Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing requests in Park Merced tree removals after conflict‑of‑interest allegations
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied three rehearing requests relating to tree removal permits in Park Merced after residents alleged undisclosed city contracts with tree contractor Arborwell; the board voted 5–0 after DPW said no relevant contract information had been provided to staff.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 18 denied three rehearing requests from Park Merced residents who alleged a conflict of interest involving the city and tree contractor Arborwell. Julian Lagos, representing a neighborhood coalition, said records show two city contracts awarded to Arborwell — $435,000 in February and $210,000 in September — and argued that the city failed to disclose the relationship at the prior hearing.
"We have discovered that there are two contracts that the city has with this company, which we believe poses a conflict of interest," Lagos said, asking the board to hold a rehearing and to investigate potential ethics violations.
Carla Short, Urban Forester with the Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry, told the board she was unaware of any DPW contract with Arborwell tied to these permits and that records requests provided to the appellants did not include such contracts. Short said DPW issues permits to property owners and that contractors chosen by property owners operate under state contracting rules; she also said Recreation and Parks Department procurement and work are separate from DPW’s street‑tree and permit authority.
Commissioners pressed for documentary proof. Some public commenters reported seeing Arborwell trucks performing city tree removals in the Park Merced area, but board members said the rehearing motion needed more direct evidence linking the contracts to DPW’s permit decisions. One commissioner said the allegation appears speculative without written proof submitted to the board.
After discussion, a motion to deny the rehearing requests carried 5–0. Notices of decision and order were to be released by the board.
