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 urban‑forestry order for 1601 Larkin Street; allows removal of 2 trees, denies removal of 4
Summary
After contested testimony and extensive public comment, the San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld a revised Department of Public Works (DPW) order governing tree removal at 1601 Larkin Street. The board allowed two trees removed for poor health and denied removal of four healthy trees (vote 3–1).
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 3–1 vote on May 28 upheld a revised Department of Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry order for 1601 Larkin Street that permits removal of two trees the department found in poor health and denies removal of four trees found to be healthy. The appeal (O7‑227, Pacific Polk Properties v. DPW/Bureau of Urban Forestry) drew sustained public comment and a procedural dispute over whether a director’s withdrawal or revision of an earlier hearing officer decision had been issued properly.
Carla Short, the city’s urban forester with the Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry, told the board staff inspected six trees and recommended denial of removal for four and approval of removal for two, which is what the director’s revised order reflected. “Based on those evaluations, we found that two of the trees were in sufficiently poor condition to warrant their removal. But four of the trees…we’d like to see those trees remain,” Short said, citing the department’s tree evaluation sheets and email records showing notification steps.
Paul Utrecht, attorney for Pacific Polk Properties, framed the appeal as chiefly procedural and alleged irregularities in the city record. “We believe that the city records were, in fact, altered in order to cover up the fact that the procedures were not followed,” Utrecht said, urging the board to reinstate the original hearing officer’s decision. DPW’s Short responded that the department possessed fax and email evidence that the revised order and notices were circulated and that the director has, in some cases, appropriately revised hearing officer recommendations after further consultation.
Neighbors and community members urged the board to preserve the trees. Joe Butler, representing neighbors, said thinning and lighting could address neighborhood safety without removing the trees; Dawn Trennert said she and other neighbors had understood four trees would remain and described the trees as an important neighborhood resource.
Commissioners debated two questions: the procedural claim that a withdrawal or revised order may not have been issued within the appeal period and the substantive merits of whether removal of the trees was reasonable. Several commissioners said gaps in the administrative record raised concerns; others said the board could treat the matter de novo and that the record supported DPW’s evaluation of tree health.
Vice President Frank Fung, who moved to uphold the department’s revised order allowing removal of two trees and denying removal of four, said he was troubled by procedural sloppiness but not convinced it warranted continuing the case. The motion passed 3–1 (Garcia, Peterson and Holland voted aye; Fung voted no). The board instructed DPW to clarify notification records and to ensure standard conditions and permit‑issuance steps are followed in the future.
What happens next: DPW retains authority over final permit issuance and the permit is subject to conditions tied to any associated construction permits; appeals or rehearing requests may be available under the normal statutory timeframes specified in the order.
The board heard dozens of public commenters and extensive documentary evidence over the course of the item; the revised order at issue was identified as Order No. 176117 (revised).
