1 THE LAW OFFICE OF FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1920 2 San Francisco CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 805-6508 Facsimile: (415) 484-7832 3 Email: [email protected]

4

BOARD OF APPEALS 5 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 6 Appeal of, ) Appeal No.: 17-055 7 MAHER MEMARZADEH, PhD ) ) APPELLANT’S BRIEF 8 Appellant, ) ) Date: February 28, 2018 vs. ) Time: 5:00 pm 9 ) SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS ) Subject property: 408 Cortland Ave 10 BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY ) Public Works Order: 185812 ) 11 Respondent. ) )

12 I. INTRODUCTION

13 Appellant Maher Memarzadeh, PhD (“Appellant”), is the owner of 408-412 Cortland Avenue.

14 Appellant appeals the determination by the Director of Public Works denying him a permit to plant

15 two Platanus x acerifolia street trees at his property. Appellant has worked closely with Stephen

16 Keller in the San Francisco Department of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (“BUF”) for many

17 months to resolve the matter, including by presenting a detailed planting plan and by offering to plant

18 other tree species instead of Platanus trees. Appellant proceeds with his appeal on the ground his

19 planting plan for two Platanus trees is reasonable and addresses all concerns raised by BUF.

20 Appellant respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals grant his appeal and issue an order

21 overruling the decision of the Director of Public Works and directing DPW to issue the permit

22 adopting Appellant’s planting plan.

23 ///

24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 1

1 II. BACKGROUND

2 A. The Determination by the Director of Public Works.

3 This appeal concerns the planting of two street trees in two existing tree basins located in front

4 408-412 Cortland Avenue (the “Property”). [Exhibit 1, Google Maps Street View of the Property

5 showing two existing trees.] Appellant is the owner of the Property. In September 2015, Appellant

6 filed permits with the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) to remove two existing Crataegus

7 Phaenopyrum street trees and to replace the trees with two Platanus x acerifolia trees.

8 The common name of the Platanus x acerifolia is the London plane tree. Platanus x hispanica

9 is an alternative and is the most recent scientific name for the tree. [See Exhibit 2, Trees of Stanford

10 and Environs (Ronald Bracewell 2005), London Plane.] For purposes of this brief, the tree shall be

11 referred to as the Platanus tree.

12 The Platanus tree is an approved street tree in the City and County of San Francisco. The

13 Platanus tree is in the highest tier of approved street trees in BUF’s San Francisco Street Tree Species

14 List. [Exhibit 3, Recommended Street Tree Species – With Notations, San Francisco Urban Forestry

15 Council (March 2016).] The Platanus tree is also the number 2 most common San Francisco street

16 tree as identified in the San Francisco Urban Forest Plan (2014). [Exhibit 4, San Francisco Urban

17 Forest Plan (Final Draft Spring 2014), Appendix (Most Common San Francisco Street Trees).]

18 The Platanus is a hardy, deciduous tree that is well suited for harsh urban environments. The

19 trees are characterized by their beautiful straight trunks. Appellant chose the Platanus tree specifically

20 for its aesthetics and envisions the trunks of two mature Platanus trees standing tall like the Pillars of

21 Hercules, beautifying the neighborhood and the Property.

22 DPW denied Appellant’s permit applications. Appellant filed a timely protest. On February

23 27, 2017, the Director of Public Works held a public hearing on Appellant’s protest. At the hearing,

24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 2

1 Appellant explained his reasons for requesting permission to remove the existing street trees – the

2 trees are diseased. Appellant also presented the reasons why he chose to plant two Platanus trees.

3 Appellant offered to donate the two existing street trees he sought to remove to the City and County of

4 San Francisco, and to donate two additional trees.

5 On March 28, 2017, the Director of Public Works issued his decision granting Appellant’s

6 permit application to remove the two existing street trees with the replacement of one (1) tree. The

7 Director limited the tree species to “Ginko biloba [sic] ‘Princeton sentry,’ Chinese pistache (Pistacia

8 chinesis), Jacaranda mimosifolia, or Acer buergeranum.” The Director denied Appellant’s request to

9 plant Platanus trees on the grounds “it is too large for a 9ft sidewalk.” [Exhibit 5, Public Works Order

10 No: 185812.] Appellant timely filed his appeal at the Board of Appeals.

11 B. The Appeal, and Appellant’s Negotiations with BUF.

12 Appellant accepts the determination authorizing him to remove the two existing street trees.

13 Appellant has not removed the trees. His preference is to obtain approval to plant two Platanus trees

14 before incurring the removal expense. Appellant’s appeal is from the determination authorizing the

15 planting of only one street tree, and from the denial of his permit to plant two Platanus trees.

16 Working with Stephen Keller at BUF, Appellant was able to clarify that BUF would approve

17 the planting of two street trees, rather than the just one tree as provided in the determination, but only

18 if Appellant agreed plant specified trees and not Platanus trees. According to Mr. Keller,

19 One of The Bureau of Urban Forestry’s main objectives is to plant the right tree in

20 the right place, in order to promote long-lived trees with manageable amounts of

21 maintenance. Planting such a large tree species as platanus [sic] would ultimately

22 end in early removal of a mature tree, as it would outgrow the space.

23 [Exhibit 6, Email from Mr. Keller to Appellant’s Attorney dated May 26, 2017.]

24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 3

1 In his communication to Appellant’s attorney, Mr. Keller attached pictures of overgrown

2 Platanus trees that had not been properly maintained and had been only very infrequently maintained.

3 The varieties of these trees are unknown, but they are likely hybrids that grow much faster and larger

4 than the varieties that are currently planted. Mr. Keller included a list of alternative trees that would

5 be approved by BUF for the location, including some that are larger and more robust than Platanus

6 trees including Tristaniopsis laurina (swamp myrtle), Laurus nobilis (sweet bay), Hymenosporum

7 flavum (sweetshade), and Pistacia chinensis (Chinese pistache).

8 Appellant responded to the concerns expressed by Mr. Keller by engaging a consulting arborist

9 Roy C. Leggitt, III, to evaluate whether it would be possible to plant two Platanus trees at the location

10 and meet BUF’s objective generally expressed as planting the right tree in the right place. Mr.

11 Leggitt is a certified arborist and the principal of Tree Management Experts, which holds a license for

12 tree service (Class “C-61 / D-49”) with the State of California Contractor’s License Board. [Exhibit 7,

13 Roy Leggitt CV.]

14 Mr. Leggitt identified problems with the alternative trees suggested by Mr. Keller. The

15 Chinese pistache is a particularly wide and spreading tree as well and cannot be managed or reduced

16 like a Platanus tree, and is therefore a very poor choice. The Acer buergeranum (trident maple), a

17 species that is characterized by low, spreading limbs, large quantities of messy seeds and aphid

18 infestations, is another very poor choice. The Pyrus kawakamii (evergreen pear) is badly affected by

19 leaf spot disease, has irregular and spreading branches, and cannot be easily reduced or trained. The

20 Olea europaea (olive) is no smaller than Platanus and has a spreading limb structure.

21 Following a thorough site visit and evaluation of BUF’s position, Mr. Leggitt determined that

22 it would be possible to both plant two Platanus trees at the site while addressing the concerns

23 expressed in Mr. Keller’s email.

24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 4

1 Mr. Leggitt prepared a pruning plan for two Platanus trees. [Exhibit 8, Platanus Pruning Plan

2 and Pruning Schedule.] Under the plan, only the right Platanus trees with tall, straight trunks, would

3 be selected from the nursery stock. The chosen trees would be Columbia sycamores (scientific name

4 Platanus x hispanica ‘Columbia’). Amongst the variants of Platanus trees, the Columbia is more

5 compact, and therefore an appropriate variant for the site. [See, Exhibit 9, Friends of the Urban Forest

6 “London Plane”.] Once planted, the pruning method would conform to the San Francisco Pruning

7 Standard (2006), BUF policies, and industry standards as defined in the American National Standard

8 Institute ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2017 Pruning. The trees would be pruned once per year, during the

9 winter.

10 Appellant offered to have the pruning plan recorded against title to the Property. Accordingly,

11 maintenance responsibilities would be transferred with title should the Property be sold.

12 The pruning plan was shared with BUF along with the request that BUF approve Appellant’s

13 request to plant two Platanus trees. BUF rejected the plan. On behalf of BUF, Mr. Keller asserted that

14 BUF did not want to establish a precedent of allowing trees to be artificially reduced in height, and

15 BUF does not have the resources to enforce the pruning plan. [Exhibit 10, Email from Mr. Keller to

16 Mr. Leggitt dated November 13, 2017.]

17 Desiring two trees with tall, straight trunks for the site, Appellant offered to plant many

18 different tree species that matched his desired look, including Citrus x aurantium, and Morus alba or

19 Morus papyfera, which are in the mulberry family, based on their cultural value. BUF declined

20 Appellant’s request1. Having explored all options with BUF without a resolution, Appellant now

21 proceeds with his appeal.

22

23 1 BUF opposed Appellant's proposals for resolutions on numerous occasions: when both Appellant's attorney and arborist had proposed viable alternatives, BUF advanced spurious arguments that fruit trees did not exist in San Francisco. The following precedents non-exhaustively document the existence of City-approved fruit bearing trees as street trees in San 24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 5

1 III. ARGUMENT

2 A. Appellant’s Pruning Plan Addresses Concerns Raised by BUF.

3 Appellant addresses BUF’s specific concern with the Platanus tree “species,” that it is too

4 large for the 9 ft sidewalk, with the Pruning Plan prepared by Mr. Leggitt. [Exhibit 5, Email from Mr.

5 Keller dated May 26, 2017; Exhibit 8, Platanus Pruning Plan.] Mr. Leggitt based the pruning plan on

6 the San Francisco Pruning Standards for Trees (2006), BUF policy, and industry standards as defined

7 in the American National Standard Institute ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2017 Pruning. [See, Exhibit 11,

8 relevant provisions of American National Standard Institute ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2017 Pruning.]

9 Mr. Leggitt’s expert evaluation of the site is that while it is small, it is likely to have good,

10 deep soil, due to its location on the south side of the street, and this should allow the Platanus trees to

11 develop healthy root growth. [Exhibit 8, pp. 2 of 5 (“Analysis of Platanus Suitability of the Site”).]

12 The specific tree varietal identified in the plan is the Columbia, which has a more compact growth

13 pattern with shorter internodes, the distances between leaves and branches, and is therefore

14 particularly well suited to the small site location. [Exhibit 8, pp. 2 of 5 (“Analysis of Platanus

15 Suitability of the Site”).]

16 The pruning method will manage the size of the crowns as the trees mature to encourage the

17 overall size of about 16 to 18 feet, thereby maintaining healthy proportionality between the size of the

18 tree and the site. [Exhibit 8, pp. 3 of 5 (“Analysis of Platanus Suitability of the Site)”.] Pollarding is

19 a pruning technique that is not part of Appellant’s plan. Pollarding cuts back tree limbs to a specific

20 point, and then removes all re-growth on an annual basis resulting in large round knobs at the end of

21 short limbs. [Exhibit 12, Arborists Memorandum, Crown Reduction for Trees (2016).] Pollarding is

22 not allowed under BUF policy. The Appellant would not use the pollarding technique on the Platanus

23

Francisco: (A) 526 Noe Street between 18th and 19th Streets (Citrus); (B) 2331 Bush Street, and two at 2315 Bush Street 24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 6

1 trees even if it were allowed because Appellant desires the trunks of the trees to resemble straight

2 columns.

3 Instead of pollarding, the pruning technique will rely on selecting and training the limb

4 structure of the trees to create a canopy close to the Property and extending over the street, resulting in

5 both trees being uniform and natural in appearance. Once the overall size of the trees reaches 16 to 18

6 feet, new growth will be slowed by reduction cuts that remove most of the new growth each year.

7 [Exhibit 8, pp. 3 of 5 (“Analysis of Platanus Suitability of the Site”), [Exhibit 12, pp. 3 of 6, Arborists

8 Memorandum, Crown Reduction for Trees (2016) (description for Containment Pruning).]

9 New growth will not be removed to the old cut location as with pollarding, but instead will be

10 cut to just above the prior year’s cut with just a few inches of increase in crown volume retained. The

11 Platanus trees are to be thoroughly pruned regularly once per year, and during winter from

12 approximately November 1 through February 28.

13 In short, Appellant’s pruning plan fully addresses BUF’s concerns about the potential size of

14 the Platanus trees relative to the location with a careful, industry-appropriate pruning technique. The

15 growth of the two Platanus trees will be controlled so the size is appropriate for the site. BUF’s refusal

16 to accept Appellant’s pruning plan is therefore not reasonable, and Appellant respectfully requests that

17 the Board of Appeals grant his appeal.

18 B. Appellant’s Pruning Plan is Based on a Widespread Pruning Style in San Francisco.

19 In response to Appellant’s pruning plan, Mr. Keller noted that BUF does not “want to start a

20 precedence (sic) of allowing trees to be artificially recued (sic) in height.” [Exhibit 10, Email from

21 Mr. Keller to Mr. Leggitt dated November 13, 2017.] Yet crown reduction is a widespread pruning

22 style historically used throughout San Francisco. Typical street trees that have been maintained by

23

(Morus); (C) Hyde Street in North Beach (Olea europaea); (D) there are also rows of Ginkgo trees in Chinatown. 24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 7

1 adjacent property owners have been reduced regularly. The numerous Platanus trees throughout the

2 Civic Center have been reduced by pollarding.

3 Thus, crown reduction is a well-established pruning technique in San Francisco and throughout

4 the tree care industry. By approving Appellant’s pruning plan, BUF would not establish new

5 precedent.

6 C. BUF Can Enter into an Enforceable, Street Tree Maintenance Plan With Appellant.

7 BUF’s concern about enforcement of Appellant’s pruning plan has an existing remedy written

8 in the Public Works Code.

9 Section 805, subsection (c), of the San Francisco Public Works Code provides that property

10 owners may voluntarily assume maintenance of street trees by entering into street tree maintenance

11 agreements with BUF. The Public Works Code provides specific details for such agreements,

12 including that the agreement “shall address, at a minimum, the following: 24-hour contact information

13 for the Department and the private party, procedures for enforcing the agreement and/or remedying its

14 breach, and security to reimburse the Department for any enforcement costs it incurs or any

15 maintenance costs it incurs due to the private party’s failure to Maintain Street Trees.” [San Francisco

16 Administrative Code, Article 16, Public Works Code, §805(c).] [Exhibit 13, §805 of the Public Works

17 Code.]

18 Here, Appellant’s Platanus Pruning Plan and Pruning Schedule would be the cornerstone of a

19 street tree maintenance agreement with BUF. Appellant is willing to negotiate the reasonable terms of

20 a street tree maintenance agreement with BUF as allowed by the Public Works Code, which addresses

21 the matter of enforcement of the plan.

22 III. CONCLUSION

23 For all the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals grant

24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 8

1 “Platanus tree.”

2 5. On behalf of Appellant, I contacted Stephen Keller at BUF to understand his

3 department’s reluctance to allow Appellant to plant two Platanus trees at the location. In the course of

4 my work on this project, I have had numerous communications with Mr. Keller.

5 6. Based on my site inspection and review of Appellant’s file, and based on my

6 conversations with Mr. Keller, I prepared a pruning plan and pruning schedule for two Platanus trees.

7 Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of my Platanus Pruning Plan and Pruning

8 Schedule (the “Pruning Plan”).

9 7. In the Pruning Plan, Dr. Memarzadeh would agree to accept full responsibility for

10 annual pruning. This pruning would initially encourage the new trees to become larger for several

11 years, gradually removing lower limbs and thereby establishing pedestrian and vehicle clearances, and

12 defining the permanent limb structure. This permanent limb structure would spread out and would

13 include many secondary and tertiary limbs, just as with a natural tree. As the size of the trees

14 approaches the height of the building, the bulk of each year’s current growth would be removed,

15 thereby slowing growth and preventing the trees from becoming too large for the site. With reduction

16 pruning, root growth will also be reduced such that infrastructure will not likely be affected.

17 8. Mr. Keller rejected the Pruning Plan. In his email to me, Mr. Keller stated,

18 We do not want platanus [sic] planted that close together & the trees will be too close to the

19 bay windows. We do not want to start a precedence [sic] of allowing trees to be artificially

20 recued [sic] in height. BUF does not have the resources the enforce this type of pruning plan,

21 nor do we want a pruning plan tied to a title.

22 Attached to hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Mr. Keller’s email.

23

24 APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF EXHIBITS TO APPELLANT’S BRIEF Appeal No.: 17-055

1. Exhibit 1. Google Maps Street View of 408-412 Cortland Avenue San Francisco showing two existing Crataegus Phaenopyrum trees. 2. Exhibit 2. Excerpt from Trees of Stanford and Environs (Ronald Bracewell 2005), London Plane. 3. Exhibit 3. Recommended Street Tree Species – With Notations, San Francisco Urban Forestry Council (March 2016). 4. Exhibit 4. Excerpt from the San Francisco Urban Forest Plan (Final Draft Spring 2014), Appendix (Most Common San Francisco Street Trees). 5. Exhibit 5. San Francisco Public Works Order No: 185812. 6. Exhibit 6. Email from Stephen Keller of BUF to Appellant’s attorney dated May 26, 2017, with attachments. 7. Exhibit 7. Roy C. Leggitt, III Curriculum Vitae. 8. Exhibit 8. Platanus Pruning Plan and Pruning Schedule. 9. Exhibit 9. Friends of the Urban Forest Urban Tree Directory, London Plane. 10. Exhibit 10. Email from Stephen Keller to Mr. Leggitt dated November 13, 2017. 11. Exhibit 11. Relevant provisions of American National Standard Institute ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2017 Pruning. 12. Exhibit 12. Arborists Memorandum, Crown Reduction for Trees (2016). 13. Exhibit 13. Section 805 of the San Francisco Public Works Code.

EXHIBIT 1

2/7/2018 408 Cortland Ave - Google Maps

https://www.google.com/maps/place/408+Cortland+Ave,+San+Francisco,+CA+94110/@37.7391697,-122.4174297,3a,75y,185.48h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUm97YFn-PgVDy7TE0wo5lA!2e0!7i133… 2/3

EXHIBIT 2

2/2/2018 Platanus × hispanica (syn. Platanus × acerifolia), London plane | Trees of Stanford & Environs

Custom Search

Encyclopedia Tree Maps & Walks Records

Platanus × hispanica (syn. Platanus × acerifolia)

Platanaceae (plane tree family)

his popular street tree is supposed to T have originated in England in the 17th century as a hybrid between the American buttonwood (Platanus occidentalis) and the oriental plane of the Mediterranean. One of its virtues was that soot-encrusted bark flaked off each year. It was introduced to America in colonial times and was the tree adopted for planting on Market Street, San Francisco, after much controversy, and on University Avenue, Palo Alto, where it replaced the glossy privet. There are many hundreds on campus. One group is on Santa Teresa Street around Lagunita Court dormitory, and another in front of Roble Gym. On Galvez Street adjacent to London plane leaf. John Rawlings Memorial Hall, one can see remains of a 1938 plantation. Another extensive group is north and west of Frost Amphitheater. London plane is widely used as a street tree in Palo Alto; one of the most beautiful is at 1250 Lincoln Avenue.

The London plane is famous for its reliability; since these groupings are planted in a regular manner it is easy to conclude from their almost universal survival that, indeed, the performance bears out the repute. Landscape architects dealing with trees less likely to survive to maturity, like to group them artistically in irregular triangles and pentagons; should one succumb, the defunct stump is eradicated and the outcome is still artistic. The old campus plantings and those on University Avenue used seedlings. El Camino Real was planted with ‘Bloodgood’, which has proved to be susceptible to sycamore mildew; this causes the leaves to turn yellow and drop off during the summer. ‘Bloodgood’ continues to be used and in 2012 six individuals were London plane trunk. Hailen Mak https://trees.stanford.edu/ENCYC/PLATace.htm 1/3 2/2/2018 Platanus × hispanica (syn. Platanus × acerifolia), London plane | Trees of Stanford & Environs planted around the John A. & Cynthia Fry Gunn Building (SIEPR).

London plane tree leaves are generally five- lobed and, if anything, the leaf teeth are coarser and the lobes not as deeply cut as those of the California plane, Platanus racemosa, but the main distinguishing feature is the absence of leafy green stipules at the base of the leaf stalk. Some maples, genus Acer, also have similarly lobed leaves (bigleaf maple is a good example). However, all the main veins to maple leaf lobe tips start from a single point at the base of the leaf; see this venation pattern illustrated and distinguished

from that of London plane tree in the Maple London plane fruit. John Rawlings photo gallery. The careful observer will notice another significant difference between Platanus and Acer, namely, the branching and leaf arrangement of maples is opposite, while that of plane trees is alternate.

The pendant seed balls are about an inch in diameter. By the time the seed balls litter the street, the light-weight seeds have already been forced out into the air currents by a release mechanism depending on the drying out of the packing, which consists of fine hollow straws.

Along with oaks and olive, Platanus is a significant allergenic tree in our area pollinating in April–June.

About this Entry: The main text of this entry is from the book Trees of Stanford and Environs, by Ronald Bracewell, published 2005. John Rawlings subsequently added the comparison to Acer and the note on allergy (Hailen Mak, MD). Scientific name updated from P. × acerifolia to P. × hispanica Oct 2017 (SP).

CAMPUS PLANES

Platanus × hispanica (syn. Platanus × acerifolia) Platanus orientalis Platanus racemosa

Site Updates Contact Us

https://trees.stanford.edu/ENCYC/PLATace.htm 2/3

EXHIBIT 3

Recommended Street Tree Species List - With Notations San Francisco Urban Forestry Council Updated March 2016

The Urban Forestry Council annually reviews and updates this list of trees, in collaboration with public and non-profit urban forestry stakeholders, including San Francisco’s Department of Public Works Urban Forestry Division and Friends of the Urban Forest.

It’s important to carefully match the conditions of your site with the tree you choose. Please note that while this list contains recommendations that are known to do well in many locations in San Francisco, no tree is perfect for every potential tree planting location. This list should be used as a guideline for choosing which street tree to plant, but should not be used without the help of a tree professional.

All street trees must be approved by Public Works before planting. The application form to plant a street tree can be found here: http://sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=644

Section 1: Tree species, varieties, and cultivars that do well in most locations in the San Francisco.* Size Evergreen/ Species Notes Deciduous Small - Evergreen Arbutus x ‘Marina’ Fruit drop can range from low volume to Less than significant 20’ tall at Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’ Not good for narrow sidewalks maturity Laurus nobilis ‘Saratoga’ Uneven performer, prefers heat, needs some wind protection, susceptible to pests Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’ Deciduous Prunus serrulata ‘Kwanzan’ Prefers wind protection; prefers a larger planting basin. Medium - Evergreen Agonis flexuosa Fast grower – more than 12” annually, requires 20-35’ tall extensive maintenance when young. at maturity Callistemon viminalis Has sticky flowers Magnolia grandiflora ‘St. Mary,’ Tristaniopsis laurina Formerly known as Tristania laurina, slow grower – less than 6” annually Tall – Evergreen Lagunaria patersonii Grows well in windy areas More than Lophostemon confertus Formerly Tristania conferta, fast grower 35’ tall at Magnolia grandiflora ‘Sam maturity Sommers,’ ‘Majestic Beauty,’ Pittosporum undulatum Can self-sow, take care when planting near natural areas Deciduous Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ Slow grower, prefers wind protection ‘Princeton Sentry’ ‘Saratoga’ Platanus x acerifolia Prefers wind protection, susceptible to ‘Bloodgood’ ‘Columbia’ anthracnose and powdery mildew ‘Yarwood’ Ulmus parvifolia ‘Drake’ Fast grower, requires extensive maintenance ‘Sempervirens’ when young. Section 2: Tree species, varieties, and cultivars that do well with certain special considerations, which may not appropriate for planting broadly throughout the San Francisco. Size Evergreen/ Species Notes Deciduous Small - Evergreen Callistemon citrinus Grows low, and wide canopy and needs a wide Less than sidewalk, sticky flowers 20’ tall at Cordyline australis Cabbage palm. Needs very large basin, take care maturity when planting near natural areas Elaeocarpus decipens Slow growing, keep out of strong/ prevailing wind, flowers and may not produce fruit at maturity here Laurus nobilis ‘Saratoga’ Uneven performer, prefers heat, wind protection, gets pests Leptospermum laevigatum Poor rooter, may need long-term or permanent staking Magnolia doltsopa Formerly Michelia doltsopa; uneven performer, grows very slowly, prefers heat, wind protection Magnolia champaca Formerly Michelia champaca; needs wind protection, wide sidewalk, gets powdery mildew and very slow grower Pittosporum crassifolium Tolerates wind and fog. Can leak sap from trunk.

Pyrus kawakamii Plant in only warmest areas of city, semi- evergreen, leaf spot/fungus likely to occur and may cause premature leaf drop, does not flower well in our climate, susceptible to fireblight Tristaniopsis laurina Formerly known as Tristania laurina ‘Elegant’; ‘Elegant’ grows slowly, irregular form, mod-high maintenance Deciduous Acer buergeranum Prefers heat, wind protection Crataegus phaenopyrum Subject to pests, has thorns, may be susceptible to fireblight Prunus cerasifera ‘Krauter Wind protection, susceptible to shot hole fungus. Vesuvius’ Limit use to areas that have very small tree basins where other species could not fit. Medium - Evergreen Acacia baileyana ‘Purpurea’ Fast grower, high maintenance, short lived. 20-35’ tall Agonis flexuosa ‘After Dark’ ‘After Dark’ is a fast grower that requires extra at tree care maturity Eriobotrya deflexa Needs wind protection, does not perform well in sandy soils, susceptible to fireblight Geijera parvifolia – prefers Prefers heat, wind protection heat, wind protection Jacaranda mimosifolia Uneven performer, prefers heat, wind protection, good drainage Melaleuca quinquenervia Grows fast, dense, irregular form, prefers wind protection Melaleuca styphelioides Can root poorly, and prickly leaves Metrosideros excelsus Needs a very large basin, and very wide sidewalks Olea europaea Needs a very large basin, prefers wind protection Phoenix dactylifera ‘Medjool’ Palm tree. Needs a large basin and wide sidewalk or ‘Zahidi’ Podocarpus gracilior Better as a shrub, gets pests

Syagrus romanzoffianum Palm tree. Needs heat, wind protection Deciduous Aesculus x carnea gets windburn easily in summer even in protected sites Koelreuteria paniculata Uneven performer, prefers heat, wind protection Pis tacia chinensis ‘Keith Prefers heat, wind protection Davey’ Pyrus calleryana ‘New Needs wind protection, susceptible to fireblight Bradford’ Tall – Evergreen Brahea edulus Palm tree. Very slow growing in San Francisco, More than needs a large basin. 35’ tall at Corymbia ficifolia Needs a very large basin, wide sidewalk , drops maturity large seed pods Eucalyptus polyanthemos Needs a large basin, fast grower, high maintenance Hymenosporum flavum Uneven performer, prefers heat, wind protect ion, good drainage Lyonothamnus floribundus Prefers heat, wind protection , prone to transplant asplenifolius shock Quercus suber Needs a large basin, wide sidewalk Washingtonia robusta Palm tree. Prefers some warmth

Deciduous Acer rubrum ‘Ar mstrong’ Prefers heat Liquidambar styraciflua Needs a very large basin Liriodendron tulipifera Uneven performer , susceptible to aphids and sooty mold. Tilia cordata Susceptible to aphids and sooty mold.

Sec tion 3: Tree species, varieties, and cultivars which are experimental. San Francisco does not have many of these species planted yet and would like to plant more of these trees to test how they do. Size Evergreen/ Species Notes Deciduous Small - Evergreen Prunus lyonii Fruit drop may get messy Less than Eucalyptus conferruminata / 20’ tall at Eucalyptus Lehmanni maturity Deciduous Crataegus x lavallei Appears to be less susceptible to fireblight and other pests than other Crataegus Magnoli a x soulangeana Can be difficult to find stock in a standard ‘Rustica Rubra’ and other form, hard training needed when young to varieties maintain single trunk/standard form Medium - Evergreen Banksia integrifolia Requires extensi ve maintenance when young. 20-35’ tall Brachychiton populneum Prefers heat and wind protection, needs a at large basin maturity Cassia leptophylla Semi -evergreen, requires extensive maintenance when young. Cedrella fissilis Chorisia speciosa Prefers heat, wind protection Pittosporum eugenioides Pittosporum rhombifolium Use in warmer parts of the City Quercus virginiana Cupaniopsis anacardioides Uneven performer, needs heat, wind protection Deciduous Celtis sinensis Prefers heat, wind protectio n, uneven performer Corylus colurna, Turkish hazel Pyrus calleryana ‘New Needs wind protection, susceptible to Bradford’ fireblight Tall – Evergreen Quercus ilex Needs wind protection, sidewalk space, gets More than powdery mildew 35’ tall at Quercus tomentella Availability improving maturity Quillaja saponaria Deciduous Acer x freemanii Platanus x acerifolia Prefers wind protection, susceptible to ‘Liberty’ anthracnose and powdery mildew Quercus frainetto ‘Forest Green’ Que rcus phellos Ulmus parvifolia x carpinifolia ‘Frontier’ Ulmus wilsoniana ‘Prospector’ Ulmus japonica x wilsoniana ‘Accolade’ Zelkova serrata Needs wide sidewalk

*For more information about planting trees under and around power lines, visit the Right Tree, Right Place website: http://www.pge.com/en/mybusiness/services/maint/vegman/customerresources/righttree/index.page

EXHIBIT 4

PHASE ONE

STREET TREES

FINAL DRAFT SPRING 2014 78 SAN FRANCISCO URBAN FOREST PLAN

aPPendiX Most Common San Francisco Street Trees San Francisco’s street trees are selected for many reasons including their ability to thrive in the city’s different microclimates, shape, height, and tendency to flower or change color. These pages feature some of the most commonly planted street trees in San Francisco. Brisbane Box 1 Lophostemon confertus

Lophostemon confertus is a tree native to Australia that does well in San Francisco’s similar Mediter- ranean climate. It is a great street tree due to its disease and pest resilience, high tolerance for smog, drought, and poor drainage, as well as needing only moderate-to-light upkeep.

Sycamore, 2 London Plane, others Platanus x hispanica

This beautiful, hardy species is well adapted to harsh urban condi- tions, making it a very common San Francisco street tree. It is a fast growing tree up to 50’ tall with a spreading form with up to 40’ of canopy cover. APPENDICES 79

New Zealand 3 Ornamental Cherry, 5 Christmas Tree Kwanzan Flowering Metrosideros excelsa Cherry, others Prunus serrulata

Metrosideros excelsa brightens San Francisco’s streets with its blood red flowers blooming in mul- Prunus serrulata is a cultivar of the tiple cycles throughout the year. It Japanese native cherry trees. The is an excellent choice for coastal beautiful flowers color the streets neighborhoods as it tolerates pre- in March-April. They are not only vailing winds and is disease and enjoyed by San Franciscans, but pest resistant. birds and bees as well.

Swamp Myrtle, 4 Strawberry Tree 6 Small-Leaf Tristania Arbutus ‘marina’ Tristaniopsis laurina

Native to eastern Australia, this spe- cies of tree develops into a formal looking shape along city streets Arbutus ‘marina’ brings striking with a dense canopy. It is a tough, colors to San Francisco trees with its low-maintenance tree that blooms attractive flowers and bright berries. small yellow, fragrant flowers in It requires little care but does not April-June. tolerate strong winds. 80 SAN FRANCISCO URBAN FOREST PLAN

9 Cherry Plum, 7 Southern Magnolia, Purple Leaf Plum, Samuel Sommer others Magnolia, others Prunus cerasifera Magnolia grandiflora

Native to the SE United States, these trees bloom spectacular, long- The Prunus cerasifera is one of the lasting white, fragrant flowers and first trees to bloom in the spring attractive foliage that make this a with light pink, fragrant flowers very popular street tree. There are that attract bees. The burgundy or also smaller, slow-growing varieties purple-green foliage brings unique that are appropriate for beneath colors to street trees in the city. overhead wires.

10 Laurel Fig, 8 Victorian Box Chinese Banyan, Pittosporum undulatum others Ficus nitida

Pittosporum undulatum are native to Australia and are valued for their The Ficus nitida is a dense shade foliage and form when allowed to tree, perfect for sites with wide branch naturally. Their creamy white medians and large courtyards. The flowers are very fragrant, similar to dense rounded canopy spreads with orange blossoms, most noticeable in age, providing great shade for sunny the evenings. They also attract birds San Francisco days. and bees. LIGHT BKG / BASE COLOR CMYK 18 11 33 0 RGB 210 210 178

SECONDARY COLOR CMYK 38 23 40 0 RGB 164 175 156

CHARCOAL GRAY CMYK 0 0 0 90 RGB 65 64 66

DULL GRAY CMYK 55 45 55 17 RGB 113 114 104

NEON GREEN CMYK 20 5 100 0 RGB 215 223 35

HTTP://URBANFOREST.SFPLANNING.ORG

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 6

From: Keller, Stephen (DPW) To: Buck, Chris (DPW); Francisco Gutierrez Subject: RE: APPEAL FILED, NO. 17-055 @ 408 CORTLAND STREET Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:57:42 PM Attachments: Examples of mature Platanus.pdf

Hi Francisco,

Thanks for talking to me earlier. As we discussed on the phone The Bureau of Urban Forestry would be open to allowing two trees if the owner would agree to plant a species that is appropriately sized for the narrow 9ft sidewalk. The property also has bay windows, which effectively narrows the vertical growing space to 6ft wide. I have attached a PDF which shows the mature size of Platanus × acerifolia, or London plane tree.

One of The Bureau of Urban Forestry’s main objectives is to plant the right tree in the right place, in order to promote long-lived trees with manageable amounts of maintenance. Planting such a large tree species as platanus would ultimately end in early removal of a mature tree, as it would outgrow the space.

Here is a list of some trees that the owner could choose from, and plant two (2) of.

Acer buergerianum- Trident maple Pyrus Kawakamii---Evergreen pear Palm trees would have a very Pillaresque (not sure if we’d allow palms, as it doesn’t match what exist on Cortland Ave) Olea europea—Olive tree Tristaniopsis laurina—Swamp myrtle (at bank of America across street) Laurus nobilis—Sweet bay Hymenosporum flavum --Sweetshade Pistacia Chinensis--Chinese Pistache

Regards,

Steve Keller Urban Forestry Inspector

Bureau of Street Use and Mapping: Urban Forestry Permits and Policy San Francisco Public Works City and County of San Francisco 1155 Market St 3rd floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Examples of mature Platanus

500 Cortland, Bernal Heights Library (see large building setback)

600 Block of Valencia. These trees have been in ground for less than 10 years. They are planted in a very wide sidewalk.

240 Scott St.

EXHIBIT 7

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Curriculum Vitae

Roy C. Leggitt, III Consulting Arborist and Plant Scientist

Education:

Bachelor of Science, California State University – Fresno. Plant Sciences, Ornamental Horticulture

Professional Qualifications

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Graduate, ASCA 2003 Consulting Academy Certified Arborist WE-0564A, International Society of Arboriculture Tree Risk Assessor Qualified (TRAQ), International Society of Arboriculture California State Contractor License for Tree Service C61/D49 #885953

Continuing Education / Topic or Seminar Titles

Selection of methodology in tree appraisal Tree Appraisal Workshop Tree Appraisal Theory and Practice: An Advanced Seminar Testifying Skills for Consulting Arborists Trees and the Law Understanding Soils Soil Compaction Roots and Soils Reforestation in the Forest, Suburbia and the City Palm Cultivation Sudden Oak Death Tree Preservation During Construction Hazard tree risk assessment and management National Tree Failure Program Body Language of Trees Tree Physiology Davey Operational Safety program Fire Risk Management Riparian zone conservation Resistograph® Certification Seminar

Areas of Specialized Study

Plant physiology and biology Plant taxonomy Arboriculture Irrigation technology Soil science Landscape design Plant pathology and mycology Risk assessment Arboricultural biomechanics

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 1 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Related Fields of Study

Agronomy and viticulture Geological science Computer sciences and programming Mathematics Physics

Employment:

1987-Present Self-employed Consulting Arborist and Horticultural Consultant.

2011-Present Member of the Opine Experts group.

1992-2002 The Davey Tree Expert Co., Inc.: project management, representative, consultant.

1989-1992 Golden Coast Environmental Services, Inc.: project management and northern California representative.

1988-1989 City of Fresno: supervised team of 4 data collectors to develop citywide inventory. Developed and adapted software throughout project.

1987-1988 Center for Irrigation Technology: research on sprinkler distribution patterns using laser scanning to measure droplet size.

Agency Certifications:

Small Business Administration: Certified Small Business DUNS# 12-783-9798

San Francisco Human Rights Commission: Certified Local Business Enterprise (LBE) and Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). Certification number: HRC020914873

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency: Certified Small Business Enterprise (SBE). Certification number: 113-10706-013

Consultant:

Municipal and Agencies

1988-1989: City of Fresno: managed an in-house street tree inventory project, including staff training and management, data quality control, software modifications and implementation of database.

1989: City of Palo Alto: managed data collection and software implementation for a City-wide street and right-of-way tree inventory.

1989-1990: City of Visalia: managed data collection and software implementation for a street tree inventory and a valley oak conservation study of all areas within City limits.

1990: City of Manteca: City-wide street tree inventory and management plan.

1990: City of Lancaster: City-wide street sign inventory.

1990: City of Pasadena: City-wide inventory of street trees, street lighting, sidewalk damage survey; site-specific sidewalk redesign specifications to accommodate tree needs.

1990-1992: City of Los Angeles: managed 6 staff data collectors. Oversaw data quality and localized data base installations in field offices.

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 2 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

1994-1997: City and County of San Francisco, Housing Authority: tree surveys, tree management planning and contract administration for Sunnydale (phase I), Hunter’s View, Potrero Terrace and Potrero Annex.

1999-2000: City of Pacifica: risk assessment tree survey for 639 trees including a recommendation for removal of 119 trees. Represented the City on a panel to answer over 200 citizen inquiries. Represented the City to administer the tree service contract.

1999-2000: National Park Service, Fort Mason: inspections and reports to facilitate tree management decisions. Evaluation based on safety and neighbor concerns. Conducted 3-hour training session for staff on proper pruning techniques.

2002: National Park Service, Muir Woods National Monument: deconstruction planning, hazard evaluation and construction planning in tree-sensitive areas.

2002-Present: City of Pacifica: site-specific inspections and recommendations for management decisions, risk assessment and dispute resolution.

2003: City of Pacifica: tree risk assessment and tree management study. Field report and geographic information system developed to implement tree removal, reforestation and replacement tree conservation in a residential neighborhood and riparian zone parks.

2003-2006: USDA Research Station, Albany: soil nutrition and hydrology survey; plant location, size and health survey; comprehensive interpretive report with map inserts.

2004: City of San Pablo: site assessment, tree health assessment and recommended remediation for 44 palm tree planting sites in a commercial district.

2004-2005: City of Oakland: Leona Quarry Redevelopment Master Plan; plan review, project compliance with conditions of approval.

2005-2006: City of Oakland: City-wide tree inventory; estimated 300,000 tree sites. Vector- mapping by block side, PDA data collection, database development, GIS implementation.

2006-2007: City of Pacifica: tree risk assessment and tree management study for all large trees managed by the City that are located in streets and parks.

2006-2007: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission with Ecology & Environment, Inc: Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 project. Provided the tree survey and arborist memorandum for an environmental impact report. Tree protection and mitigation measures were evaluated at the Municipal, County and State levels, including considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and SB-1334.

2006-2011: Federal Building, Golden Gate Plaza: with PGA Design, provided design review, species selection and site management and monitoring specifications. Provided ongoing monitoring and evaluations, and design and installation of new landscape areas.

2007: City of Pacifica: Author of DPW publication Trees for Pacifica: Tree Selection and Planting Guide to provide appropriate species selection based on site assessment, wind, coastal influence, tree size and growth rate with ornamental and native species.

2008: State Compensation Insurance Fund: tree health and site assessment with recommendations for tree care. Review of new plaza design to preserve existing trees during construction.

2008: National Park Service, San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park: tree health and risk assessment with recommendations.

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 3 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

2008-2009: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission with ESA/Orion Joint Venture: Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 project. Provided project refinement and enhancement of options through inclusion of tree impacts caused by use of helicopters, temporary bridge construction and installation of cathodic protection.

2008-2009: City of Oakland, with PGA Design: City sidewalk repair specifications, monitoring and stress tests.

2008-2011: General Services Administration, National Archives, San Bruno: provided a tree survey and management plan, ongoing contract management and re-evaluation for health and hazard trees.

2009-2010: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Bay Division Pipeline 5. Completed the initial tree study with Merrill Morris Partners. Completed training, job hazard analysis and safety work plans for Hernandez Engineering. Completed pre-construction tree survey with an inventory and mapping of the western reaches for Mountain Cascade.

2010-2012: City of Emeryville: Provided City Arborist services for the installation of 12 new date palms at the west end of Park Avenue, and follow-up monitoring and recommendations.

2011: BART through Flatiron Construction. Completed a landscaping and tree survey for vegetation losses caused by construction of the Oakland Airport Connector.

2009-Present: City of Alameda Housing Authority: provided tree surveys in 2009 and 2011 with scale drawings and a management plan for all properties containing trees. Provided tree hazard evaluation for all removals, and ongoing inspections and reports.

2010-Present: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. As-needed projects as a sub- consultant for MWH and HDR contracts. Most recent project is a tree risk assessment study for the trees at Lake Merced.

2013-Present: San Francisco Department of Public Works, with Empire Construction: provided inspections, root pruning and low limb pruning for street trees during sidewalk repairs.

2013-Present: Santa Clara County with Hexagon Transportation and URS: species lists for various tree planting typologies for over 600 miles of roads throughout Santa Clara County.

2015: City of Pacifica: tree risk assessment and tree management study for all large trees managed by the City that are located in streets and parks.

2015-Present: San Mateo County Events Center: tree evaluations and maintenance specifications with tree service oversight.

2016: San Mateo County Parks Department, Memorial Park: risk assessment and tree removal list for trees within the east part of the use areas.

Association Management Planning

1998-1999: Laguna Heights Co-op Corp.: tree inventory and mapping for 450-tree association property. Tree management plan and 10 year maintenance cost projections.

2003-Present: Treasure Isle HOA: database tree inventory, tree maintenance and management plan, creation of a fully cross-indexed management manual and project management. Ongoing assistance with vendor oversight, conflict resolution and interfacing with City staff. 16-acre site.

2003-Present: Bohemian Club, San Francisco: management for intensely used urban planting sites for Boston ivy, trees and shrubs.

2004: La Salle Heights HOA, San Francisco: tree and vegetation study for a 16-acre site with 800 trees, native plants, invasive exotic plants and landscaping. Data and analyses included pest and ______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 4 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

disease management, species selection, fire risk assessment, irrigation assessment, erosion, soil properties and preparation of a site map.

2004-Present: Longwater HOA, Foster City: tree inventory, site mapping and management plan for 207 trees in common areas. Many young trees were inspected with nursery, planting and cultivation problems. Management planning included species suitability, planting density, remediation strategies and maintenance recommendations. Large trees primarily required health and risk assessment with maintenance recommendations. Ongoing inspections.

2004-2013: Barron Square HOA, Palo Alto: tree inventory, site mapping and management plan for 259 trees of 37 species in common areas. Primary areas for recommendations were risk assessment, planting density, irrigation, drainage, infrastructure conflicts and maintenance. Ongoing inspections.

2004-2011: Edgewater Isle South HOA, San Mateo: tree inventory, site map and management plan for 135 trees in common areas. Site assessment and tree planting plan in 2006. Ongoing inspections.

2005-2012: Edgewater Isle Master Association, San Mateo: tree inventory, digital site mapping, comprehensive management plan and field manual. Tree health, risk assessment and infrastructure conflicts evaluated. Site assessment and tree planting plan in 2006. Ongoing inspections.

2005: Serravista HOA, South San Francisco: site assessment, tree health assessment, species recommendations and Planning Department documents

2006-Present: Alverno Hill HOA, Redwood City: construction impacts and landscape plan review from neighboring property development and a fire risk assessment report. Tree inventory and management plan for all common areas. Ongoing inspections.

2006-Present: Whaler’s Island HOA, Foster City: tree inventory, digital site mapping, comprehensive management plan and field manual. Tree health, risk assessment and infrastructure conflicts evaluated. Ongoing inspections.

2007-2009: Glenridge Apartments Co-operative: tree risk assessments and recommendations.

2007-2009: Oak Commons HOA, Gilroy: tree health and risk assessment of 3 large oaks with recommendations. Evaluation of new tree health, crowded plantings and installation and nursery defects for over 900 new trees within new development landscaping with recommendations.

2007-Present: Pitcairn HOA, Foster City: tree health and risk assessment with cultivation recommendations with updates. Ongoing inspections.

Construction Mitigation

1995-2001: Proulx properties: 7-year project to combine 4 large estates including management of natural areas, private golf course design/build impacts, new infrastructure, private vineyard and orchard.

1998-2002: Presidio Hill School: building and utility service design modifications necessary to preserve 3 large trees during historic building preservation and new construction over 4 1/2 years.

1998-2004: Bay Area Discovery Museum: preservation of historic eucalyptus trees from design stages through construction during a 15,000 square foot expansion over 5 years.

2001: #1 Front Street: comprehensive report to assess problems and recommend remedial steps for cultivation of 41 trees in containers on high-rise roof terraces.

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 5 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

2002-2003: Marina Chateau: 8th floor deck-installed design including a decorative screen and selection of containers and plants.

2002-2007: Laguna Honda Hospital: tree preservation and conservation of a historic arboretum, and tree preservation at various new building construction sites within a 63-acre site to be executed over 10 years.

2004-2006: GK Builders: tree protection and preservation planning for residential development.

2004-2006: Sal Caruso Design Corporation: tree protection and preservation planning for various condominium conversion projects and for the Fremont Child Care Center.

2004-2007: Simpson Design Group: tree protection and preservation planning for residential development.

2004-2007: Worldco Company, Ltd: tree protection, planning, tree and landscape design issues.

2004-2008: Equity Community Builders, Cavallo Point and Healing Arts Center (The Retreat at Fort Baker), Sausalito. Site assessment, health assessment, construction modification, tree protection and preservation recommendations, co-author and lead consultant for a 10-year tree management plan.

2004-2010: The Altenheim, Oakland: tree survey and report to conserve a rare plant and historic landscape of 6.2 acres during an adaptive reuse construction project. Ongoing work during redevelopment with Eden Housing.

2005: EDAW, Inc.: project planning, including tree protection, preservation and species selection.

2005-2007: Devcon Construction: tree protection and preservation planning, on-site inspections during construction, mitigation recommendations, maintenance recommendations.

2005-2008: Safeway, Inc: tree assessment, site assessment, design review, tree protection measures and new planting recommendations.

2006-2012: DES Architects & Engineers: tree assessment, site assessment, appraised values and tree protection during construction.

2007-2008: Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey (RHAA): City College of San Francisco. Provided design review, analysis of site conditions, species recommendations and spacing requirements for the re-design of the core areas of the campus and expanded areas adjacent to the reservoir.

2008: Hanover Company: tree health and risk assessment for the Candlestick Cove project in San Francisco.

2008-2009: LaLanne Group, University Village: provided a tree survey and tree protection plan for redevelopment of a historic arboretum site that was formerly part of UC Berkeley.

2009-2010: Webcor Construction, Inc: San Francisco General Hospital. Provided pre- construction evaluation of trees and soil conditions, recommending removal, transplanting, pruning and tree protection measures. Project Arborist for new construction and utilities.

2009-2010: San Francisco Botanical Garden, pathway improvement project. Provided ongoing inspections and reports for many rare tree species. Worked on behalf of the paving contractors, AAA Construction and Trinet Construction, in cooperation with Botanical Garden and City staff.

2010-2013: California Pacific Medical Center, St. Luke’s Hospital replacement, through HerreroBoldt. Provided a tree survey and management plan, tree removal recommendations, reports and a hearing for City permitting, design modifications for accommodation and protection of a San Francisco Landmark Tree.

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 6 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

2010-Present: Cypress Lawn Memorial Park. Provided tree surveys and management plan updates, Project Manager for Water Efficient Landscape Regulations ordinance revisions, management of construction impacts, historic arboretum conservation and interpretation, in- house training programs and public outreach programs. 2012: Office of Cheryl Barton: Huntington Botanical Gardens, San Marino: Provided design review services and specifications for soil harvesting, storage and replacement, drainage issues, planting specifications and species selected for new entry gardens.

2012: Office of Cheryl Barton: Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose: Provided a tree survey, soil testing and analysis for horticultural properties, and Master Plan team participation.

2013-2014: Town School for Boys: various tree and landscape issues for tree protection planning and ongoing care issues during demolition and excavation.

2015-2016: Hunter’s Point East West project with John Stewart Company and PGA Design: Provided risk and health assessment plus tree protection planning for all trees on 4 low income housing projects in San Francisco.

2015-2016: Edgewater Senior Housing, San Mateo: tree survey for construction, species replacement needs, planting plan review, negotiations for key tree removal permit for social center construction.

Maintenance Management

2003-Present: Bohemian Club, San Francisco, providing conservation and management of extensive Boston ivy, trees, shrubs and irrigation at their downtown site.

2004-2014: Bay Area Discovery Museum: maintenance planning and maintenance policy development for outdoor educational exhibit areas.

2004-2011: Kaiser Permanente hospitals, 2 sites in San Francisco, provided management of all tree-related decisions and maintenance.

2010-Present: Cypress Lawn Memorial Park: maintenance planning and oversight during implementation.

2013-2015: Parkmerced: tree risk assessment study and management plan, digital mapping. Maintenance scheduling for bi-monthly tree service.

2013: Bentley School in Oakland: coast redwood tree risk assessment, preservation specifications and oversight for implementation.

2014-Present: Camp Tawonga: tree risk assessment for all trees near use areas. Ongoing inspections and assessments. Interface with tree service contractor.

2015-Present: San Mateo County Events Center: tree risk assessment and tree service specifications and oversight with contractor.

2015: Western Railway Museum: the first ever evaluation of trees throughout the museum and working railway system grounds with maintenance recommendations and priorities.

Customized Services

2009-2011: Hartmann Studios: Developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for ongoing care, maintenance and handling of nursery stock used for special event plant rentals. All illustrations, photographs and text were original work that was translated into Spanish.

2010: Quality of Life Foundation: Designed and implemented a program for volunteer-based tree plantings at schools and parks.

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 7 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Natural Areas

2001-2003: Presidio Trust: ongoing volunteer participation including site restoration, maintenance and monitoring for quail habitat sites.

2001-2004: Kirsch property; riparian zone site evaluation, recommendations, re-vegetation

planning and monitoring requirements, vineyard impacts and management issues.

2004-2005: City of Oakland, with PGA Design: Leona Quarry Redevelopment Master Plan; plan review, project compliance with conditions of approval integrating with natural areas.

Small Projects

1987-Present: Consultation and Arborist Reports: routinely created as guidance to project sponsors, contractors, Architects, landscape maintenance companies, commercial property managers, residential owners, concerned neighbors, Municipalities and insurance companies. Projects are throughout the San Francisco bay area with a concentration on the Peninsula, in San

Francisco and in Marin County. Projects are too numerous to list separately.

Public Hearings

Representation at local government public hearings is a routine assignment. A list of Expert Public Testimony is available upon request.

Appraisals and Claims Settlement

1987-Present: Trespass and Negligence: routinely provide inspections, reports and appraisals for small trespass and negligence cases, generally negotiated, mediated, arbitrated, settled out of court or settled in small claims court.

1992-2002: The Davey Tree Expert Co., Inc.: provided all tree appraisals for the district office serving San Mateo and San Francisco counties.

1992-2011: California State Automobile Association: routinely provide inspection and appraisal information for claims settlement on both homeowner policies and automobile policies.

1994-Present: Farmer’s Insurance: routinely provide inspection and appraisal information for claims settlement on real estate policies.

1999-Present: City of Pacifica: forensic investigations and technical report writing as an expert for tree dispute resolution.

2004-Present: State Farm Insurance: provide inspection and appraisal information for claims settlement.

2008: Shelter Ridge HOA, San Rafael: tree health and appraisal for damaged trees.

2008-2011: Allied Insurance: provide inspections, forensic investigations and appraisals for claims settlement.

Expert Witness

Routinely provide expert opinion and testimony on tree and horticulture issues to areas of legal practice that include Land Use, Real Estate, Trespass, Negligence and Personal Injury.

Trained and certified within the field of Arboriculture in technical report writing, forensic sciences, expert case preparation, deposition procedure and trial procedure.

Partial list of attorney-clients:

Eric Abramson, esq. of Abramson, Smith, Waldsmith for plaintiffs David Balch, esq. of Kennedy, Archer & Harray for defendants ______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 8 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Steven A. Booska, esq., for plaintiffs and defendants Matthew Davis, esq. of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger for plaintiffs Robert A. Ford, esq., Rene I. Gamboa, esq., and Katherine A. Higgins, esq. of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith for defendants Brian Gearinger, esq., of Gearinger Law Group for plaintiff Michael D. Green, esq. of Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery for plaintiff Robert Harrison, esq. of Wright, Robinson, Osthimer and Tatum for defendant James C. Hazen, esq. of Gray & Prouty for defendant Richard Herzog, esq., for defendant Robert S. Jaret, esq. and Phillip A. Jaret, esq. of Jaret & Jaret for plaintiffs Ryan Kahl, esq. of R. Rex Parris Law Firm for plaintiff Brendan Kunkle, esq. of Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery for plaintiff Michael D. Liberty, esq. for plaintiff Stephen K. Lightfoot, esq. of Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley for defendants Peter Lynch, esq. of Cozen O’Connor for plaintiff Michael J. Macko, esq. of Fores Macko for plaintiff Todd Master, esq. of Howard, Rome, Martin & Ridley for defendant Thomas J. McDermott, esq. of Bragg & Kuluva for plaintiff Cynthia McGuinn, esq. of Rouda Feder Tietjen McGuinn for plaintiff Timothy Tietjen, esq. of Rouda Feder Tietjen McGuinn for plaintiff Mark Mosley, esq. of Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate for plaintiff Michael P. Reid, esq. for defendant Dan Reilly, esq. for defendant Kerry Renn, esq, for plaintiff and defendant Michael R. Reynolds, esq, of Rankin, Sproat, Mires, Beaty & Reynolds for defendant Andy Sclar, esq. of Ericksen Arbuthnot for defendant Richard Shoenberger, esq. of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger for plaintiffs Marc D. Stolman, esq. for defendant Megan Symonds, esq. of Santana & Hart for defendant Peter Van Zandt, esq. of Bledsoe Law Firm for defendant R. J. Waldsmith, esq., Eric Abramson, esq. and William B. Smith of Abramson Smith Waldsmith for plaintiffs Joseph L. Wright, esq. of Dambacher, Trujillo and Wright for plaintiffs

Confirmed Expert Witness in Superior Courts: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Monterey and Tuolumne Counties.

Lectures and Presentations:

1995: Three one-hour lecture sessions to College of San Mateo General Ornamental Horticulture class titled: “From Planting to Pruning of Woody Ornamentals in the Landscape.”

1998: Three one-hour lecture sessions to College of San Mateo General Ornamental Horticulture class titled: “From Planting to Pruning of Woody Ornamentals in the Landscape.”

1999: One-hour slide lecture at the Presidio to National Park Service Landscape Architects from across the country. Lecture topic: History in Pruning: historic plantings and historic pruning.

April 2002: Urban forestry presentation to San Francisco Department on the Environment

May 2002: Presentation to Tree Advisory Board on Landmark Tree Nominations in San Francisco

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 9 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

October 2004: Two-hour presentation for a Certified Arborist examination preparation class titled: “Assessment and Risk Management”

October 2004: Presentation of industry-specific use of scientific tools at Tool Day

November 2004: Presentation titled: “Tree Health During Construction”

January 2005: Presentation with handouts titled: “Air-spade: Uses, Limitations and Specifications”

March and April 2006: Leader of two tree walks in Palo Alto for Canopy

August 2006: PowerPoint presentation to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with handouts titled: “Integration of Risk Reduction Pruning to Municipal Management Systems”

May 2007: PowerPoint presentation to Bay Area staff from The Care of Trees®, Inc. with handouts titled: “Risk Reduction Pruning”

September 2007: PowerPoint presentation to the Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA) with handouts titled: “Integration of Risk Reduction Pruning Into Municipal Management Systems”

November 2008: One-hour presentation with 8 page handout titled “Tree Assessment and Risk Management”, for a Certified Arborist examination preparation class

June 2009: One-hour presentation at Merritt College with 8 page handout titled “Tree Assessment and Risk Management”, for a Certified Arborist examination preparation class

August 2009: Landmark Tree Tour leader volunteer for City of San Francisco, Department of the Environment

May 2010: Two-hour PowerPoint presentation titled: “Pruning Standards for San Francisco” for City of San Francisco staff, as a volunteer for the Department of the Environment

March 2011: Two one-hour kid-friendly tree tours for the City of Palo Alto Arbor Day celebration

April 2011: One-hour PowerPoint presentation and lecture: Celebrating Historic Trees and Landscape at Cypress Lawn.

June 2011: Presentation to Colma Town Council on revisions to the Water Efficient Landscape Regulations ordinance.

July 2012: Opine Experts Panelist at the Bay Area Chapter of the Forensic Expert Witness Association.

February 2013: Two-hour lecture and field demonstrations on fruit tree pruning to members of the Fort Mason Community Garden, San Francisco.

June 2013: One and a half-hour presentation the San Francisco Botanical Garden titled “Tree Assessment and Risk Management” for a Certified Arborist examination preparation class

August 2013: One-hour presentation to the Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists titled “Trees in Urban Areas: Why Risk Assessment Matters”

October 2013: One half hour presentation to the Western Chapter – International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) titled “Pruning with Care: When and How to Prune to Avoid Harming Birds”

September 2015: One-hour presentation to the Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists titled “Getting to the Root of Sidewalk Damage”

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 10 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Media and Publications:

Featured by Printed Media

American Way: September 15,1989, Mini-Splendored Things The Fresno Bee: May 14, 1990, Editorials, Tree Spirits in Visalia Visalia Times-Delta: 1991, Arborist takes Visalia’s trees to heart The Fresno Bee: 1991, Taking stock of Visalia’s roots Stockton Record: 1991, Sizing Up Manteca’s Trees Bay Guardian: April 16, 1997, Endangered species San Francisco Chronicle: May 14, 2008, City takes the case of mystery manzanita San Francisco Examiner: April 27, 2009, Art project may be putting trees at risk

Speaker via Media

Storm Report of December 1994 ABC Television: 20-minute storm report interview ABC Radio: 10-minute interview

Publications

SF Apartment Magazine, October 2003, Tree Dispute Resolution Canopy: Trees for Palo Alto newsletter, Fall 2005, Ask the Arborist column Opine Experts, web article, The Credible Expert Witness: Callous Hands that Touch Trees Opine Experts, web article, The Importance of Narrative in Technical Report Writing Opine Experts, web article, A Reality Check for Would-be Forensic Experts City of Pacifica: Author of DPW publication Trees for Pacifica: Tree Selection and Planting Guide Golden Gate Audubon Society, Co-author of a brochure Healthy Trees, Healthy Birds; Bird- Friendly Tree Care for the San Francisco Bay Area

Public Policy:

Tree Advisory Board (volunteer): regular attendance and participation from June 1995. Appointed as voting Member by the Director of the Department of Public Works in June 1998. Appointed by the Board as Chair of the Landmark Tree Committee.

City of San Francisco: developed a partnership between corporate tree care and the Clean City Coalition to benefit DPW. Provided pro bono recommendations to DPW staff.

City of San Francisco: developed a maintenance agreement strategy to allow proper

maintenance by an outdoor advertising company of previously city-maintained trees.

Tree Summit, Friends of the Urban Forest (volunteer): panel member for discussion of Urban Forestry among public and private sector stakeholders to develop the State of the Urban Forest Report, 2000.

City of San Francisco: assisted in modifications to Department of Public Works code Article 16. Ordinance changes include integration of various departments, the creation of the Bureau of Urban Forestry, and creation of the Urban Forest Council.

2008: EDAW, Inc.: San Francisco Urban Forestry Master Plan for the San Francisco Planning Department. The Consulting Arborist for a team to develop a Master Plan to integrate Arboriculture, Urban Design, infrastructure conflicts, sustainable ecology, funding strategies and maintenance alternatives.

Conservatory Foundation (non-profit): served 6 years on the Board of Directors to preserve the rare plant collection and the building, Golden Gate Park Conservatory of Flowers, San Francisco.

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 11 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

City of East Palo Alto: pro bono assistance to City staff in developing a heritage tree protection ordinance.

Canopy (non-profit): pro bono assistance in formulating a public-private partnership with the City of East Palo Alto and their citizens for the first volunteer-oriented public tree planting project. Assistance to Canopy with a grant funds application to the California Department of Forestry.

Friends of the Music Concourse: provided expert assistance over more than 1 year and public testimony on several occasions to achieve landmark status for historic trees in the Music Concourse of Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. The Music Concourse and the historic grid of trees were declared a City Landmark in December 2005.

Canopy (non-profit): Board member from February 2007 to 2012. Board Secretary from 2008 to 2012.

Cypress Lawn Memorial Park: Project development, Town negotiations, management of the consulting team and author of the draft ordinance for water efficient landscape regulations ordinance revisions under AB 1881, designed to accommodate cemetery landscapes in the Town of Colma.

Professional Affiliations and Memberships:

American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), Member Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists (SFES), Member International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Life Member Western Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA), Member

Related Affiliations and Memberships:

California Invasive Plants Council California Native Plant Society California State Parks Foundation Canopy, Trees for Palo Alto Conservatory of Flowers Friends of the Urban Forest Golden Gate Audubon Society National Audubon Society Natural Resources Defense Council Nature Conservancy Pacific Crest Trail Association San Francisco Botanical Garden Society Sempervirens Fund Sierra Club

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 12 of 13

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Travel to Notable Trees

Coast Range, California: coast redwood stands Sierra Nevada, California: giant sequoia stands White Mountains, California: ancient bristlecone pine forest Fairchild Tropical Garden, Boca Raton, Florida: arboretum Milford Trek, Fjordland, New Zealand: southern beech pygmy forest and tree ferns Northland, New Zealand: Waipoua Forest, kauri and associated species Amazon, Peru: tropical South American species Botswana: Southern Africa species, baobab and ebony Kruger National Park, South Africa: native plant nursery St Petersburg, Russia: pruning, cabling, bracing and guying techniques Ta Prohm, Angkor Wat, Siem Reap, Cambodia: tropical trees and figs on the ancient temple with underpinning, and strategic removals Saigon, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: ancient and modern propping techniques; arboretum

______

5/20/16 curriculum vitae Page 13 of 13

EXHIBIT 8

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Dr. Maher Memarzadeh via email: [email protected]

Project: Platanus Pruning Plan 308-312 Cortland Avenue San Francisco, CA 94110

Date: November 8, 2017

Platanus Pruning Plan and Pruning Schedule

Assignment

• Provide a Pruning Plan and Pruning Schedule for two new sycamore trees (Platanus X hispanica) proposed for planting at the subject property. These trees are also known as London plane trees, and are referred to herein as Platanus trees. • Provide examples of reduced growth rates for this type of tree based on crown reduction and containment pruning. • Provide a pruning schedule for the new trees based on known and documented reduced growth rates and due to known pruning response.

Background

Dr. Memarzadeh has proposed replacement of two trees with Platanus trees. These trees offer an appropriate aesthetic and stature, along with important cultural connections, to meet his desired effect. The trunks are tall and straight, and the trees are not prone to dropping berries or fruit.

The Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) has been reluctant to approve planting two Platanus trees at this site due to the nearby utilities, narrow sidewalk and further narrowed airspace due to building projections. Given the limited budget of the Bureau and what would be considered a normal maintenance regime, the Bureau feels that they cannot maintain two trees within the physical confines of the site.

Dr. Memarzadeh has requested this report to create a Pruning Plan and Pruning Schedule for two new Platanus trees that could be (1) approved by the Bureau of Urban Forestry; (2) required maintenance in the approved manner and frequency by Dr. Memarzadeh during his ownership; and (3) recorded as part of the title of the property with maintenance responsibilities transferred with title should the property be sold.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 1 of 5

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Analysis of Platanus Suitability for the Site

The existing site is relatively small, as characterized by BUF, but is likely to have good, deep soil. The hillside rises to the north, and the cut soil would have been moved to the south side of this street when the road was constructed. Since the neighborhood is well over 100 years old, the site conditions should be stable and reliable for growing trees. I expect that a species of tree such as Platanus will find ample soil volume for root growth given the deeper soils. This is an important consideration since there are utilities in other areas of the sidewalk that will eventually need repairs, and with a deeper root structure it is both less likely that roots will interfere with utilities, and it is more likely that root losses for utility work will be tolerated by the trees.

All Platanus trees are from river washes where soil is coarse and gravelly, and very deep. Under native conditions, Platanus trees are injured, scoured out and/or buried by sediment and debris movement during wet periods. This evolutionary niche has created very tough and durable trees that adapt particularly well to urban settings where they may be impacted by construction, road repairs, vehicles and seasonally variable moisture levels.

The Platanus genus includes several species and some hybrids, and the proposed London plane hybrid is particularly well-suited to urban settings. Within the London plane tree hybrid, there are several selected varieties, and the Columbia variety is particularly well- suited to the San Francisco climate. The Columbia type tree has a more compact growth pattern with shorter internodes – the distances between leaves and branches.

The various Platanus species and hybrids, and particularly the London plane hybrid and its varieties, are able to be crown reduced in a variety of ways. These trees can be pruned to extremes, including pollarding back to stubs that re-grow each year, and Platanus trees will remain healthy with pollarding. The San Francisco Pruning Standard and the policy of BUF does not allow for pollarding of any street tree, and I support this standard and policy given that pollarding encourages re-growth that is too low for traffic and pedestrians. In most cases, pollarding also limits the canopy size without it ever becoming larger than a pre- determined size. Pollarding is not part of this pruning plan.

Platanus Pruning Plan

All pruning shall conform to the City of San Francisco Pruning Standard, and shall conform to all industry standards, currently those being the American National Standard Institute ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2017 Pruning, and as interpreted and applied herein. Any change or revision to this pruning plan and pruning schedule will require approval by the appropriate City authority, currently that being the Urban Forester in the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry.

Pruning is to be completed only by a Certified Arborist and with the guidance of this document.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 2 of 5

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

The new Platanus trees will be selected for tall, straight trunks, consistent with the cultural and aesthetic request of the property owner. If the nursery stock is not tall enough upon installation, lower limbs will be removed gradually over the first several years to elevate the limb and foliage crown to about 10 feet. The precise type of trees selected for installation will be Columbia sycamores (Platanus X hispanica ‘Columbia’). Nursery stock will be hand selected for good root, trunk and limb structure that is compatible with this site.

The limb structure will be selected and trained to create a canopy close to the building and extending over the street, both trees being uniform and natural in appearance. The overall size of the trees will be encouraged up to about 16 to 18 feet, and then slowed by reduction cuts that remove most of the new growth each year. This new growth will not be removed to the old cut location as with pollarding, but instead will be cut to just above the prior year’s cut with just a few inches of increase in crown volume retained.

Pruning cuts will typically be about 1 inch diameter each or smaller, and will be spread throughout the crown to maintain a lacey and natural branch pattern.

Pruning Schedule

The Platanus trees are to be thoroughly pruned regularly once per year, and during winter from approximately November 1 through February 28.

Additional pruning may be done to achieve or maintain clearances, but must not exceed 10 percent of live foliage when the trees are in leaf.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 3 of 5

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Title and ownership of all property considered are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible. The consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Various diagrams, sketches and photographs in this report are intended as visual aids and are not to scale, unless specifically stated as such on the drawing. These communication tools in no way substitute for nor should be construed as surveys, architectural or engineering drawings. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. 7. This report is confidential and to be distributed only to the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any or all of the contents of this report may be conveyed to another party only with the express prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. Such limitations apply to the original report, a copy, facsimile, scanned image or digital version thereof. 8. This report represents the opinion of the consultant. In no way is the consultant’s fee contingent upon a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule, an agreement or a contract. 10. Information contained in this report reflects observations made only to those items described and only reflects the condition of those items at the time of the site visit. Furthermore, the inspection is limited to visual examination of items and elements at the site, unless expressly stated otherwise. There is no expressed or implied warranty or guarantee that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property inspected may not arise in the future. Disclosure Statement

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 4 of 5

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. An arborist cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees.

Certification of Performance

I, Roy C. Leggitt, III, Certify:

• That we have inspected the trees and/or property evaluated in this report. We have stated findings accurately, insofar as the limitations of the Assignment and within the extent and context identified by this report;

• That we have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or any real estate that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;

• That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are original and are based on current scientific procedures and facts and according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices;

• That no significant professional assistance was provided, except as indicated by the inclusion of another professional report within this report;

• That compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party. I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and a member and Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have attained professional training in all areas of knowledge asserted through this report by completion of a Bachelor of Science degree in Plant Science, by routinely attending pertinent professional conferences and by reading current research from professional journals, books and other media. I have rendered professional services in a full time capacity in the field of horticulture and arboriculture for more than 25 years.

Signed:

Date: November 8, 2017

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 5 of 5

EXHIBIT 9

Share FUF's site!

611 134 238 1207

Contact Us Español

Greening San Francisco Search this website …

Home About Us Programs & Services Get Involved Benefits of Urban Greening News Support Us Resources & Reference

Home Resources & Reference Urban Tree Species Directory London Plane Tree Resources & Reference

Urban Tree Species Directory Photos Arborist (and Other) Referrals Plant On Your Own Tree Care On Your Own Useful Links Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Site Map London Plane Tree Donate today and help us continue to increase the Donate Now Platanus x hispanica ‘Columbia’/ ‘Yarwood’/ ‘Bloodgood’ number of trees we plant! 501(c)(3) Non-Profit

UPCOMING EVENTS

February 7, 2018 -- Wonderful Wednesday Tree Care

February 7, 2018 -- Community Forester: Tree Planting + Sidewalk Landscaping Seminar

See all upcoming events »

Full view Foliage detail Bark detail We just can't say THANK YOU enough! This has Size: been such a life-changing, Height: 30-50'; Spread: 30-40' street-transforming, neighborhood-lifting Growth: experience." Fast — Lori Hébert & Thaddeus Homan Character: Deciduous; Spreading form; light canopy.

Foliage: INTERESTED IN A TREE? SIGN UP! Yellow-green, serrated, lobed leaves, 9" across. Fall foliage is yellow; tree is bare November-March.

Request a Tree Flower: Insignificant flowers.

Fruit: SUBSCRIBE TO E-​NEWSLETTER Hard round fruit, 1" across, forms in fall, drops in winter. First name* Bark: Mottled, tan bark. Watering: Last Name* In general, 15-20 gallons per week for the first 2 years; 15-20 gallons twice a month for the 3rd year; as needed after 3 years (varies by soil, sun, and wind conditions). Email* Tree Care: Low. Requires occasional pruning; sidewalk cleanup after leaf drop. CAPTCHA Tolerance: Drought; any soil; fog; smog; sun or semi-shade. I'm not a robot reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms Special Considerations: Rootguard necessary. Prefers good drainage. Needs extra water in hot or windy conditions. Highly susceptible to scale, powdery mildew, and anthracnose, although more resistant than other varieties. Subscribe Performs best when planted in warmer areas.

Notable Traits: FOLLOW US! A beautiful, hardy tree well adapted to harsh urban conditions. A member of the sycamore family.

Friends of the Urba… 8.1K likes facebook twitter email sharethis Like 0 pinterest Like Page

Tel: 415-561-6890 | Presidio of San Francisco 1007 General Kennedy Ave Ste 1 San Francisco, CA 94129 COPYRIGHT © 2018 FRIEND OF THE URBAN FOREST PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS & CONDITIONS | SITE MAP WEBSITE BY MIGHTYMINNOW

EXHIBIT 10

From: Roy Leggitt To: Maher Memarzadeh; Francisco Gutierrez Subject: Fwd: Memarzadeh - Platanus pruning plan Date: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:28:10 AM

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Keller, Stephen (DPW)" Subject: RE: Memarzadeh - Platanus pruning plan Date: November 13, 2017 at 9:26:14 AM PST To: Roy Leggitt Cc: "Buck, Chris (DPW)"

Hi Roy,

Chris & I reviewed the pruning plan and BUF cannot agree to it. The main issues are the species & the practicality of enforcing a pruning plan tied to a title.

We do not want platanus planted that close together & the trees will be too close to the bay windows. We do not want to start a precedence of allowing trees to be artificially recued in height. BUF does not have the resources the enforce this type of pruning plan, nor do we want a pruning plan tied to a title.

The only solution to be had outside of BOA appeal would be to come to an agreement about species.

Thanks,

Steve Keller Urban Forestry Inspector ISA Certified Arborist WE 8888UA Bureau of Urban Forestry San Francisco Public Works City and County of San Francisco 1155 Market St 3rd floor San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 554-8240 Desk (415) 554-6700 BUF Mainline sfpublicworks.org · twitter.com/sfpublicworks

From: Roy Leggitt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:06 PM To: Keller, Stephen (DPW) Subject: Memarzadeh - Platanus pruning plan

Hi Steve,

Attached is my Platanus Pruning Plan and Pruning Schedule for your review. We hope that this addresses the concerns and issues raised by BUF, and please let me know if there are any additional concerns and I will try to address them.

Regards, Roy

Roy Leggitt Cell 415.606.3610 [email protected]

Tree Management Experts 3109 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, CA 94115 Consulting Arborists, Certified Arborists, Certified Tree Risk Assessors Contractor's License #885953 C61/D49 Tree Service www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com

EXHIBIT 11

EXHIBIT 12

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

ARBORIST MEMORANDUM

Crown Reduction for Trees

Effects on Tree Growth Rates and Tree Health

Each of these crown reduction techniques has an effect on a tree that is comparable to that of a garden bonsai when pruning is done regularly and thoroughly. One common error in maintenance is from simply shearing plants back to a geometric limit without any thinning. The result is a dense exterior shell of foliage that blocks light to the interior, causing all interior foliage and shoots to die. The fine branches at the exterior that survive will branch out after shearing, increasing the density of the exterior shell of foliage even further. These type of sheared trees or shrubs are not pruned for crown reduction.

Crown reduction pruning reduces the size of the tree and also cuts to a point where the geometry is corrected. This pruning will place each cut at the interior of the geometric limit (shape desired) to thin out the exterior foliage mass, and will allow sufficient light to keep interior foliage alive. When some form of crown reduction pruning is the intended maintenance technique it must be started immediately when the plants are installed and must be consistently done according to a schedule determined by the design objective.

Regular maintenance using crown reduction keeps the foliage and root system in balance. Just as with root cutting causing limbs to die, limb cutting causes roots to die. Roots dying is not a problem provided that they are current year and small in size, just like with removal of annual shoots is not a problem. If there is no lapse in pruning maintenance, root growth will remain much more limited and confined with far fewer invasive or large diameter roots. As foliage is removed, so are carbohydrates, thereby reducing the need for storage of starches in big woody roots. Similarly, a smaller crown size minimizes the mechanical need and growth response for development of larger woody roots.

Pruning Techniques or Styles

The foliage crown or limb structure of a tree is the only source of carbohydrate energy available to trees. The quantity of leaves present has a direct effect on growth rates for all parts of the tree. Crown reduction pruning techniques remove some or all of the foliage (or bud initials for deciduous trees) to manage the overall size of the tree, to modify the form of the tree to function as a screening plant, and/or to reduce the extent or size of the root system.

My use of “tree” refers to upright growing woody plants of all types. This includes both trees and shrubs, both of which respond the same to crown reduction.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 1 of 6

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Bonsai

Perhaps the oldest and one of the most extreme forms of crown reduction pruning is bonsai where a tree may be on similar scale to a very young seedling even after tens or even hundreds of years. For crown reduction pruning to work at this extreme, bonsai must include annual reduction of the limbs and the roots by removing the tree entirely from its pot, then re-planting. This technique is both removing foliage (carbohydrates) as well as stored carbohydrates (starches) that reside in the root system.

Traditional Japanese gardens also incorporate bonsai, but these trees are rarely if ever excavated or transplanted, so the roots continue to increase in size and store starches. Garden bonsai continue to increase in size, and are much larger than potted bonsai.

Bonsai pruning techniques remove nearly all of the current season foliage growth each year.

Pollarding

The American version of pollarding is typically reserved for London plane (sycamore) trees. This technique cuts back the scaffold limbs and then removes all re-growth each winter. The resultant form leaves large knobs on a “hat rack” type structure.

The original French version (the original) of pollarding was likely similar to what is done in America today. The historic objective was to generate long, straight stems that could be harvested for basket making. More recent French version pollarding over the last 100 years has shifted away from the original style, and now focuses on containment pruning (see below), but with specific geometric objectives.

Pollarding is best carried out with a few short limb stubs remaining from the prior year’s growth, rather than removing everything back flush to the “knob”. This will result in more moderated re-growth and a healthier tree, and also results in the framework of the tree expanding very slightly every year. The knobs will be more elongated and less prominent.

Hedging and Topiary

Hedges and topiary are sheared at least once per year, and possibly much more frequently. These trees or shrubs should be thinned slightly once per year to remove dense clusters of re-growth and to maintain light to the interior. Sheared woody plants loose interior foliage and branches if no thinning is done, and may not regenerate interior growth in the future.

If maintenance is not carried out each year and/or thinning does not take place, the sheared plants will become larger, irregular in density, and are more likely to have dead branches or dead areas showing. Cutting back to a smaller size after a lapse in maintenance will almost always result in dead and/or open areas.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 2 of 6

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Pleaching

Pleaching is the use of dense evergreen tree species that are allowed to grow together as with a hedge, but at an elevated height. Pleaching directs growth to side limbs along a common axis, and removes or reduces side limbs to the sides of the axis and at the top and bottom of the row of trees. Although there is no standard for how large or small a pleached row of trees might be, the process of limiting growth in four of the six directions through reduction pruning and limiting growth along the two remaining directions through shading from adjacent trees, is an effective crown reduction technique.

Containment Pruning

Containment pruning considers the natural or normal growth pattern for a given tree species, then removes some of the current year’s growth each year. The cuts will be small and numerous, and may be cut further back in one region of the tree than in another. Where multiple shoots developed during the prior season, thinning may be required to avoid crowding with low light conditions and dead limb development.

Tree species cultivated in San Francisco that are often pruned in this style include London Plane (Platanus X hispanica) and Indian laurel fig (Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’). Any tree with a spreading limb structure (decurrent) can be pruned in this style.

Intermittent or Discontinued Crown Reduction

In the event that a crown reduction pruning strategy is not regular or continuous, growth will build up and increase the overall volume of the canopy with a geometric increase (leaf area cubed) photosynthetic area. This growth will cause excess carbohydrates that cause a thickening of stems and roots. Since woody plants left to grow naturally will expand each year, the size of the tree will increase as well.

Most broad leaf evergreen plants that are healthy will retain 3 years of foliage, but no more. This is likely due to resources becoming too thin to sustain more foliage, and often may coincidentally be due to shading. Given that foliage is lost after 3 years, crown reduction cannot reduce a tree back beyond 2 years without stripping off all foliage and causing stresses that will bring about rapid and irregular re-growth, or will cause harm and decline.

In the event that a tree is neglected for a period of 2 or more years, there will be the need for re-structuring to allow for a return to regular maintenance patterns. Re-structuring may require more than one pruning event to re-design and re-envision the limb structure and restore the pruning pattern. In cases exceeding 2 years of neglect, the overall size of the tree or trees may need to remain larger.

Where crown reduction pruning is simply discontinued, the trees will grow to their genetic potential, but less so if in diminished health. For an evenly pruned tree where containment pruning has been somewhat modest, limb structure should be relatively good with re-growth.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 3 of 6

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

For other pruning styles such as bonsai, pollarding, hedging, topiary and pleaching, structurally unsound trees may develop that may not be salvageable.

Summary

Any type of crown reduction that reduces photosynthetic area will also diminish root growth. Tree health is maintained through small pruning cuts and small root dieback on an annual or more frequent basis, as opposed to less frequent pruning that results in larger cuts and larger root dieback with greater stress and diminished health. With annual or more frequent maintenance, less energy is invested by the plant and fewer resources are taken away or lost, and therefore tree health is better sustained.

For crown reduction pruning strategies to work, regular maintenance is necessary. Only with regular maintenance according to the design intent is long-term health and site suitability possible.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 4 of 6

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible. The consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 2. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 3. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. 4. This report is to be distributed to the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The contents of this report may be conveyed to others for informational purposes by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Such limitations apply to the original report, a copy, facsimile, scanned image or digital version thereof. 5. This report represents the opinion of the consultant. 6. Information contained in this report reflects opinions only to those items described in the report.

Disclosure Statement

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. An arborist cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees.

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 5 of 6

Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists

3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115

Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email [email protected]

Certification of Performance

I, Roy C. Leggitt, III, Certify:

I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and a member and Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have attained professional training in all areas of knowledge asserted through this report by completion of a Bachelor of Science degree in Plant Science, by routinely attending pertinent professional conferences and by reading current research from professional journals, books and other media. I have rendered professional services in a full time capacity in the field of horticulture and arboriculture for more than 25 years.

Signed:

Date: 10/19/17

Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 6 of 6

EXHIBIT 13

2/2/2018 ARTICLE 16: URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE xx Print

San Francisco Public Works Code

SEC. 805. RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF STREET TREES; LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN STREET TREES.

(a) Maintenance. Except as specified in subsection (a)(1), the City shall as of July 1, 2017, have the duty to Maintain Street Trees, including Street Trees planted before July 1, 2017. Property owners shall be responsible for the care and Maintenance of the Sidewalk and Sidewalk areas adjacent to any Street Tree, other than the responsibility for Sidewalk repairs related to the Tree’s growth or root system, which shall be the responsibility of the City. The Department shall develop and make available to interested persons, upon request or through its website, public pruning standards to ensure that Street Trees receive proper care. (1) Exceptions. (A) If a private property owner plants a Street Tree, the City shall not be responsible for the Street Tree’s Maintenance until the Street Tree’s establishment. The establishment period for newly planted Street Trees shall be three years from the date of Planting. If the Street Tree is not established three years from the date of Planting, the Director may treat this as an Injury to the Tree, as defined in Section 802, and may seek penalties for violation, as set forth in Section 811. (B) The City may enter into voluntary agreements with third parties for them to assume responsibility for Street Tree Maintenance and may continue to abide by any such agreements in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance in Board File No. 170985 amending this Section 805. The requirements for such voluntary agreements are set forth in subsection (c) below. (b) Liability. The respective liability of property owners and the City due to injuries or property damage caused by the failure to Maintain Street Trees is as follows: (1) Injuries or Property Damage that Occurred before July 1, 2017. Any person who suffers injury or property damage before July 1, 2017, as a legal result of the failure of a property owner to Maintain a Street Tree shall have a cause of action for such injury or property damage against such property owner. For such injuries and property damage occurring before July 1, 2017, the City shall have a cause of action for indemnity against such property owner for any damages the City may be required to pay as satisfaction of any judgment or settlement of any claim that results from injury to persons or property as a legal result of the failure of the property owner to Maintain a Street Tree. (2) Injuries or Property Damage that Occurred after July 1, 2017. Any person who suffers injury or property damage as the result of the failure to Maintain a Street Tree after July 1, 2017 may have a cause of action for such injury or property damage against the City. (3) Exceptions. The City shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the failure to Maintain a Street Tree after July 1, 2017, in the following circumstances: (A) If a private property owner plants a Street Tree, the City shall not be liable for such injuries and property damage until the Street Tree’s establishment. The establishment period for newly planted Street Trees shall be three years from the date of Planting. Until the establishment of a Street Tree, the adjacent property owner shall be liable. (B) The City shall not be liable for such injuries and property damage if the City has entered into voluntary agreements with third parties for them to assume responsibility for Street Tree Maintenance. Third parties who have assumed responsibility for Street Tree Maintenance shall be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from their failure to Maintain Street Trees.

http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 1/3 2/2/2018 ARTICLE 16: URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE xx (C) The City shall not be liable for such injuries and property damage, if the injuries or property were proximately caused by the adjacent property owner’s failure to Maintain Street Trees prior to July 1, 2017, before the City assumed its responsibility to Maintain. (D) The City shall not be liable for such injuries and property damage if the adjacent property owner fails to provide the City with adequate access to the property owner’s lot for the purpose of Maintenance; in such instances, the adjacent property owner may be liable for any injury or property damage resulting from the failure to Maintain a Street Tree. (c) Voluntary Agreements for Street Tree Maintenance. (1) General obligations. If any private party enters into a voluntary agreement with the Department for Street Tree Maintenance, the agreement shall address, at a minimum, the following: 24-hour contact information for the Department and the private party, procedures for enforcing the agreement and/or remedying its breach, and security to reimburse the Department for any enforcement costs it incurs or any maintenance costs it incurs due to the private party’s failure to Maintain Street Trees. (2) Development of Standard Voluntary agreements. (A) Voluntary agreements by individual property owners. If an individual property owner wishes to assume responsibility for Street Tree Maintenance, the property owner must contact the Department and enter into an agreement that the Department develops regarding the property owner’s Maintenance responsibilities for the Street Tree adjacent to the property owner’s lot. The Department shall develop a standard voluntary agreement for individual property owners and make it available on its website. (B) Voluntary agreements by homeowner’s associations, community benefit districts, and other legal entities representing multiple property owners. If a homeowner’s association, community benefit district, or other legal entity representing multiple property owners wishes to assume responsibility for Street Tree Maintenance, the entity must contact the Department and enter into an agreement that the Department develops for such Maintenance. The Department shall develop a standard voluntary agreement for homeowner’s associations, community benefit districts, and other legal entities representing multiple property owners and make it available on its website. (d) Department Inventory. The Department shall use its best efforts to maintain an inventory of the location of all Street Trees that it must Maintain. Such information shall be made available to the public upon request.

(Added by Ord. 165-95, App. 5/19/95; amended by Ord. 84-10, File No. 091453, App. 4/22/2010; Ord. 119-15 , File No. 150221, App. 7/15/2015, Eff. 8/14/2015; Ord. 245-17, File No. 170985, App. 12/22/2017, Eff. 1/21/2018)

SEC. 805.1. MAJOR MAINTENANCE OF STREET TREES ADJACENT TO GENERAL ADVERTISING SIGNS.

(a) If a property owner has entered into a voluntary agreement with the Department to assume responsibility for the Maintenance of Street Trees, and a Street Tree subject to that agreement is within 150 feet of any portion of a general advertising sign (as defined in Planning Code Section 602.7), the Department shall require a permit for the property owner to perform Major Maintenance on such Street Tree. (b) Any permit for Major Maintenance of Street Trees specified in subsection (a) shall include a condition that the Maintenance work be conducted under the direct supervision of a certified arborist in accordance with this Article 16 and other standards that the Department adopts. (c) The fee for a permit for Major Maintenance of a Street Tree(s) specified in subsection (a) shall be $300. This fee is subject to the fee adjustment provisions of Section 2.1.2 and additional fee provisions of Section 2.1.3. http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 2/3 2/2/2018 ARTICLE 16: URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE xx (Added by Ord. 245-17, File No. 170985, App. 12/22/2017, Eff. 1/21/2018)

http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 3/3