Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines jurisdiction after split vote on Levi’s Plaza tree removals
Summary
Property manager for Levi's Plaza asked the San Francisco Board of Appeals to take jurisdiction over a DPW order to remove trees after new arborist reports called them dangerous; the board split 3–1 but declined to act because four votes are required, leaving the owner the option to reapply for a permit or pursue other remedies.
Vice President Bridal Goh presided as the San Francisco Board of Appeals heard a late jurisdiction request from Levi’s Plaza representatives seeking review of a Department of Public Works (DPW) order over five poplar trees at 1160 Battery Street.
Michael Franklin, general manager of Levi’s Plaza, told the board the property’s arborists had produced new reports showing “they are a real and present danger to the public” and that part of the park had been closed for safety. Franklin said the condition had worsened since the original decision and asked the board to take jurisdiction so the trees could be removed with appropriate replacement and public notice.
Carla Short of the Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) told the board the original hearing order and resulting permit expressly notified the property owner that the order “may be appealed to the Board of Appeals within 15 days of 04/20/2009.” Short said BUF had re‑inspected the trees and did not find compelling new evidence of an emergency; she said a new permit application could trigger an expedited inspection and a 30‑day public notice period.
Commissioners debated timeliness and process: whether the new arborist evidence changed facts enough to justify a late jurisdictional claim, and the practical tradeoffs between restarting the permitting clock and seeking board jurisdiction. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to grant jurisdiction. The roll call produced a 3–1 vote in favor (Vice President Goh and Commissioner Michael Garcia voting aye; Commissioner Huang voting no), but the board requires four votes to take jurisdiction. With that threshold unmet, the board did not take jurisdiction; staff noted the property owner could instead apply for a new permit and the department would aim to inspect the trees within about two weeks.
Because the board did not find the four‑vote threshold met, no binding ruling on the DPW order was issued and no replacement schedule was set by the panel. The decision leaves the applicant able to reapply for a new permit and to request BUF conduct a site reinspection under DBI/Bureau procedures.
The hearing record includes arborist reports cited by the owner and the DPW/Bureau of Urban Forestry’s inspection notes. The board’s action was procedural: it did not reverse or affirm the DPW order and did not require tree removal. The board also reiterated standard notice and appeal rights associated with Department orders.
Next steps: the property owner may submit a new permit application, which BUF estimates could lead to a site inspection within about two weeks and, if approved, a 30‑day public notification period before removal. If the owner seeks further review, the applicable appeal pathway and filing deadlines are those listed on the DPW order.
