Urban Forestry CouncilLandmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria forevaluating potential landmark trees in San Francisco. When evaluating or considering potential landmark trees,please consider the context of the tree within its site location. For example, a tree on PUC land may not have thesame community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explainor support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.

Evaluator’s name: Megan Sutherland

Date of evaluation: 07/01/20 12

Scientific name: Magnolia x soulaniana ‘Alba’

Common name: Alba Saucer Magnolia

Street address: 439 Brussels St

Cross streets: Bacon St

Rarity Yes Partially No

Rarity: Rare Uncommon __Comrnon OtherUnusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.Comment:

Physical Attributes Yes Partially No

Size: Large __Medium SmallNotable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.

Comment: The tree was approximately 25’ tall. CalPoly lists the average height for this species at 25’.

Age: Yes _NoSignificantly advanced age for the species.Comment: According to the applicant, the tree was purchased more than 30 years ago, however, this

species has an average longevity between 50-150 years.

Distinguished form: Yes XNoTree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.Describe: This tree has been well cared for, however, I have a couple concerns. The canopy has been

Thinned in order to enable light to penetrate to the garden floor. While this may add to the garden’s

Page 1

Urban Forestry Council

Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

overall appeal, I think it takes away from this individual tree. Additionally, the branching structure

near the base of the tree has many laterals connecting to the trunk in close proximity to one another.

This is not a very structurally sound branching arrangement.

Tree condition: s_Good Poor HazardConsider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazardDescribe: The tree is in good health and does not pose a hazard. It is evident that the tree is being

maintained by a professional.

Historical Yes Partially No

Historical Association: Yes X None apparentRelated to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.Describe nature of appreciation:

Profiled in a publication or other media: Yes __UnknownTree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.Describe coverage: The applicant sited coverage of this tree on the Facebook page and website for the

Portola Garden Tour. I was unable to locate any reference to this specific tree on the Facebook page

or the website (though a picture of the garden fountain was featured).

Environmental Yes X Partially No

Prominent landscape feature: YesA striking and outstanding natural feature.Describe, attach photo if possible: The garden in the backyard is incredibly dense and beautiful.

However, the very density of the garden reduces the prominence of the tree.

Low tree density: XLow Moderate HighTree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.Describe:

Interdependent group of trees: YesThis tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact onadjacent trees.Describe:

Page 2

Urban Forestry Council 3Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way: Yes __NoHigh visibility and/or accessibility from public property.

Describe: The tree is located in the backyard.

High traffic area: Yes __NoTree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has apotential traffic calming effect.Describe: The tree is located in the backyard.

Important wildlife habitat: XYes NoSpecies has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, ornesting to specific known wildlife individuals. The applicant indicates that many birds frequent the

tree for food and shelter. Magnolias are known to be a food source for small birds and mammals.

Erosion control: Yes XNoTree prevents soil erosion.Describe:

Wind or sound barrier: _XYes NoTree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.Describe: The tree is located at a property very near highway 101 and San Bruno Ave. The tree acts as

a sound barrier. However, due to the wispy nature of the branches, it is unlikely to provide a

substantial wind break.

Cultural Yes X Partially No

Neighborhood appreciation: X Yes None apparentMultiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent orrelated to tree, etc. Attach documentation:Describe: A letter was received from the Portola Garden Tour Organizer (Ruth Wallace) in support of

landmark status. The letter from Supervisor Cohen speaks to the beauty of the garden and the

premises, but does not specifically mention the tree in question or landmark status.

Page 3

Urban Forestry Council 4Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Cultural appreciation: _Yes None apparentParticular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.Describe nature of appreciation: The applicant states that the garden and landscaping are an homage to

the family’s and neighborhood’s Italian immigrants of the early 1900’s.

Planting contributes to neighborhood character: __Yes NoTree contributes significantly to, or represents, neighborhood aesthetic.Describe contribution: The Portola is historically known as the Garden District. This tree is part of a

magnificent garden that is featured on the Portola Garden Tour.

Profiled in a publication or other media: Yes __UnknownTree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.Describe coverage: The applicant sited coverage of this tree on the Facebook page and website for the

Portola Garden Tour. I was unable to locate any reference to this specific tree on the Facebook page

or the website (though a picture of the garden fountain was featured).

Prominent landscape feature: YesA striking and outstanding natural feature.Describe, attach photo if possible: The garden in the backyard is incredibly dense and beautiful.

However, the very density of the garden reduces the prominence of the tree.

Additional comments

I think this is a beautiful tree in a breathtaking garden. However, the bar for landmark status is

necessarily high. I have a few concerns related to this tree: canopy thinning, branching pattern near

the base, and a lack of public visibility (with the exception of the Portola Garden Tour). I think the

tree thinning (performed to increase the amount of light reaching the garden floor) sacrificed some of

the beauty of the tree for the beauty of the garden. I like the tree and think that it is a well-cared for

example of the species in a gorgeous garden, but I don’t think it stands out by itself as worthy of

landmark status.

Page 4

Urban Forestry CouncilLandmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria forevaluating potential landmark trees in San Francisco. When evaluating or considering potential landmark trees,please consider the context of the tree within its site location. For example, a tree on PUC land may not have thesame community importance that a street or park tree would. Use coniment sections, as appropriate, to explainor support evaluation, Attach sheets if more space is needed.

Evaluator’s name: C ti t > V—Date of evaluation: r & V’J.. 15 2 1 2_Scientific name: VtO vv A j

Common name: cc

Street address: 4 ‘Vt g vu 5 ç ( c-/ tc FCross streets:

Rarity Yes /artial1y No

Rarity: Rare “Jncommon Common OtherUnusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.Comment: i). c

ii- [! rv 5Vt’-) I tt 1 (izt.cA- hG o-1itUsLV Ovt r’i . F

Physical Attributes Yes Partially No

Size: Large XMedium SmallNotable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco,

Comment: Lic c( ui

‘A ok- Uvv-.-- cv okt’t( kJ i —jv cp€c

Age: Yes $‘NoSignificantly advanced age for the species.Comment: •h-JD

Distinguished form: Yes Vio

Tree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.Describe: ‘‘,i La-- .4 rr4r. 3nc Li vt4i,c cLc (tt4ev’

w ii t /i

‘ -J -fv-’. y L-” L t1i 1JL Y1A ‘4’ }(I13

Page 1

Urban Forestry Council 2

Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

/• __:::_..Tree condition: Good Poor HazardConsider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazardDeschbe:v d

.f_ ---it . j j’t- +-tu,i voy jj

\tL— 14 F laov -bL,& ()VL. L1L Lt+- (L4’

Lcct *[2 DL* L D*V + tQ cv4

Historical — Yes — Partially VNo

Historical Association: Yes None apparentRelated to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.Describe nature of appreciation:

Profiled in a publication or other media: Yes UnknownTree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.Describe coverage: 4•• t(.t ‘iLC LtVCi S

c L -i-\ tS i

‘

Environmental — Yes Partially

Prominent landscape feature: YesA striking arid outstanding natural feature.Describe, attach photo if possible: T t S ‘. tv 1Lwfr_- . .i.,

&t-i1 6L.±Jr 3k. 1’s L4wiJTY tYi(VLi1 vZr

U

Low tree density: V’ow Moderate HighTree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.Describe: h e_ .jit 1• ‘v ( 1io-i 4v

(Vttv &L1)L4 L,jfr y yi.j

S -tr_ c-€S -LjvtrLi. 1—(Qt&iç\ \t( hk.s c’1 4j5

interdependent group of trees: Yes tZNoThis tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact onadjacent trees.Describe: ‘t

Visible or Accessible from public right-ofway: YesHigh visibility and/or accessibility from public property.

Describe: YI e(y visibL

o

Page 2

Urban Forestry Council 3Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

high traffic area: Yes _XZ’NoTree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has apotential traffic calming effect.Describe: O 1J €i f ilO f73

I I OVC- v

dimportant wildlife habitat: YesSpecies has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or ii provides food, shelter, ornesting to specific known wildlife individuals.

j-4?Q. -I-\V( c t 4S Lij2Liia:-

Erosion control: Yes VNoTree prevents soil erosion.Describe:

.

c.avcQ AJ I>S- cA 1-4i€.

Wind or sound barrier: Yes 1/’No

Tree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.Describe: .we w’ th

j- 44R( t

u tura Yes Partially No

Neighborhood appreciation: V’S’es None apparentMultiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent orrelated to tree, etc. Attach documentation: ..

Describe: i ftV1 L

Cultural appreciation: Yes None apparent .—ScParticular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.Describe nture of appreciation: c —

lo.

Planting contributes to neighborhood character: “Yes NoTree contributes significantly to or represents neighborhood aesthetc.Describe contribution: c cz,. e .

toQ F EIVt3

t%( cç4c \-j cv\L(

Page 3

Urban Forestry Council 4Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Profiled in a publication or other media: Yes “UnknownTree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.Describe coverage: t

Prominent landscape feature: ‘Yes NoA striking and outstanding natural feature.Describe, attach photo if possible: L 4-L -f(i’.i 6C( t e c’ci 4- I S —

y. -

tt —

Additional comments

c.i’— -1-c

soi. -c t toect4e

M\ tVL(± fLi i)cv— pviX 2C(fr_ lv /it.

vt 2-t\ tV\’VCh2v\’)

usf I v ±ici IS

(j tL u1Ot ._.

•cL)S 1’v—- dtf1( L)

5V ofHus 5rtv e-j- si 5

CxC_ (

ects °‘- o._l&t,_c_ (A ttrf-y) vd tt

‘1

A

I

Page 4

‘1

1

k

FA

——

C

Urban Forestry CouncilLandmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria forevaluating potential landmark trees in San Francisco. When evaluating or considering potential landmark trees,please consider the context of the tree within its site location. For example, a tree on PUC land may not have thesame community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explainor support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.

Evaluator’s name: Larry Costello_____________________________________________

Date of evaluation: 6/25/12

Scientific name: Magnolia campbellii

Common name: Chinese Magnolia

Street address: 439 Brussels

Cross streets:

Rarity Yes _x_ Partially No

Rarity: Rare _x_Uncomrnon Common OtherUnusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.Comment: Not rare for the species__________________________________________________________

Physical Attributes Yes Partially x_ No

Size: Large SmallNotable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.

Comment: Not a notable size for the species____________________________________________________

Age: YesSignificantly advanced age for the species.Comment:

Distinguished form: Yes x_NoTree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.Describe:

Tree condition: xGood Poor Hazard

Page 1

Urban Forestry Council

Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Consider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazardDescribe: No hazard

Historical Yes Partially No

Historical Association: Yes None apparentRelated to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.Describe nature of appreciation:

Profiled in a publication or other media: Yes _x_UnknownTree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.Describe coverage:

Environmental Yes Partially No

Prominent landscape feature: Yes NoA striking and outstanding natural feature.Describe, attach photo if possible: In a backyard, so not a prominent feature in the landscape

Low tree density: x_Low Moderate HighTree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.Describe:

Interdependent group of trees: Yes _xNoThis tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact onadjacent trees.Describe:

Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way: Yes x_NoHigh visibility and/or accessibility from public property.

Describe:

High traffic area: Yes _x_No

Page 2

Urban Forestry Council 3Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Tree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has apotential traffic calming effect.Describe:

Important wildlife habitat: Yes xNoSpecies has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, ornesting to specific known wildlife individuals.

Erosion control: YesTree prevents soil erosion.Describe:

Wind or sound barrier: Yes xNoTree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.Describe:

Cultural Yes Partially _x No

Neighborhood appreciation: Yes x_None apparentMultiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent orrelated to tree, etc. Attach documentation:Describe:

Cultural appreciation: Yes xNone apparentParticular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.Describe nature of appreciation:

______________________________________________

Planting contributes to neighborhood character: Yes x_NoTree contributes significantly to, or represents, neighborhood aesthetic.Describe contribution:

Profiled in a publication or other media: Yes xUnknown

Page 3

Urban Forestry Council 4Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria

Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.Describe coverage:

Prominent landscape feature: Yes xNoA striking and outstanding natural feature.Describe, attach photo if possible:

__________________________________

Additional comments

Nice tree, but not unique or exceptional. Not worthy of landmark status.

Page 4