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 of Appeals upholds DPW denial of four tree removals at 650 Church Street

San Francisco Board of Appeals · September 8, 2010
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 San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-1 to uphold the Department of Public Works’ denial of four tree removal permits at 650 Church Street after hearing safety, cost and streetscape arguments from the property manager and neighbors.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-1 on Sept. 8 to uphold the Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry’s denial of four tree removal requests at 650 Church Street.

Carla Short, urban forester with the Department of Public Works, told the board the property owner applied to remove seven trees; DPW approved removal of three and denied removal of four because the sidewalk could be repaired via basin expansion and an on-site arborist inspection when the sidewalk was opened. Short said two of the contested trees are Metrosideros excelsa and two are Corymbia physicifolia (red flowering gum), and that DPW’s Urban Forestry Ordinance directs the department to protect mature, healthy trees when public safety and tree condition permit.

Jennifer Salerno, property manager for 650 Church (Meridian Management Group), said the owners would rather replace the trees with smaller, “urban-appropriate” specimens and absorb replacement costs than undertake expensive sidewalk repairs that may recur. Salerno told the board she and tenants worry the large trees provide hiding places near Dolores Park and pose safety risks as well as obstruct views and light. Neighbors and an arborist who testified for the appellant described sidewalk heave and expressed support for a uniform replacement planting plan.

Short replied that DPW would not recommend root pruning if it would destabilize a tree and that arborist inspection after basin expansion could still result in a permit for removal if unsafe root conditions were found. She also said past topping had created poor structure but that the trees showed new, usable growth and could be preserved with corrective pruning.

Commissioners acknowledged the cost concerns raised by the property owner but emphasized the ecological and streetscape benefits of mature trees. Commissioner Huang moved to uphold the department’s order; the motion carried with Vice President Kendall Goh, Commissioner Garcia and Commissioner Huang voting to uphold and Commissioner Fung dissenting. The board’s decision leaves in place DPW’s directive that applicants contact the department before sidewalk work so DPW can inspect roots and determine whether emergency removal is warranted.

The vote was 3 to 1 to uphold the denial. The department provided the board’s order and staff evaluations into the record.