Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sides with Urban Forestry, denies Golden Gateway request to remove three of five mature pines
Summary
The Board upheld the Department of Public Works' partial denial of a Golden Gateway Center tree‑removal permit at Sydney Walton Square, requiring replacement and a landscape plan. Urban Forestry found two trees hazardous and recommended monitoring three; residents urged preservation. The Board voted to uphold the department and will adopt formal findings later.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 9 sided with the Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) in an appeal over the removal of five Monterey pine trees at Sydney Walton Square. The property owner (Golden Gateway Center, also called Gateway) sought removal of five mature trees that BUF staff and outside arborists had evaluated for pine pitch canker and structural risk.
Carla Short, representing BUF, told the Board the five trees were individually evaluated and that while all showed some signs of pine pitch canker, tree condition varied: two trees were judged hazardous enough for removal and three showed sufficient vigor to monitor. Short said staff relied on UC Davis and state forestry research showing pine pitch canker is not always terminal and that replacement and landscape planning should mitigate canopy loss. “The five trees under consideration this evening all had a diameter of over 30 inches,” Short said during her presentation.
Golden Gateway’s counsel, Tim Flaherty, argued the property manager’s arborist (HortScience) found all five were in advanced decline and that liability and public-safety concerns required removal. “Liability issues are really what are motivating this appeal,” Flaherty told the Board, arguing the owner had replaced two trees removed earlier and intends to reforest the park over time.
More than a dozen neighbors and community members spoke against removal, arguing the trees are valuable neighborhood assets and citing research and local observations that some infected trees can recover. Residents criticized earlier removals and said promised replacements had not materialized.
The Bureau recommended, and the Board accepted, a compromise imposing replacement requirements (including the department’s suggested 2-for-1 replacement ratio in its decision) and requiring Gateway to produce a community landscape plan; the Board voted to uphold the department’s order and to return with formal findings at a later date (vote recorded 4‑0).
What happens next: the Board will adopt findings at a subsequent meeting that will specify replacement size and species and other conditions; BUF retains authority to set replacement size and to require in-lieu fees or enforce replacement timelines. The department and neighbors will continue to negotiate the landscape plan and timing of replacements.
