Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board Continues Street-Tree Appeal at 276 Francisco to Jan. 29

San Francisco Board of Appeals · January 8, 2014
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals continued an appeal by a homeowner seeking to remove a large street tree at 276 Francisco Street; DPW recommended preservation and a tree-well expansion option. The board continued the matter to Jan. 29 for department and appellant to explore compromises (vote 5-0).

The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued a Jan. 8 hearing on a homeowner'initiated appeal to remove and replace a mature street tree at 276 Francisco Street.

Property owner Julian McClelland told the board he seeks a smaller, deciduous replacement because the mature tree reduces sunlight on his historic 1863 cottage, has displaced the sidewalk and created tripping hazards. "I want to improve sunlight and warmth on my roof and southern exposure by replacing the existing tree with a new smaller deciduous tree," McClelland said.

Carla Short, urban forester with the Department of Public Works, said the department's policy is to preserve healthy mature street trees when possible and to repair sidewalks while retaining canopy benefits. "Our policy is to preserve mature trees when possible because they do provide greater benefits to the city and the residents of the city," Short said, and she proposed expanding the tree well or identifying a replacement species to reduce sidewalk damage.

Commissioners and the parties discussed alternatives including a pair of smaller trees or a different deciduous species (ornamental cherries were suggested as one option). Because the departments need time to verify utilities, sewer-line constraints and species suitability, the board continued the matter to Jan. 29 to let DPW and the appellant pursue a compromise. The continuation was approved unanimously.