Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals allows removal of mature street tree at 276 Francisco Street with requirement to plant two columnar replacements
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 29 granted Grinling McClellan’s appeal of a denied tree-removal permit for 276 Francisco Street, overruling the DPW denial on condition that two deciduous, columnar trees be planted in consultation with the Bureau of Urban Forestry.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 29 granted an appeal that lets a property owner remove a privately maintained street tree at 276 Francisco Street, provided the owner plants two deciduous, columnar replacement trees chosen in consultation with the Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF).
At the hearing, Carla Short, an urban forester with DPW, explained the department’s spacing and utility setback rules and said the department’s preference was to retain the single mature tree if possible. Short told the board that utility setbacks require a minimum of 3 feet on center from a gas line and 5 feet on center from sewer infrastructure, and that standard street-tree spacing is typically 20 feet on center. She said two replacement trees at the site would be only about 13 feet apart on center, smaller than the usual spacing, which would limit canopy at maturity but could be feasible with columnar varieties such as a Princeton Century ginkgo.
Appellant Grinling McClellan described the tree’s impact on light for a bougainvillea and the small footprint of his property, and said he preferred a single replacement but would accept two deciduous trees of a selected columnar variety. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to overrule DPW’s denial and grant the removal permit on the condition that two deciduous, columnar replacement trees be planted with species and placement selected in consultation with DPW/BUF. The motion passed on a 4–0 roll call.
The board’s action did not require the selection of a specific species in the motion; instead, it delegated species selection and final spacing to BUF in consultation with the property owner. The board also noted DPW’s assessment that, depending on species, canopy competition could require pruning but would not necessarily threaten long-term health.
The decision resolves the appeal by balancing the property owner’s sunlight concerns with the city’s street-tree spacing and utility-proximity guidelines. DPW/BUF will have the authority to approve specific species and placement as part of the condition imposed by the board.
