Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows tree removal with replacement and gives owner choice of which tree to remove
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld the Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry order with a modification: the property owner may choose which of two closely sited redwood trees to remove and must plant replacements (board vote 5-0). The bureau cited proximity to right-of-way and infrastructure risk as bases for the decision.
The Board of Appeals unanimously modified and upheld a Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry order involving a request to remove and replace trees at 4 Bel Air Place.
Carla Short of DPW explained the Public Works Code criteria (trees within 10 feet of the public right of way and meeting trunk diameter, canopy or height thresholds) and told commissioners that the northernmost redwood was the hearing officer's recommended removal because it sat closest to the fence and the neighbor's property and therefore posed greater infrastructure risk. Short recommended conditioned approval with replacement trees in the empty basins.
Appellant Anne Crompton testified she was chiefly concerned about safety in a narrow, sloped alley where a tree could cast shadows and reduce lighting; she said she preferred shrubs or in-lieu planting if trees would create a safety problem. Commissioners and staff discussed species selection, planting size (15-gallon minimum vs. 24-inch box preference) and mitigation via lighting.
Commissioner Holland moved to uphold DPW's order but to modify the decision so the property owner could choose which of the two redwoods to remove and to require replacement plantings. The motion carried 5-0. The board recorded standard planting-size guidance and encouraged narrow, columnar species for the tight basins.
