Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit to remove 11 declining trees in St. Francis Wood
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 denied an appeal from a neighborhood homeowner and upheld a Public Works permit allowing Saint Francis Wood HOA to remove 11 declining trees on Yerba Buena Avenue and replace them with new plantings, citing public‑safety findings from certified arborists and city staff.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 denied an appeal and upheld a permit that allows Saint Francis Wood Homeowners Association to remove 11 trees identified as hazardous on Yerba Buena Avenue and to install replacement trees. Board members said a de novo review confirmed city arborists and the HOA’s certified arborist had documented decay and hazards enough to justify removal.
Appellant Mr. Bendusky asked the board to postpone work until spring, saying his independent arborist, Joe McBride, had recommended removing only four trees and that there was no imminent danger. "There is no proven or imminent danger," Bendusky said during his presentation, and he urged the board to delay removal so trees could recover.
Representing the permit holders, attorney Brian Mulry said certified arborists Steve Orman and Bureau of Urban Forestry inspector Steve Keller identified 11 trees that were in decline and hazardous. "These trees are dying," Orman told the board, urging removal for public safety. Chris Buck, Urban Forester for San Francisco Public Works, said staff evaluated the application and approved removal after finding decay and structural defects. Buck noted the HOA proposes to plant about 20 red maple replacements as part of a broader $250,000 landscaping plan and recommended species and minimum replacement sizes (24‑inch box minimum) be left to Urban Forestry review.
Members of the public were split. Some neighborhood residents described dropped branches and longtime decline; others urged preservation and questioned whether prior removals had been permitted. The board asked staff about jurisdictional limits, replacement stock and whether previous removal obligations had been met.
After deliberation the board moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that removal would allow renewal of the vegetation and address public‑safety concerns. The motion carried 4–0.
Next steps: the permit remains in effect and Public Works will oversee removal and replacement plantings in coordination with the HOA. The board did not impose additional conditions beyond standard permit requirements.
