Board of Appeals allows MidPen to remove 10 street trees for Shirley Chisholm Village with conditions

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 4–0 vote approved a revised MidPen Housing request to remove 10 street trees at the Shirley Chisholm Village development, reversing part of a Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry order while imposing preservation and replacement conditions. President Darrell Honda announced the board’s action after hearing a negotiated settlement between the developer and Urban Forestry.

Lauren Fury, an associate project manager with MidPen, told the board the housing project will provide 135 units of affordable educator housing and has revised its tree request after outreach and meetings with the bureau. “We reduced the number of tree removals from 19 to 10,” Fury said, adding that the project’s landscape plan exceeds minimum replanting requirements and includes efforts to irrigate and protect trees during construction.

Acting Urban Forester Steve Keller said Urban Forestry initially denied removal of 14 trees (order 204615) but supported allowing five additional removals—bringing the total MidPen would be allowed to remove to 10—because the development will plant larger 36‑inch‑box specimens, bring in new soil and install irrigation. Keller said the new plantings include Lagunaria patersonii, a species suited to the Outer Sunset conditions.

Commissioners pressed for enforceable protections. Vice President Rick Swig and Commissioner Anna Lazarus supported conditioning the permit on a watering plan and replacement obligations; Lazarus asked for guarantees in case future owners do not maintain the landscaping. The board’s conditions require replacement of removed trees with 36‑inch box Lagunaria patersonii, installation of new soil, protective cages on new and existing plantings, and irrigation of new trees for a minimum of three years or until the bureau determines they are established. The motion also requires irrigation to supplement existing trees during construction and a one‑for‑one replacement commitment if a new tree fails.

Public commenters raised procedural concerns about settling by brief rather than an evidentiary hearing, but the board noted the parties had negotiated a plan that the bureau supported. The board adopted the conditioned decision by unanimous vote.

The board recorded the order number for the case as 204615 and said parties will follow up with staff on implementation details. The decision applies to the current permit and the project as presented to the board; it does not address unrelated parcels or future, separate permits.

What’s next: The permit will be revised to reflect the board’s conditions and staff will monitor compliance during construction.