Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants jurisdiction request for contested Folsom Street tree‑removal permits
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted a jurisdiction request from Joshua Klipp challenging a San Francisco Public Works tree‑removal permit affecting multiple addresses on Folsom/Second/Beale streets, finding the revised permit could be treated as a new permit subject to appeal and giving Klipp five days to file a formal appeal.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 17 granted a jurisdiction request from Joshua Klipp asking the board to take jurisdiction over a San Francisco Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry tree‑removal permit (Public Works order cited in the record, permit No. 778941).
Klipp told the board that Article 16’s permit extension language applies to active permits and that the permit before the board had been “revised,” not properly extended, and therefore could not be revived without notice and process. He pointed to a recently issued Public Works order involving another street project and said the city’s inconsistent handling of expired permits undermined the permitting regime.
Planning‑staff and several commissioners noted no Urban Forestry representative had filed a brief or appeared; board members discussed whether an extension had been granted before the permit’s six‑month term expired. Commissioner Rachel Tanner said the department’s choice to treat the permit as “revised” could amount to issuing a new permit and moved to grant jurisdiction on that basis. Vice President Anne Lazarus and Commissioner Daryl Honda voted in favor; the motion carried.
President Rick Swigg told Klipp the board had granted jurisdiction and that Klipp would have five days following the board’s order to file a formal appeal with the issuing department in order to trigger a full hearing before the Board of Appeals.
What happens next: the board’s jurisdiction decision does not decide the underlying permit; rather, it allows Klipp to proceed to the administrative appeal step. If an appeal is filed, the department’s permit and its record will be scheduled for hearing under the board’s normal appeal process.
Key details: the record identifies the permit as Public Works tree‑removal permit No. 778941 with a revision date noted in the paperwork (06/26/2019); the project description in the notice listed multiple street addresses on the blocks between Second Street and Beale Street and referenced tree planting permit No. 778940 for replacement plantings.
The board’s action was procedural: it found that the asserted “revision” to the permit could be treated as issuance of a new permit and therefore subject to appeal, preserving the requester’s ability to seek further administrative review.
