Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overrules DPW, allows removal of acacia at 1245 Masonic with two large replacements
Summary
After hearing arborists and neighbors, the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to overturn the Department of Public Works’ denial of a tree-removal permit at 1245 Masonic. The decision allows the owner to remove the blackwood acacia if he plants and initially maintains two 48‑inch‑box replacement trees.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 on June 13 to overturn a Department of Public Works decision and allow property owner Stephen Hague to remove a stressed blackwood acacia at 1245 Masonic Avenue, provided he replaces it with two 48‑inch‑box trees and fulfills an initial maintenance period.
Carla Short, bureau chief for the Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry, told commissioners the department initially approved removal after finding structural defects but reversed course after public protests and additional internal review, instead placing the tree on a quarterly watch list. Consulting arborist Roy Leggett testified he had performed Resistograph testing that showed internal decay and concluded the tree posed an “above‑average” risk of trunk failure or uprooting. Hague said the tree’s condition and his proposed garage project justified controlled removal and that he would plant two large replacements.
Neighbors and tree advocates urged caution. Gabriel Burns and several residents described the tree’s canopy as important for noise and pollution abatement and neighborhood character. The Tree Council’s Carolyn Blair said mature trees provide benefits that young replacement stock cannot match for decades.
Commissioners pressed DPW on its use of a monitoring ‘watch list’ and on what constitutes an “imminent” hazard. Vice President Michael Garcia moved to overrule the denial and allow removal if the owner installs two 48‑inch‑box replacement trees; the motion passed 4–1 (Commissioner Holland opposed). Garcia’s motion included the standard practice that the property owner maintain new plantings during an establishment period (three years) before the department resumes maintenance.
The board directed the city attorney to prepare brief findings supporting the decision. No specific enforcement schedule beyond the maintenance requirement was established in the hearing; the replacement size and the owner’s initial maintenance obligation were the decisive conditions announced by the board.
