Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Splits on Tree Appeals, Asks DPW for Policy Guidance on Replacement Tradeoffs
Summary
The Board of Appeals heard three tree‑removal appeals and issued three distinct outcomes: it upheld DPW on Macalester (4–1), overruled DPW with replacement conditions on Chestnut (5–0), and continued a Richmond/Outer Avenue case to July 11 while requesting DPW study a possible 2‑for‑1/3‑for‑1 replacement policy.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals spent substantial time on urban‑forest questions, resolving multiple appeals and asking the Department of Public Works (DPW) for clearer policy guidance on replacement options.
On 1598 McAllister (appeal by Suhail Salfidi), Carla Short of the Bureau of Urban Forestry recommended preserving a eucalyptus that showed no signs of imminent failure and expanding the basin to avoid root pruning. The board voted 4–1 to deny the appeal and uphold DPW, with one commissioner dissenting to preserve flexibility in extraordinary cases.
On 2251 Chestnut Street, Jace Levinson (representing Books Inc.) presented a negotiated compromise with DPW to remove a mature olive tree that interfered with a remodeled storefront and replace it with three 24‑inch box trees elsewhere on Chestnut, with maintenance agreements and a three‑year watering plan funded initially by the owner. DPW supported the conditional approach; public commenters urged the city to plant more trees along the corridor but flagged placement near water lines. The board overruled DPW and approved removal with conditions, 5–0.
On 72330 Eighth Avenue (appellant Faisal Selby), property owners described repeated sidewalk damage and ongoing repair costs; DPW staff recommended mitigation measures such as basin expansion and careful root pruning. Commissioners debated whether to treat removal as an extraordinary remedy and whether a two‑for‑one or three‑for‑one replacement approach (or in‑lieu fees) should be allowed. The board unanimously continued the item to July 11 and requested DPW produce a report outlining when multi‑tree replacement or in‑lieu fees would be appropriate.
Throughout the tree discussions, DPW staff repeatedly stressed that preserving healthy mature trees is the default policy but offered conditional compromises in locations where a tree had poor siting or utility conflicts. The board directed DPW to prepare a policy memo on replacement tradeoffs and conditions for the board’s review before the continued hearing.
