Board of Appeals approves limited removal of 33 trees on 20 Fourth Street, conditions set for replacements and community watering

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 on July 15, 2020 to grant appeals of a Public Works order to remove trees along 20 Fourth Street, approving the removal of 33 trees but placing detailed conditions on the work, replanting and community oversight.

The decision followed lengthy presentations by neighborhood appellants, tree experts and Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUFF). Urban Forester Chris Buck told the board that removal is "always the last resort" and that Public Works now proposes removing 33 trees on 20 Fourth Street and replacing them with at least 50 trees on that corridor, with up to 95 additional trees to be planted in adjacent blocks if the community-led watering plan is implemented.

Why it matters: Appellants argued the mature ficus trees are cultural landmarks for the Calle 24/Latino Cultural District and provide important environmental benefits including carbon sequestration, shade and stormwater mitigation. Appellants funded an independent arborist and a volunteer watering program called Mission Verde to help establish replacement trees, arguing community watering can stretch limited planting budgets.

What the board required: The board’s conditional approval includes the following core elements: limit removals on 20 Fourth Street to 33 trees; replace those with a minimum of 50 trees on that street (ginkgo and red maple were identified as likely species, with a minimum 24-inch box size on the corridor); plant an additional 95 trees in nearby blocks as illustrated in the Mission Verde plan (for a target of up to 145 new trees in the vicinity); phase the work block-by-block so contractors finish tree and stump removal on a block before moving to the next; replant replacements on each block within three months of that block’s removals; replace any vandalized or damaged new tree within roughly 60 days; make removed-tree wood available to the community for art; permit community use of replacement tree stakes for art; and implement the Mission Verde volunteer watering plan in partnership with BUFF.

What advocates and experts said: Attorney and tree advocate Joshua Klipp presented an analysis showing the existing mature trees sequester substantially more carbon and provide greater ecological services than one-year-old replacement stock; he and other appellants also raised accessibility and notice concerns for seniors and people with disabilities. Carlos Bocanegra of the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District asked the board to direct DPW to work with Supervisor Ronen’s office and the community on landmarking remaining trees. Christopher Campbell, the independent arborist hired by appellants, cautioned that the group of trees is senescing and that "waiting to prune, waiting to remove is actually really a bad idea. It's kind of Russian roulette situation," arguing the trees need prompt, expert attention.

Public Works’ position: Chris Buck said BUFF agrees with many of the appellants, has accepted the independent arborist’s recommendations on about 30 trees, and described an outreach-driven compromise: reducing the number of removals, committing to phased work, expanding potential replanting if the community waters replacements, and providing a named contact and regular updates while the project proceeds. On landmarking, BUFF said many of the trees proposed for removal are not in a condition to meet the Urban Forestry Council’s high standard for landmark designation, and that landmarking is an administrative/political process that would need to be advanced by a department head or a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Conflict and access issues raised: Appellants and public commenters raised concerns that notices were not accessible to people with disabilities and accused the department of past mismanagement; one appellant alleged a close personal friendship between a commissioner and a BUFF representative and raised it as a potential bias concern. City Attorney Brad Russi explained that a personal relationship, standing alone, is not a legal conflict of interest requiring recusal unless a financial interest exists.

The vote and next steps: Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved the conditional approval described above; the motion passed 4–1 (Anne Lazarus, Rick Swig, Rachel Tanner and Eduardo Santa Cana voted yes; Vice President Darrell Honda voted no). The board recorded the detailed conditions as part of its order and closed the hearing. Appellants and BUFF will now work on implementing the Mission Verde watering plan, site reviews and the replacement schedule; Supervisor Ronen’s office signaled support for pursuing landmarking for trees that remain, if follow-through occurs.

The board did not make a formal finding on landmarking during the hearing; that process would be pursued separately, and would require additional administrative steps by the supervisor’s office or a department head.