Board continues BART-Market Street tree-removal appeal after hours of testimony; seeks negotiated mitigation

The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued several appeals challenging a Public Works determination that would allow removal of 32 street trees on Market Street to make way for protective canopies over BART and shared Muni station entrances.

Appellants including Josh Klipp, Lance Karnes and community groups described the removals as part of a broader decline in the city27s urban canopy and urged alternatives such as redesigning canopies, staging work to avoid removing trees, expanding replanted areas, and applying removal funds to tree-planting in adjacent corridors. Josh Klipp framed the dispute in climate and habitat terms and proposed a mitigation package including reinstating green roofs on canopies and directing in-lieu fees to planting and maintenance in adjacent corridors; he said his group had begun working with BART staff on potential mitigation.

BART project manager Mark Dana described the escalator and canopy program as required to protect a major, aging set of escalators and to secure station entrances; he detailed constructability constraints (equipment placement, underground utilities, staging, and worker safety) and said trees adjacent to canopy footprints can obstruct crane and forklift operations. Carl Holmes (BART assistant general manager) said BART accepted the need to explore mitigation and committed to working with community business districts and partners on replanting and green-roof ideas. BART and its contractor said the project underwent environmental review (AECOM) and that mitigation measures and staging were built into contracts.

Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (Chris Buck) told the board the bureau received a larger initial removal list that was reduced to 32 trees after staff review; many of the subject trees were in fair or poor condition, and code requires either replanting where feasible or payment of an in-lieu fee (or appraisal value) if replanting is not possible because of infrastructure constraints. Buck confirmed three trees were removed on an emergency basis by DPW crews prior to construction materials being staged and said contingency mitigations could direct in-lieu funds to side-street plantings and partner organizations (Friends of the Urban Forest, CBDs) to maintain replacements.

Public comment ran long and included environmental advocates noting tiger swallowtail butterfly habitat and residents who said notices and tree lists appeared inconsistent. Several appellants presented survey evidence and alleged errors or omissions in tree information reports and asked the board to pause or revoke the permit. BART and DPW representatives responded that they were engaging with appellant representatives and that certain mitigations were possible but not yet finalized.

After extensive questioning and public comment, the board voted to continue the matter to Jan. 26, 2022, and directed BART, the Bureau of Urban Forestry and appellants to meet and return with a more decisive mitigation plan (possible green roofs, clearer replanting commitments, staged removal schedule, arborist protections) for the board27s review. The motion passed 5-0.

What happens next: BART, DPW/Urban Forestry and representatives for appellants will continue negotiations and are to return to the Board of Appeals on Jan. 26 with a concrete mitigation package and a clearer, staged implementation plan; in-lieu fees and targeted side-street planting were discussed as likely elements of mitigation.