Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 15 Joy Street Tree Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds BUFF removal order for 15 Joy Street despite questions about notices and filings
Summary
After contested testimony from residents and the developer, the Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to deny an appeal challenging BUFF's tree-removal order for 15 Joy Street, finding the permit process and notifications were sufficient despite acknowledged website and paperwork errors.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 12 upheld a Bureau of Urban Forestry removal order for trees at 15 Joy Street, denying an appeal that had argued the department failed to follow proper notice and permitting procedures.
Appellant Lance Carnes presented a slide-based chronology alleging the removal paperwork was incomplete or absent at key times, that the online removal-notice page showed blanks or altered records, and that a posting originally listed four stems later characterized as three trees. "The basic application for tree removal was not filed for this project," Carnes said, arguing the board should rescind DPW removal permit 784,908 and require the process to start over with full public notice.
The project architect, Steven Antonez, described the site as an undeveloped right-of-way with dense vegetation and said construction constrained how trees could be retained. Carla Short of the Bureau of Urban Forestry acknowledged an initial error on the bureau's newly launched website notification page but said physical notices were posted and that staff met the applicant on site and placed holds on DBI releases to secure required documentation. "We erred on the side of saying more trees will be removed to ensure that the public got the full impact of what was being proposed," Short said.
Public commenters and a records requester, Joshua Clipp, showed photographs and screenshots they said demonstrated inconsistencies between the online notices, the physical postings and the application fee recorded for one to three trees. Clipp said his May records request did not return documentation supporting subsequent changes and urged the board to restart the permitting process.
Commissioners debated whether the procedural irregularities warranted rescinding the permit. Commissioner Rick Swig said BUFF had fallen short in paperwork and accountability but withdrew a motion to require restarting the process, citing the burden on all participants. President Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. The motion carried 4–0.
The department will proceed with the removal order as written; the decision leaves in place BUFF's conditions for replacement plantings (two 24-inch box coast live oaks and other mitigation measures) and site-protection requirements tied to construction.
