Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees And Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds ArborWell special traffic permit for Brotherhood Way despite neighborhood objections
Summary
The Board of Appeals on Feb. 19 upheld an SFMTA special traffic permit allowing ArborWell to remove hazardous trees on Brotherhood Way, rejecting an appeal by nearby residents who cited notice failures, Blue Book violations, erosion risk and alleged EIR conflicts. The board directed MTA to recalculate the permit's effective dates and upheld the permit 4-0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 19 denied an appeal of an SFMTA special traffic permit that would allow ArborWell to remove hazardous trees on Brotherhood Way, ruling that the permit had been properly issued but asking the agency to recalculate the permit's effective dates.
Appellant Julian Lagos, representing local residents, argued the Municipal Transportation Agency had not done adequate site review or notification and cited multiple Blue Book requirements that he said were unmet, including the need for a state-certified flagger or a police officer for sidewalk closures and school-zone impacts. Lagos also warned of erosion risk on the hillside and said some Park Merced residents had not received mailed notice of the permit hearing.
"We believe that the MTA did not do their due diligence on the issuance of this permit to ArborWell," Lagos said, adding concerns about concurrent construction near 800 Brotherhood Way and the potential narrowing of lanes.
ArborWell's representative, Neil Warner, and consulting arborist Roy Leggett said the trees posed a public-safety hazard and the company needed the permit to remove downed and unsafe trees. "We need the permit to complete the work... It's an issue of public safety," Warner told the board. Leggett told commissioners the grove contained large, hazardous Monterey pines and described prior incidents, noting "this is management of critical hazards to life and property."
SFMTA staff explained the special-traffic-permit process, describing the blue-book traffic-control standards (signs, flashing arrow board, flagger) and noting that a senior inspector had visited the site on at least two occasions and found no active work that would have required immediate enforcement action. SFMTA also confirmed it had issued prior special-traffic permits to the contractor for the site.
Public commenters including Park Merced residents and the Park Merced Action Coalition raised EIR, notice and replanting concerns and requested a geotechnical review and a planting plan. ArborWell and Park Merced representatives said they had engaged experts and plan to develop replanting and soil analyses as the project proceeds.
After deliberation the board concluded the permit had been properly issued for the lane closure as requested but emphasized that broader environmental and replanting issues lie with code enforcement and planning processes. The board's motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit with a directive for MTA to recalculate the permit period passed 4-0.
Key factual details cited at the hearing: the permit authorizes a one-lane closure (about 200 yards in length) for a multi-week work window, the permit paperwork listed work dates between Jan. 14 and Jan. 30, 2014, and witnesses estimated roughly 93 trees on the hillside involved in removal or management.
The board's action preserved the special-traffic permit while signaling the need for continued coordination among SFMTA, ArborWell, Park Merced representatives and code-enforcement/planning offices on replanting and erosion mitigation work.
