Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Significant Tree Relocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and builder clash over plan to relocate 50-foot redwood; board continues case to allow full participation
Summary
The board heard hours of testimony over a proposed relocation of a significant coast redwood at 95 Nordoff Street. Neighbors urged denial, arguing relocation lacks statutory basis and risks the tree and neighborhood character; DPW and the sponsor said relocation was feasible and aimed to preserve the tree. Commissioners continued the matter to Aug. 17 to allow a full vote.
A contested appeal over the proposed relocation of a 50-foot coast redwood at 95 Nordoff Street dominated the Board of Appeals meeting on May 18. Neighbors and preservation advocates urged the board to overturn a Department of Public Works decision that approved relocating — rather than outright removing — a tree identified by the Bureau of Urban Forestry as significant.
Appellant Steven Gans and neighbors described the tree as a community landmark: “This is a 50 foot tall coast redwood…one of the largest trees in the neighborhood providing shade, habitat and character,” Gans said, arguing relocation lacks explicit legislative authority and pointing to code sections that, in his view, contemplate removal but not relocation. Appellants also urged safeguards if relocation were allowed — geotechnical review, bonds to protect adjacent historic homes and contingencies to house neighbors during construction.
The project sponsor presented Environmental Design Inc.’s David Cox, a tree-transplanting specialist who described the firm’s extensive experience moving large trees nationwide, and said modern techniques and a three-year maintenance contract make relocation feasible. Carla Short of Public Works told commissioners the department approved relocation only after reviewing a proposal and considering it a way to preserve the tree in situ with environmental benefits.
More than a dozen neighbors and neighborhood associations spoke in opposition during a sustained public-comment period, raising procedural fairness, potential precedent for de-listing significant trees’ public value, and concerns about the tree’s visibility and the effects of excavating hundreds of cubic yards of soil. Conversely, supporters stressed preservation and cited the sponsor’s commitments to protect the tree’s health in a new location.
After extended questioning and debate, several commissioners expressed reservations and noted the board lacked a full bench; the panel voted to continue the matter to August 17, 2016, so the missing commissioner can participate. No final disposition on the permit was made; the continuance preserves the record and allows additional deliberation and participation.
