San Francisco’s Board of Appeals acted on Thursday to protect a decades‑old sycamore standing at the corner of Rhode Island and Nineteenth Streets in Potrero Hill. In a 4‑0 vote, commissioners halted the Department of Public Works’ plan to cut down the tree to make way for an ADA‑compliant curb ramp.
Why the tree matters
The sycamore, planted in 2000 by local resident Dan Feldman and his wife, soil‑microbiologist Emily Roberson, provides shade, wildlife habitat, and a sense of continuity for the neighborhood. When Feldman learned the tree might be removed, he reached out to the city for answers but received no response. After the Board’s decision, Feldman said he “went out and hugged the tree” and even cried.
Board of Appeals versus the new PermitSF ordinance
The decision comes as Mayor Daniel Lurie pushes his PermitSF initiative, which includes a street‑tree ordinance slated for a vote by the Board of Supervisors today. The ordinance would eliminate Board of Appeals review for trees classified as hazardous, giving the Department of Public Works sole authority and shortening the filing window from 15 days to 10, with a required decision within 30 days instead of 60.
Supporters of the ordinance argue that the appeals process can delay removal of dangerous trees, creating safety risks for pedestrians and drivers. Public Works officials contend that the current system leaves hazardous trees standing longer than necessary.
Community and accessibility concerns
Accessibility specialist Josh Klipp, a former chair of the Bureau of Urban Forestry, filed the appeal on behalf of the Feldman family. Klipp proposed alternatives such as moving the crossing closer to a nearby bus stop, installing a raised crosswalk, or redesigning the ramp to work around the tree. He warned that the proposed curb ramp would place wheelchair users on a steep downgrade immediately after the crest, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
Public Works accessibility coordinator Kevin Jensen disputed Klipp’s assessment, claiming the crest offered the best sight lines for pedestrians and drivers, and that the slope and nearby driveways made the proposed location the only feasible option. Jensen also requested a continuance to prepare a fuller report, but commissioners denied the request, noting Public Works had failed to meet its burden of proof.
Implications of removing the appeals process
Board President John Trasviña expressed concern that eliminating independent review could mean the Board never sees similar cases again, especially if cities begin classifying more removals as hazardous to bypass the appeal. The Board’s letter to Supervisor Rafael Mandelman emphasized that “hazard tree” is a broader term than an imminent danger; trees posing an immediate threat can already be removed under a separate emergency provision.
Since the start of 2024, the Board of Appeals has heard only two appeals of city‑initiated tree removals, underscoring how rare such interventions are. Commissioners indicated they could accommodate faster timelines but argued that eliminating independent review is unwarranted.
What’s next?
The Board of Supervisors will vote on Mayor Lurie’s street‑tree ordinance later today. If passed, the Board of Appeals would lose its authority to review hazardous‑tree removals, potentially reshaping how San Francisco balances public safety, accessibility, and urban canopy preservation.
Residents and advocacy groups are watching closely, fearing that the loss of an independent check could lead to more tree removals without community input. The outcome will affect not only the Potrero Hill sycamore but also the city’s broader effort to expand one of the nation’s sparsest urban tree canopies.
Original reporting: Mission Local — read the source article.
