Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Park Merced tree‑removal permits after lengthy debate over notice and habitat impacts
Summary
The Board sustained 10 tree‑removal permits affecting Park Merced, finding Bureau of Urban Forestry’s review and environmental findings adequate despite community concerns about scale, timing, and prior unpermitted removals; the motion passed 5‑0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 30 denied appeals to multiple tree-removal permits filed by Park Merced Owner LLC and upheld the Department of Public Works (BUF/Urban Forestry) decisions, adopting environmental findings and clearing the ten permits.
Resident Diane Carpio and other Park Merced tenants urged denial, saying the developer’s contractor Arborwell and its crews removed or prepared to remove large numbers of trees with insufficient notice to residents, inconsistent permit documentation, and unclear accountability for maintenance and replacement. "This project's scale and the way it's being implemented have left residents without clear notice or a local steward for trees and public‑space impacts," Carpio said, pressing issues of ownership, replacement timing and public safety concerns following recent storms.
Park Merced counsel Jim Abrams and Urban Forester Chris Buck told the board the permits were processed under the 2011 development agreement that prescribes building footprints and infrastructure; many proposed removals are required to install roads, sewers and foundations. BUF said it reviewed applications and recommended removal of 73 trees with 14 transplantable and denied 16 removal requests; BUF described efforts to retain trees where possible and said the permit process included 30‑day postings for the affected trees. Buck emphasized BUF’s tree‑by‑tree review and said the department required replacement plantings (a 2.5:1 replacement ratio is expected as part of approvals) and bonding before sign-off on job cards.
Residents and some commissioners raised specific operational complaints: examples of alleged unpermitted removals earlier in the month, incomplete or unclear posted notices, and the timing of removals relative to bird‑nesting season and planned construction. Park Merced said some early removals were prompted by beetle infestation and immediate public-safety concerns and that project timing sought to avoid the April–August bird‑nesting window; the sponsor said construction is expected to begin in the fall, and many removals were to permit that work.
After discussion about the development agreement’s constraints and BUF’s detailed analysis, Commissioner Lazarus moved to deny the appeals and sustain the permits with adoption of the environmental findings. The motion passed unanimously, 5‑0. BUF and the project sponsor said replacement and bonding requirements will be processed and the city will require replacement trees and job-card sign‑offs prior to occupancy.
