Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing on Brotherhood Way tree removal and one-lane closure permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from Park Merced-area residents who argued an EIR and an arborist report conflicted with a special traffic permit authorizing tree removal along Brotherhood Way; the board voted 5–0 to deny rehearing and suggested planning and Urban Forestry address tree/mitigation questions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 12 denied a request for rehearing from Park Merced neighborhood advocates challenging a special traffic permit and associated tree removals along Brotherhood Way.
Julian Lagos of the Park Merced coalition told the board he found an excerpt in the Park Merced environmental impact report (EIR) that, he said, indicates trees along the southern slope adjacent to Brotherhood Way were to remain; he also said he received an arborist memorandum dated June 11, 2013 that the coalition interprets as recommending removal of 24 trees, not the 93 trees Arborwell requested to remove. "This is our smoking gun," Lagos said, urging a rehearing so the board could question the permit holder and planning staff about the discrepancy.
Arborwell's representative, Sam Oakley, said the company followed permitting procedures and removed trees that were diseased or hazardous; he said Arborwell is coordinating with Park Merced and an additional arborist and will follow required replanting and urban-forestry permits. Norman Wong of SFMTA explained the special traffic permit authorizes a one-lane closure for a two-week construction period and is supplemental to any tree- or demolition-related permits from other departments.
Commissioners discussed whether the Board of Appeals is the appropriate forum for tree-removal decisions and whether some concerns should be addressed by Planning or the Bureau of Urban Forestry. Vice President Arcelya Hurtado moved to deny the rehearing request; the board voted 5–0 to deny and directed that notices of decision and order be released.
Speakers at the meeting requested time to review an arborist report they said they had not previously received and asked Planning to provide a written report on whether actions complied with the EIR. The board's denial did not preclude separate review or enforcement actions by Planning or Urban Forestry, which commissioners said have primary jurisdiction for some aspects of tree management.
