per 60‑inch tree and $2,900 for a 36‑inch tree, a $2,100 difference per tree that would total roughly $10,500 for four smaller trees.

Project manager Zach Shore argued the developer had sought to meet conditions and that practical constraints exposed during final site work made 60‑inch boxes infeasible. "When we put [utilities] in…we found that we could not put in 60 inches trees," Shore said, adding that his team planted nine trees overall and would consider mitigation elsewhere.

Neighbors and stakeholders weighed in during the public‑comment period. David Schoenburn, president of Musicians Union Local 6, said the project had been accommodating but reported property impacts from a newly planted tree: "By placing the tree there...there was a tremendous amount of water coming into our basement." Jennifer Grant, a nearby nonprofit staffer, urged larger trees: "We would like big trees…if it's gonna cost $10,000 the amount of money that's been poured into the building already, it's a drop in the bucket."

Commissioners discussed several paths: require the developer to replace the planted 36‑inch boxes with 60‑inch trees (potentially disruptive and expensive), accept the smaller trees subject to an in‑lieu fee, reconfigure tree spacing, or continue the hearing to secure participation from the relevant DPW divisions. Several commissioners said they wanted the departments to try to reach a practical solution rather than immediately compel tree removal.

President Anne Lazarus moved to continue the item to Dec. 9 with a request that DPW divisions involved in sidewalk and ADA decisions attend; the motion passed 4–0. The continuation gives the parties time to test whether 60‑inch trees can be planted in situ, whether a mitigation plan is feasible, or whether an in‑lieu payment or relocation of a tree would address neighbor impacts.

The Board asked staff to confirm which DPW units will attend and to allow the parties to present revised plans at the December hearing.