Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Irving Streetscape tree‑species appeal after residents oppose palm replacements
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued the Mid Sunset Neighborhood Association’s appeal of a Public Works order to remove 33 street trees and plant 77 windmill palms on Irving Street, voting unanimously to reconvene the matter on April 20, 2016 for further community‑department discussion.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 9, 2016 voted unanimously to continue an appeal over the Irving Streetscape project to April 20 to allow the Department of Public Works, Urban Forestry, neighborhood associations and the district supervisor’s office to reconvene and seek broader input on tree species selection.
The Mid Sunset Neighborhood Association, represented by Veil Alleva and Shane Hill, appealed a Dec. 31, 2015 permit authorizing the removal of 33 street trees along Irving Street and their replacement with 77 windmill palm trees as part of the Irving Streetscape Improvement Project. The appellants said the public outreach gave limited choices, that palms provide little canopy or carbon‑absorption benefit, and that palms require more frequent maintenance paid by property owners — all of which, they argued, would alter the neighborhood’s character and provide inferior environmental benefits compared with conventional canopy species.
Mike Reager, project manager for the Irving Streetscape Improvement Project at the Department of Public Works, described the project scope and outreach. The project — funded in part by the voter‑approved 2011 road repaving and street safety bond with an allocation of $3,000,000 — includes sidewalks, bulb‑outs, curb ramps, decorative crosswalks, LED street‑lighting upgrades and street trees along Irving from 19th to 27th avenues. Reager said five publicly noticed meetings were held and that about 54% of voting attendees at the final meeting selected windmill palm as their top choice from a limited matrix of species his staff presented; he said palms were chosen for survivability in a windy, salty microclimate and that the contractor will maintain new trees for one year before responsibility shifts to fronting property owners.
Chris Buck, an urban forester with Public Works, told the board the corridor’s microclimate (prevailing winds, salt spray) and merchant concerns about storefront visibility constrained species selection; he said windmill palms are an approved street species and are low‑maintenance relative to other options, though he acknowledged a desire for more canopy where feasible and suggested side streets could receive fuller canopy trees.
Residents and merchants who testified said the poll method created a false sense of choice, that limited attendance at meetings did not represent the whole neighborhood, and that other canopy‑providing species (for example, Tristania) were suitable and on the DPW species list. Several speakers urged reconvening with Friends of the Urban Forest or other independent arborists to identify alternative species or a mixed planting approach.
After deliberation, the board voted 5–0 to continue the appeal to April 20, 2016 to allow the parties and Supervisor Tang’s office to convene and attempt to narrow differences or identify acceptable alternatives. Construction activities unrelated to tree removals may continue; the continuance is intended to create a structured process for additional outreach and species recommendations.
