Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry Cortland 4008 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing on Cortland street‑tree removal; Urban Forestry request upheld
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from an appellant seeking review of a public‑works order to remove two privately maintained street trees at 4008 Cortland Avenue, concluding the new arborist study did not meet the high bar for rehearing.
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry Cortland 4008 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Appeals on Sept. 12 denied a rehearing request from Maher Memazadeh challenging the Bureau of Urban Forestry’s July decision to approve removal of two privately maintained street trees at 4008 Cortland Avenue and to replace them with a single 24‑inch box tree.
Appellant counsel Francisco Gutierrez said an arborist study of the Columbia (Platanus) variety — prepared after the original February hearing — shows the species’ growth characteristics and argued the board should reconsider. Urban Forester Chris Buck and Bureau of Urban Forestry staff told the board the Columbia is widely considered a large‑stature tree in San Francisco, that the site’s narrow sidewalk and streetlight clearance (21 feet) constrain replacement choices, and that the department had reviewed the report prior to issuing its director’s order.
Board action: Commissioners debated whether the growth‑rate study constituted new evidence sufficient to meet the high rehearing standard. Commissioner Honda moved to deny the rehearing on the ground there was no manifest injustice or new evidence that would change the prior result; the motion passed unanimously (recorded as 4–0). The denial allows the parties to proceed with plant selection and location in consultation with Public Works, consistent with the director’s order.
Details: The original application for removal dates to September 2015, and the prior board decision was decided 3–2 on July 25; the board noted that with a current vacancy three votes are sufficient to overrule a departmental action but found rehearing was not justified.
