Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds department decision on Cortland trees, denies appeal to plant two Columbia plane trees
Summary
The Board denied an appeal seeking to replace two removed trees with two Columbia/London plane trees at 408 Cortland Avenue, upholding the Bureau of Urban Forestry's permit that approved removal with a single replacement; BUF cited species maturity, spacing and streetlight conflicts as reasons to limit plantings.
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Appeals on July 25 denied an appeal by the permit holder at 408 Cortland Avenue seeking to replace two removed privately maintained street trees with two Columbia (London plane) trees, effectively upholding the Department of Public Works/Bureau of Urban Forestry’s earlier action to approve removal with a single replacement.
Appellant counsel and supporting arborists presented a growth‑rate study arguing that the Columbia variety should be treated as medium stature rather than large and that two specimens could be accommodated with careful planting and maintenance. An independent arborist and neighborhood tree‑committee members supported the proposal and noted the owner’s willingness to record maintenance responsibilities on title.
Chris Buck of the Bureau of Urban Forestry told the Board the department classifies the Columbia/London plane as a large‑stature tree at maturity and that planting two such trees 14 feet on center in a narrow sidewalk bay would conflict with streetlight spacing and city spacing guidelines. Buck said the bureau could consider medium alternatives or other species but remained unsupportive of two Columbia trees in that location. He also confirmed that street trees are now maintained by Public Works but that property owners may, by agreement, assume maintenance responsibilities recorded against title under San Francisco Public Works Code §805.
After extended questioning about spacing, maintenance agreements and the possibility of deed‑recorded maintenance obligations, Vice President Swig moved to deny the appeal and uphold the department action. The roll call, as read in the record, included both aye and no votes; the Chair declared the department action upheld and the order will be issued per the permit.
