Board denies appeal of Esprit Park tree removals, allowing Rec and Park renovation to proceed

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 18 denied an appeal of Public Works’ approval for removal and replacement of 38 street/right‑of‑way trees at Esprit Park, allowing the Recreation and Park Department’s renovation plan to proceed.

Friends of Esprit Park representative Irma Lewis told commissioners the project lacked robust, continuous community engagement and asked the board to require the city and the project sponsor to plant larger replacement trees (48‑inch box) and binding guarantees for mitigation. Appellants and their arborist, Roy Leggett, argued many of the existing trees appear healthy and provide important canopy and heat‑island mitigation for a part of the city with low tree cover.

Rec and Park project manager Melinda Sullivan described a multi‑year planning process tied to UCSF mitigation funding, soil remediation, ADA path realignment and a holistic redesign of the two‑acre park. Sullivan said the full project will remove 85 trees across the site and replace them with 92 new trees while preserving more than 60 trees inside the park; the department proposes 36‑inch box trees for the larger species to balance establishment success with canopy goals. Sullivan said costs to date are under $1 million and that construction (a roughly $4.3 million contract) was scheduled to start that week, with the department aiming to avoid escalation and nesting‑season delays.

Chris Buck of Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry presented site photos showing many Platanus (sycamore/London plane) specimens in poor condition and explained that large‑scale soil and drainage work would make retaining some street/right‑of‑way trees unsustainable; BUFF supported the replacement plan and recommended 36‑inch box size for the larger street trees.

Public commenters urged the board to preserve trees because the southeastern quadrant has low canopy and higher heat exposure; others supported the renovation and the need to correct drainage and soil problems. After extended questioning about outreach, replacement sizes, maintenance periods and construction impacts, Commissioner Lundberg moved to deny the appeal. The board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal (one commissioner recused), concluding the Public Works order (Order No. 207274) was properly issued and that the park renovation and replacement plan may proceed.

Rec and Park said it will provide longer‑term plant establishment and maintenance beyond the 90‑day construction contract period by transitioning care to park maintenance operations and that replacement species include 36‑inch box specimens for the most impacted trees. The board’s denial allows Rec and Park to continue with the planned tree removals and replanting as part of the park renovation.