Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies Second Street appeal after Public Works cites safety, design constraints
Summary
The Board of Appeals on June 3 denied an appeal by attorney Josh Klipp challenging removal of two street trees on Second Street, concluding Public Works’ permit followed applicable standards despite appellant’s claim that construction proceeded before the hearing.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 3 denied an appeal challenging a Public Works order to remove two street trees on Second Street, finding the department’s safety and design reasoning sufficient despite objections from an environmental advocate.
Appellant Joshua Klipp told the board that Public Works had installed traffic-signal infrastructure and underground conduit after he filed the appeal, “effectively negat[ing] my right to bring a meaningful appeal,” and presented photographs he said showed repeated contractor damage to tree protection zones. Klipp asked the board to penalize contractors and refund appeal fees for cases in which construction proceeded while appeals were pending.
Trent Tiger, project manager for San Francisco Public Works, said the Second Street streetscape project includes widened sidewalks, cycle tracks, transit boarding islands, ADA curb ramps and undergrounding utility lines. Tiger told commissioners that unforeseen underground utility conflicts and a design omission for the new mid‑block crosswalk constrained pole placement and made removal of the two trees necessary to provide the required visibility and accessible signal placement under industry standards, including PG&E guidance and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Chris Buck, urban forester with the Bureau of Urban Forestry, said BUFF had met repeatedly with Klipp and the project team, but acknowledged procedural problems: the department scheduled a hearing that overlapped the 30‑day public posting period and the shorter pre‑hearing notice. Buck said BUFF would pursue improved notification, follow up on reported contractor failures and invoice the project for the trees’ appraised value (an additional $3,478 invoiced for the two trees).
Vice President Daryl Honda and several commissioners pressed Public Works and BUFF on why construction work — including a pole installation Klipp presented as evidence — occurred while the appeal was pending. Tiger and Buck acknowledged gaps in communications and enforcement and said the project team would review internal coordination and enforcement measures.
After discussion, Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved to deny the appeal on the merits, finding the Public Works order to remove the two trees was properly issued given the safety and utility constraints described by staff. The motion carried 4–0 and the appeal was denied.
The board’s decision leaves the project’s approved streetscape work intact; BUFF said it will pursue administrative enforcement if contractor violations are confirmed and will report back on follow-up enforcement actions to interested parties.
