Board modifies tree‑removal order for 577 Sanchez Street, conditions replacement tree and fees

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 30 considered competing appeals tied to a homeowner’s plan to install a one‑car garage at 577 Sanchez Street and the resulting Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) order authorizing removal of two trees.

Ed Hardy, an adjoining neighbor and appellant, urged the board to deny the permit allowing removal of two large mature trees, presenting revised architectural drawings and an 11‑page arborist report and offering an alternate design that he and his team said would preserve both trees while accommodating a garage. Architect Suhail Shatara and consulting arborist Roy Leggett testified that the alternate plan — shifting the garage south and raising the front wall roughly 12 inches — could avoid excavation near the significant on‑site juniper and preserve the street trees while yielding some excavation savings.

The property owners, Fred Bullock and Antonio Massa, said they need a garage for daily accessibility — Massa testified he is legally disabled and that on‑street parking near their home is unreliable — and argued that excavation and a street curb cut require removal of two trees. They said one removed on‑site tree would be replaced on their lot and that reworking plans to preserve both trees would impose time and cost burdens and risk losing fixed‑price contractor arrangements.

Carla Short of DPW’s Bureau of Urban Forestry told the board BUF initially found the trees in good condition and would prefer preservation, but that the department had granted removal at an earlier departmental hearing with conditions: submission of the in‑lieu fee for trees that could not be replaced and documentation showing required building and planning permits before removal could occur. Short said BUF would support replacement of the significant on‑site tree if soil volume and planting conditions are adequate and would impose an in‑lieu fee for any street tree that cannot be replanted.

After public comment and rebuttals from both sides, the board deliberated. On one of the paired appeals the board recorded a vote described in the transcript as "3 to 1 to uphold this permit" (the transcript shows President Kendall Goh voting No and Commissioner Tanya Peterson voting Aye in that roll call). On the companion appeal the board adopted a modified outcome: the board upheld the permit while striking the in‑lieu fee for the "significant" on‑site tree and requiring that any replacement tree be selected and sized at the discretion of DPW’s Bureau of Urban Forestry. The transcript records that conditioned, modified action as the board’s decision on that appeal.

Votes and conditions were explicit that permit work could not proceed until the permittees obtained required planning and building approvals; BUF’s representatives and planning staff confirmed that replacement species and planting size remained subject to departmental review and that removal could not occur until those conditions were met.

The board’s action leaves one removal permit standing and the other permitted removal subject to the board’s new condition: replacement of the significant tree at DPW BUF’s discretion and related procedural safeguards to ensure tree removal does not precede required building and planning approvals.

What’s next The board submitted the matter; the transcript records the conditioned permit as upheld with DPW discretion on replacement tree species and size. The parties may proceed with building‑permit steps required by Planning and Building Inspection before any tree removals occur.