Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses Public Works, upholds prior decisions after contested tree removals
Summary
After weeks of public outcry over tree removals, the Board of Appeals pressed Public Works and the Bureau of Urban Forestry for procedural reforms and oversight while denying a rehearing request tied to a contested removal at 1501 Quint Street; the board stopped short of issuing new penalties and urged stronger interagency checklists and tracking of replacement plantings.
President Anne Lazarus and the San Francisco Board of Appeals spent the longest portion of their July 9 meeting focused on disputes over street-tree removals and how Public Works coordinates with the Bureau of Urban Forestry.
The session opened with a recorded public comment from disability advocate Zach Karnazes, who said crews had removed trees prematurely during earlier appeals and urged the board to prevent further “illegal” removals. Public Works and Urban Forestry officials acknowledged errors in a prior permit case and described changes in process but asked the board to deny additional rehearing requests.
Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the controversy has eroded public trust. The city’s urban canopy is finite and specialists and neighbors warned that rushed or poorly communicated removals risk long-term loss of tree cover and community outrage.
Public Works’ response and staff reforms Public Works project manager Trent Tiger and Urban Forester Chris Buck said the department has tightened internal procedures after recent cases. Tiger said crews will involve Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUFF) earlier in design and will add checks in contract specifications so contractors and project managers confirm a tree is properly permitted before starting critical-path work. Buck said BUFF has provided training to project and construction staff, is tracking appeal windows more closely and is pursuing code changes to strengthen penalties for unauthorized removals.
Buck described how BUFF sets penalties under Public Works Code Article 16 (urban forestry) and section 8.11; the bureau typically assesses either an in-lieu fee or an appraisal of a tree’s value, whichever is greater. In the case repeatedly cited by commenters, BUFF assessed an in-lieu fee that officials said was greater than the landscape-appraisal value for the small trees removed.
Board reaction and public concern Commissioners pressed staff to give project managers a mandatory checklist, to prioritize planting in neighborhoods with the most canopy deficit and to improve outreach to residents before crews arrive. Commissioner Rick Swig and others called for a cultural change at Public Works so tree protection becomes a routine, early step in every project.
Residents from Hayes Valley and the Mission detailed how neighborhood engagement around a replacement-species plan was incomplete when crews began work. Several speakers, including neighborhood organizers and independent arborists, described disruption from early-morning removals, questioned pruning methods and said they felt excluded from species selection. BUFF acknowledged the outreach was insufficient in some cases and said it had since finalized a replacement plan with appellants and the neighborhood association.
Legal and enforcement context Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi reminded the board that the Board of Appeals does not itself have authority to levy civil or criminal penalties under the Public Works Code; BUFF and the city attorney’s office pursue administrative, civil or criminal enforcement as appropriate. Staff said criminal cases are rare and resource-intensive but that BUFF is pursuing stronger sanction options and improved code language.
What the board decided The board denied a rehearing request tied to a prior order (1501 Quint Street) on the grounds that the rehearing petition did not present new evidence or manifest injustice. Commissioners also directed Public Works and BUFF to implement the internal reforms discussed, track whether in-lieu fees result in nearby plantings, and report back on progress. Public Works committed to post-install follow-up and to documenting species and planting locations for replacement trees.
Next steps BUFF and Public Works said they will (1) implement a written checklist for project managers and contractors; (2) involve BUFF earlier in design (moving review closer to the 65–95% design stage); (3) track tree-planting and in-lieu payments and report status; and (4) continue code and policy discussions with the city attorney’s office and the Board of Supervisors. Residents said they will continue to monitor removals and to press for legislative changes if needed.
