Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits on urban-forestry appeals: one removal upheld, one overturned with replacements, one continued
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld Public Works on a McAllister Street eucalyptus, overruled DPW on a Chestnut Street olive tree conditional on multiple replacement plantings, and continued a contested Eighth Avenue tree appeal to July 11 while requesting a DPW policy report on '2-for-1/3-for-1' replacement practice.
The Board of Appeals addressed several tree-removal appeals and reached differing outcomes across cases, reflecting tension between preserving mature urban canopy and resolving repeated infrastructure damage.
On appeal 7-19 (1598 McAllister Street), Carla Short of the Bureau of Urban Forestry told the board the eucalyptus, though leaning, showed no evidence of imminent failure and could be managed by expanding the tree basin rather than removing it. The appellant was not present; the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Public Works’ denial of a removal permit (recorded outcome 4–1 as noted in the minutes).
Item 7 (2251 Chestnut Street) presented a negotiated compromise. Appellant representatives and DPW reached a contingency agreement in which the mature olive tree at a storefront would be removed to allow a major storefront remodel only if the owner paid removal and planted three 24-inch-box trees at nearby private sites, with initial maintenance paid by the owner and multi-year watering obligations. Marina/Cow Hollow neighborhood representatives supported additional plantings on the corridor. The board overruled DPW with findings and conditions tied to signed planting and maintenance agreements and adopted that motion unanimously (5–0).
Item 8 (72338 Eighth Avenue, Faisal Salbi) produced the most protracted hearing. The appellant testified to recurring sidewalk damage, repeated repair costs, and ongoing disruption; DPW’s certified arborists argued that root-pruning, basin expansion, and other mitigations could address the sidewalk issues without removing the mature tree. Commissioners debated whether a growing practice—authorizing multiple replacement trees or in-lieu payments—was becoming standard and asked DPW for a policy memo. The board voted unanimously to continue the Salbi appeal to July 11 and requested DPW prepare a report on criteria for 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 replacement decisions and when in-lieu fees are appropriate.
Outcomes and next steps: DPW upheld (McAllister), Chestnut overruled with replacement/maintenance conditions, Salbi continued to July 11 with a requested DPW policy report.
