Board Upholds Urban Forestry, Denies Sheridan Hotel—s Request to Replace Mature Street Trees with Palms

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to uphold the Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry—s denial of the Sheridan Hotel—s request to remove roughly a dozen mature broadleaf street trees on Mason Street and replace them with queen palms and new specimen plantings.

Urban Forestry analyst Carla Short told the board that the existing broadleaf trees provide quantifiable ecological benefits that queen palms do not match. "When trees are cut down, they actually release carbon back into the atmosphere," Short said, adding that the existing trees capture stormwater and sequester carbon in ways more valuable to the city—s urban forest than the palm alternative. (Carla Short, DPW Bureau of Urban Forestry, SEG 6440–6452.)

Sheridan Hotel representatives and their consulting landscape architects said the palms were an appropriate, high‑impact streetscape treatment for Fisherman—s Wharf and that large specimen palms and tall native grasses would better define the hotel entrance and avoid continued sidewalk root damage. "We are saying we would put 20‑foot specimen palm trees in place at private cost for public benefit as well," the hotel—s landscape architect said, noting palms block less sidewalk and can tolerate narrow planting strips. (Vince Lattanzio / Carducci Associates, SEG 6650–6682.)

A consulting arborist for the hotel said queen palms at nearby Taylor Street have established successfully and that palms present fewer root‑lifting problems in narrow sidewalk basins. DPW countered that broadleaf evergreens provide denser canopy and longer‑term stormwater, air‑quality and shading benefits, and the bureau recommended preserving the mature trees where feasible.

After deliberation commissioners weighed ecological function, canopy density and long‑term public benefits against the developer—s design goals. The majority said taking down mature broadleaf trees for palm accents would reduce measurable environmental services and set an undesirable precedent for removing healthy street trees for cosmetic change.

Outcome: The board upheld DPW—s denial of the tree‑removal permit by a 4–1 vote. The hotel said it will explore alternatives that keep the existing trees while refining its landscape plan.

Follow‑up: DPW will work with the hotel and the planning/building departments on streetscape modifications that do not require tree removal. The hotel representative said private funds are available for enhanced planting if the board or DPW approves replacement species in a narrower design.