Board of Appeals allows three ficus at 69 Green Street to remain, sets conditions

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 18 granted an appeal that prevents the immediate removal of three ficus trees in front of 69 Green Street, imposing conditions intended to reduce risk and preserve the urban canopy.

Telegraph Hill Dwellers co‑chair Stan Hayes told the board the trees were healthy after recent pruning and argued the removal was driven by a developer’s convenience rather than public safety. He said his group’s independent arborist, Roy Leggett, concluded the trees “look fine” and recommended maintenance such as removing grates and opening basins rather than removal.

The decision matters because the trees are on a block with many mature ficus and residents raised concerns about loss of canopy and inconsistent department messaging. Public Works’ Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUFF) staff, represented by Chris Buck, countered that the trees exhibit structural defects — notably codominant stems and evidence of vehicle strikes — and that pruning had reduced but not eliminated long‑term failure risk. Buck said the trees do not pose an imminent hazard but that, over time, their structure made removal a prudent option under BUFF criteria.

During the hearing, the property owner’s representative, Kenny Brizzoni, said pruning removed about 25% of canopy for clearance but did not address fundamental structural and root‑related issues and noted that the removal application included a replacement plan characterized as robust by DPW staff.

After public comment from neighbors and community groups pressing to preserve the trees, Vice President Jose Lopez moved to grant the appeal on the condition that BUFF: remove the vertical trunk protection and basin grates around the three subject trees; perform annual inspections and monitoring; and revise the Public Works order to allow the trees to remain. The motion passed 4–1 (Commissioner Trezyna voted no).

Board members who voted to sustain the appeal emphasized the lack of an immediate safety threat and pointed to the recent pruning as a significant mitigation. Commissioners who opposed or voiced caution cited BUFF’s structural assessment and concerns about assuming long‑term liability if failing trees were left in place.

The board’s order revises Public Works Order No. 207303 (the permit/notice for the 69 Green Street removals) to reflect the change in outcome and the inspection and grate‑removal conditions. The order allows BUFF and the determination holder to confer about who will carry out grate removal; the city attorney advised that the city remains responsible for street‑tree maintenance costs unless a private property owner chooses otherwise.

Next steps: BUFF will document the annual inspection schedule in its work orders and coordinate on removal of the grate/basin coverings as required by the board’s conditional order.