Platanus X Acerifolia Street Trees at His Property
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.