Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urbanforestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board conditions tree‑removal permit at site of 94‑unit Third Street project, delays cutting until Planning Commission hearing
Summary
After testimony from arborists, neighbors and the project sponsor, the San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld a DPW permit to remove two large eucalyptus trees at 2051 Third Street but imposed conditions: trees cannot be removed until the Planning Commission’s large‑project authorization hearing on June 5, 2014, and replacement street trees must meet a minimum planting‑stock size of 48‑inch box when feasible.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 7 upheld a Department of Public Works permit to remove two large eucalyptus trees at 2051 Third Street but placed conditions on the removal, saying the trees may not be cut down until after the Planning Commission’s large‑project authorization hearing on June 5, 2014, and ordering generous replacement planting.
The decision came after more than an hour of testimony in which two consulting arborists and multiple neighbors described competing views of the trees’ health, safety risk and community value. Ray Maritz, a licensed arborist retained by appellants, described the trees as “the only mature trees on that block” and said they provide habitat and visual benefit; he testified they are valuable and can live many more years with restorative pruning. Roy Leggett, the project sponsor’s consulting arborist, described recent limb failures and structural problems he attributed to past topping cuts and the trees’ raised‑bed planting, and warned that “the amount of risk that these trees pose is substantial.”
Carla Short of the Department of Public Works told the Board that DPW initially approved the removals because the trees showed structural concerns, were planted in raised planters that limit root development, and had evidence of past poor pruning. Raintree Partners, the property owner, said keeping the trees would reduce the proposed project by an estimated 15 units and about 16 parking spaces, and would remove two of the on‑site below‑market‑rate units the sponsor was proposing. Rick Price of Raintree said the developer plans to plant five magnolia street trees and make other streetscape improvements if removal is allowed.
Neighbors urged preservation or delay. Amy Bickerton, who lives next door, said the trees are “big, beautiful” and provide wildlife and privacy; several neighbors urged that removal be held until the planning entitlement is decided so that tree removal not precede a final development decision.
Commissioners threaded those concerns into a conditional decision. Commissioner Chris Huang moved to grant the appeal (which challenges DPW’s issuance of the permit) but to condition the permit so that trees are not removed until the Planning Commission hearing on June 5, 2014, and that replacement street trees be planted at a minimum of a 48‑inch box (48‑inch preferred, 60‑inch if feasible). After an initial vote was clarified to require four affirmative votes, the motion carried unanimously. President Anne Lazarus and Commissioners Frank Fung and Daryl Honda joined Huang in the final vote.
The Board’s action preserves the Department of Public Works’ authority to permit the removals while postponing irreversible work until the project’s planning review concludes and requires larger replacement trees to shorten the time before the streetscape matures.
